|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
SBL Annual Meeting Papers November 2005 WORKING DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author Suppressing Human Anger in Early
Christianity: Adobe Acrobat version I. Introduction Ancient Jewish and early Christian commands concerning human emotions-for example, covetousness, anger, jealousy and love-merit study in their ancient contexts, as well as in relation to theoretical approaches to religion and the social sciences. This paper has two main parts: an analysis of anger in the NT letters attributed to Paul and interaction with classic theories of the psychology of anger. An underlying question informing this study is if the suppression of human anger is a necessary component in the theology of Paul or any of the deutero-Pauline authors. Competing theories of the psychology of anger can be brought to bear on the Pauline passages to be examined in this essay. If suppressing anger is indeed concomitant with fidelity to one or more expressions of Pauline Christianity, we can consider the potentially deleterious effects of such suppression on the human psyche. Perhaps Paul or the authors of Colossians, Ephesians, and/or the Pastoral Epistles assume that the repression of anger is necessary for the existence of the Christian community and that only God as 'Father' is allowed to become angry. Or do we find commands against infantile or narcissistic rage? Furthermore, it can be asked whether anger is to be sublimated for the sake of a greater good-for example, human charity, the peace of the congregation, or escaping the wrath of God. This essay will consider which, if any, of these theories of anger corresponds to any of the passages in the New Testament letters attributed to Paul. Prior to examining individual passages on anger in the Pauline letters, a brief word is needed concerning the authorship of the undisputed and disputed Pauline letters. Among the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul, I assume the scholarly consensus that Paul's authorship of seven letters is undisputed and that Paul did not write Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles.2 Although some reputable scholars will argue for the authenticity of Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, or both letters, I do not count myself among them. The author of Ephesians, moreover, reworked numerous materials from Colossians, apparently because s/he regarded Colossians as an authentic Pauline letter. Also in accordance with the established scholarly consensus, this essay assumes for the Pastoral Epistles a single author, who is to be differentiated from the deutero-Pauline authors of Colossians and Ephesians. Accordingly, this study of anger in Pauline letters recognizes four different NT authors: (1) The apostle Paul (2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). This essay will analyze these authors' statements on anger both individually and comparatively. A second prolegomenon concerns the extent to which these four Pauline authors expect human anger to be suppressed. The important recent monograph by classicist William V. Harris calls to our attention that the Pauline passages to be examined in this paper were hardly unique in Greco-Roman antiquity. Harris proposes four levels of such restraint: (1) reining in angry actions and speech, Harris argues that "statements in favour of (2), (3) and (4) took some time to appear in classical antiquity" and that level four became "a standard aim of Stoic and Stoicizing philosophers under the Roman Empire" and not earlier.4 This study will utilize Harris's apt distinctions between "reigning in" and "eliminating" and between "actions and speech" and "feelings" and consider to which, if any,5 of these four levels each Pauline statement most closely corresponds. Building on Harris's work, the paper will argue that whereas Paul's undisputed letters and the epistle of James correspond to level one, the deutero-Pauline authors of Colossians and Ephesians implore the attainment of at least level two.6 This development within the Pauline tradition correlates Harris's finding of calls for greater and more complete suppression of anger, beginning in the Roman period. II. Pronouncements concerning Anger in the Pauline Letters (1) The Apostle Paul on Human Anger in 2 Corinthians and Galatians Second Corinthians is probably the earliest7 of Paul's undisputed letters that mentions human anger: "For I fear that when I come, I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish; I fear that there may perhaps be quarreling, jealousy, anger (θυμοί), selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder" (2 Cor 12:20). The term that Paul uses (θυμός) can, depending on its context, connote "intense expression of the inner self, freq[uently] expressed as strong desire, passion, passionate longing" or, much more frequently in early Christian literature, "a state of intense displeasure, anger, wrath, rage, indignation."8 Occurring in the plural in both 2 Cor 12:20 and Gal 5:20, θυμοί designates "outbursts of anger." 9 In the larger context of 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul must address other Christian leaders' attacks on his authority as an apostle.10 Needless to say, the hypothetical lack of angry outbursts, among other things, in Corinth would not resolve this situation. Thus, what Paul offers in 2 Cor 12:20 is a brief aside, recalling his earlier attempts to admonish this congregation.11 He chides his readers that since they too have issues they should be appropriately humble when weighing questions about Paul's apostolic authority. As mentioned above, Paul uses the same term (θυμός) in Gal 5:20. It again occurs in a list of vices, identified in 5:19a as "the works of the flesh."12 In these two letters Paul refers to θυμός, among other vices, in notably different contexts. Unlike in 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul does not in Galatians 5 need to defend his authority. Instead, he writes in opposition to the notion that the Pauline gospel leads to antinomian, or lawless, behavior: "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. … [16] Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:13-16). Different from 2 Corinthians, then, Paul does not accuse the Galatians of angry outbursts. Rather, if they do occur he does not want such conduct to be blamed on his theology or ministry. Of all the NT writings that might approximate Paul's references to human anger, an unlikely candidate is the epistle of James.13 Yet, despite the differences between these authors, a similar formulation occurs in the epistle of James, who expects his audience to be "slow to anger" (or: wrath; Gk.: οργή) but not wholly devoid of anger/wrath: "You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; [20] for your anger14 does not produce God's righteousness." From the two particular contexts concerning "outbursts of anger" in Paul's letters (2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20), we can extrapolate that for Paul-and, by extension, the author of James-a single occurrence would be both a regrettable and yet not a wholly unexpected aspect of human existence and interactions. In 2 Corinthians 12 the plural θυμοί designates a pattern of behavior that, Paul fears, should have been addressed long ago and now needs attention all the more as they weigh questions about Paul's legitimacy as an apostle. In Galatians 5, Paul rejects θυμοί as inconsistent with the Pauline gospel of freedom and life through the Spirit. These calls for restraint in 2 Cor 12:20, Gal 5:20 and Jas 1:19-20 correspond to William Harris's first level entailing "reining in angry actions and speech."15 Unlike the more stringent calls for suppression in Colossians and Ephesians, neither Paul nor the author of James approaches Harris's second, third or fourth levels. (2) Colossians: Prohibition of Human Anger and Fear of God's Wrath With the deutero-Pauline author of Colossians, we find the same term for "anger" (θυμός) used in 2 Cor 12:20 and Gal 5:20, yet in the singular: "But now you must get rid of all such things-wrath, anger16 (απόθεσθε . . . τα πάντα οργήν, θυμόν), malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth" (Col 3:8). As compared with Paul's formulations in 2 Corinthians and Galatians, Colossians offers a higher expectation that the Christian not express anger, and perhaps not even to experience it. For one thing, θυμός occurs first in a list of vices illustrating "all the things" (τα πάντα) of which believers must rid themselves (αποτίθημι). This is important to the author of Colossians because "the wrath of God is coming" (έρχεται η οργή του θεου 3:6) to judge acts such as "fornication, impurity [and] passion (πάθος)" (Col 3:5). Applying a comparative approach, we may note that the warning in Col 3:5-8 to believers contrasts with references to God's wrath in Paul's undisputed letters. In Gal 5:21b,17 Paul follows a list of vices (5:19-21a, discussed above) with the warning of not inheriting God's kingdom. Yet Paul does not, as the author of Colossians does, connect God's anger with the need to suppress human anger. Likewise, in Romans Paul warns that "the wrath of God (οργή θεου) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth."18 That is to say, in Paul's eschatology the wrath of God will come against unbelievers, not the faithful. This is because those who have been "justified by his [Christ's] blood will be saved through him from the wrath of God" (Rom 5:9). The author of Colossians is to be credited with synthesizing these two components of the apostle's theology-God's anger and believers' need to get rid of anger-in a novel way. The effect in Col 3:5-8 is that the faithful have assurance of being protected from God's wrath, provided that they demonstrate their new way of life by refraining from the vices, including anger and wrath, listed in Col 3:8. Moreover, for the first time the Pauline tradition, as mediated through Colossians, mandates that only God has the right to express anger. Humans escape God's anger, in part by suppressing their own. As compared with Paul's calls for reigning in anger (2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20), the heightened expectation in Colossians certainly meets William Harris's second level of "eliminating angry actions and speech" and may perhaps include reigning in or eliminating angry feelings (respectively, level three or level four).19 (3) Ephesians: Redefining Human Anger in Light of Colossians The author of Ephesians picks up on several points in Col 3:5-8 and develops them in new ways. Among other things, the command of Col 3:8 to get rid of anger and wrath occurs in Ephesians with significant modifications:
Despite numerous similarities in vocabulary in Col 3:8 and Eph 4:22-32 (αποτίθημι, πας, θυμός, οργήν), two differences in the presentations of human anger in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 4 merit particular attention. First, the expectation in Eph 4:31 for removing "all anger and wrath"-is more rigorous than Col 3:8. This is evidenced by the different uses of the adjective πας ("all") in the two passages. Col 3:8 follows a substantival use of this adjective (τα πάντα, "all things") with five examples of what to get rid of-wrath, anger, malice, slander, and abusive language. In Eph 4:31, the same adjective ("all") now functions attributively, modifying πικρία και θυμός και οργή .... Thus, according to Eph 4:31 one must put off "all bitterness, anger and wrath," among other undesirable traits. In addition to meeting Harris's second level of "eliminating angry actions and speech," Eph 4:31 likely satisfies Harris's fourth level of "eliminating angry feelings." Unfortunately, Harris's very brief treatment of the NT letters attributed to Paul does not differentiate between Paul's authentic and disputed letters. Had Harris made such a distinction, he may have agreed with the present study that the heightened expectations in Colossians and Ephesians correlate with the emergence of calls for greater and more complete suppression of expressing-and even feeling-anger, beginning in the Roman period.21 A second modification of Colossians 3 in Ephesians 4 concerns the lack of any mention of God's wrath. In this author's theology, our time as "children of wrath" lies in the past.22 Within this understanding of salvation, putting off one's former way of life and "the old person"23 has likewise already been accomplished. Those whom God has saved (cf. Eph 2:8-9) should now "put away all bitterness and wrath and anger" because they do not wish to grieve (μη λυπειτε) "the Holy Spirit of God" (Eph 4:30-31). Different from Colossians, the believer does not fear God's anger but instead wishes not to "grieve"24 the Holy Spirit. In addition to not grieving God's Spirit (4:31), another rationale for putting off all anger and wrath stems from concern for the good of the community as a whole: "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). In contrast to Col 3:5, there is again no mention of fear of God's judgment in Ephesians 4. Together, then, Eph 4:31 and 4:32 call for sublimation: Instead of being angry, one can experience the sublime through the more noble actions of kindness, tenderheartedness and forgiveness. Extending this exhortation to kindness within the community, the author later denies fathers the right to anger their own children: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger (μη παροργίζετε), but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."25 Twice then the author of Ephesians emphasizes the greater good of the community-whether the family (Eph 6:4) or the household of faith 4:32-as reasons for suppressing human anger. The disconnecting of two concepts novelly combined in Col 3:5-8-fearing God's wrath and suppressing anger-is striking in Eph 4:22-32. Such a distinction corresponds26 to the separateness of these two ideas in Paul's undisputed letters.27 Eph 4:26a offers an additional correspondence to Paul's undisputed letters on human anger. The formulation οργίζεσθε28 και μη αμαρτάνετε assumes, as Paul did,29 that human beings, even those who in Christ have put off "the old person" (Eph 4:22; cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), sometimes experience anger. Accordingly, Eph 4:26a corresponds to Harris's first level of "reining in angry actions and speech." Anger is not tantamount to sin, but one must refrain from sinning when angered. This expectation stands in counterpoint to Eph 4:31 (discussed above). It does not make sense to insist upon refraining from sin when one becomes angry (4:26a) and, in addition, to demand the eradication of all anger and wrath (4:31). On the whole, Eph 4:22-32 reveals one deutero-Pauline author correcting another, favoring instead of Col 3:8 both even higher expectations for restraining anger (Eph 4:31) and formulations corresponding to aspects of Paul's theology (Eph 4:26; no mention of God's anger). Within Ephesians 4, the apparent contradiction between 4:26a and 4:31 raises the question whether this author has an overall coherent theology of anger.30 One thing this paper reveals is that human anger was a living concept that attracted theological reflection and improvisation from Paul and, especially, the deutero-Pauline authors of Colossians and Ephesians. This conclusion challenges the position of Harris, who characterizes the early Christians as offering "an ambivalent message" on anger.31 At least for Colossians and Ephesians, the formulations may not be systematically presented or wholly consistent, but their authors are hardly 'ambivalent' on the subject. The same can be said for yet another deutero-Pauline author in 1 Timothy. (4) First Timothy: Suppressing Anger for the Unity of the Church The author of 1 Timothy (deutero-Pauline, but different from the authors of Colossians and Ephesians) instructs "that in every place the men should pray (προσεύχεσθαι τους άνδρας), lifting up holy hands without anger32 or argument (χωρις οργης και διαλογίσμους)" (1 Tim 2:8). Elsewhere this author reflects concern about a church divided over heretical teachings (1 Tim 4:1-6; 6:21-22; 2 Tim 2:16-18; 3:8-9). In 1 Timothy the gathering of men to pray together (1 Tim 2:8) represents the opposite of dissention characterized by anger, argument and a plurality of viewpoints. This author's rationale is thus similar to one given in Eph 4:31-32: The faithful are to suppress their anger for the good of the community as a whole, whether defined as mutual acceptance and forgiveness (Eph 4:32; cf. 6:4) or a unified and prayerful stance against 'heresy' (1 Tim 2:8). Since these two deutero-Pauline authors assume that suppressing anger is concomitant with fidelity to their versions of Pauline Christianity, we can indeed wonder about the potentially deleterious effects of such suppression on the human psyche in subsequent generations of the faithful. In terms of Harris's levels of restraint, 1 Tim 2:8 calls for reigning in anger when gathering for prayer (level one). It is plausible, if not likely, that the author of 1 Timothy desires the elimination of all angry actions and speech (level two) in this community that must be fully prepared to resist 'heresy.' (5) Excursus: Jesus' Anger in Mark 3:5 and Its Suppression in Matthew and Luke A reference to Jesus' anger in the gospel of Mark omitted by33 both Matthew and Luke merits a brief exploration in light of the questions raised by the aforementioned Pauline passages. Prior to performing a healing, the Markan Jesus "looked around at them34 with anger (μετ' οργης)" and "was grieved at their hardness of heart" (Mark 3:5). In the Lukan parallel, it is the scribes and the Pharisees-not Jesus-who are "filled with fury" (επλησθησαν ανοίας) after Jesus performs the healing (Luke 6:11; cf. 6:7). Matthew likewise deletes the reference to Jesus' οργή in Mark 3:5 and substitutes for it an illustration of helping a sheep out from a pit on the sabbath.35 In effect, Matthew replaces an angry Jesus with a shepherd modeling both common sense and compassion. Perhaps for Matthew, the Jesus who warned "that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment"36 could not conceivably himself have become angry. It may be possible to explain the motivation underlying Matthew's and Luke's different strategies for omitting Mark 3:5 with analogy to the unambiguous commands to suppress human anger in the assorted NT Pauline letters.37 If nothing else, we may observe parallel developments suppressing human anger from the earliest gospel (Mark) and letters (Paul) to later gospels (Matthew and Luke) and two deutero-Pauline authors (Colossians and Ephesians). III. Summary, Theoretical Reflection, and an Epilogue on Paul's Anger in Gal 2:11-14 This paper has demonstrated that human anger attracted both theological reflection and reformulations in a variety of early Christian literature. The paper began with the undisputed letters of the apostle Paul, who names outbursts of anger among the unflattering characteristics of a congregation that ought not criticize his apostolic authority (2 Cor 12:20) and of "the works of the flesh" and antinomianism (Gal 5:19-20; cf. 5:13-16). Paul rejects θυμοί (in the plural) but nowhere demands the eradication of all θυμός (cf. βραδυς εις οργην, Jas 1:19). Nor does Paul mention God's wrath against unbelievers in connection with believers' need to suppress anger (Rom 1:18; cf. Gal 3:21b). Three deutero-Pauline authors urge that anger be suppressed, because "the wrath of God is coming" (Col 3:5-8); because we should not grieve God's spirit but instead be forgiving toward others (Eph 4:22-32); and because a gathering of men praying "without anger or argument" will protect the community from 'heresy' (1 Tim 2:8). Classic psychological theory would recognize different schools of thought reflected by the various Pauline authors. Paul's formulations in 2 Corinthians and Galatians represent commands against infantile or narcissistic rage (cf. Jas 1:19-20; Eph 4:26a). The author of Colossians seems to presuppose that only God as 'Father' is allowed to become angry and that for this reason God's children must suppress anger (Col 3:5-8; cf. Col 3:21||Eph 6:4). Ephesians and, especially, 1 Timothy connote that repression of anger is necessary for the sustenance, if not the very existence, of the Christian community. Unknown in the biblical passages examined in this essay is the Neo-Freudian concept of venting anger or aggression as a healthy form of catharsis.38 Perhaps Sigmund Freud himself would have acknowledged in Ephesians and 1 Timothy exhortations to transcend the ego-libido and embrace the object-libido, that is, to move beyond narcissism out of love for the religious community now held to be indispensable for the ego's happiness and preservation.39 Despite Freud's characterization of "[t]he religions of mankind" as "mass delusions,"40 he may even have admired these authors' exhortations, given his recognition of the inherent tension between human instinct and the demands of membership in civil society: "The essence of it [civilization] lies in the fact that the members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions."41 If the human being is inclined to aggression,42 including narcissistic outbursts of anger, these must be repressed for society or any community to survive.43 Such issues represented more than a hypothetical quandary to Freud. Writing in 1931, Freud had doubts about humankind's ability to thus evolve and in particular about the prospects of restraining aggression in western Europe after the First World War.44 The tentative character of my remarks in the last paragraph is intentional, since the goals of this paper are intentionally focused and therefore limited.45 An additional reason is that Freud never addressed the subject of anger systematically.46 Of course, Freud's quandary was hardly new in the twentieth century. Any Pauline author who characterized members of the community as parts of Christ's "body" (Rom 7:4; 12:4; 1 Cor 12:12-27; Col 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15 Eph 1:22-23; 3:6; 4:12, 16, 25; 5:30) would likewise need to address the responsibilities of the individual to the community as a whole. The suppression of human anger, I would argue, belongs to this larger concern, which I shall attempt to explore briefly in the remainder of this paper. What follows is a few remarks in retrospect on an occasion when Paul himself became angry and its implications for addressing this larger problem of the individual in relation to the community. In Gal 2:11-14, Paul recalls his confrontation with the apostle Peter in Antioch.47 Peter had previously eaten non-kosher food among uncircumcised Gentile Christians but subsequently refrained from doing so when a delegation sent by James the Lord's brother arrived from Jerusalem. Paul perceived Peter's inconsistency as a rejection of Paul's apostolic calling to the gentiles and of the justified status of those gentiles within the church. To be sure, we must be cautious, since Paul does not describe his emotional state at the time.48 Nonetheless, we may presume that Paul had indeed been furious when he confronted Peter. We may thus ask: In opposing Peter "to his face" (Gal 2:11), was Paul inconsistent with his (later) statements in 2 Cor 12:20 and Gal 5:19-20? My answer to this hypothetical question is probably not, since Paul never disavows occasional expressions of anger-especially if coming from an apostle for some greater good such as the future legitimacy of the Pauline mission and the Pauline theology that, Paul hopes, will continue to be formative among Pauline and other early Christian congregations. As Paul defines the rhetorical situation years after the fact in Galatians, the precursors for his expressing anger within the Christian community at Antioch were Peter's and others' "hypocrisy" (Gal 2:13: συνυποκρίνομαι, υπόκρισις) and, as a result, Peter's diminished status as "self-condemned" (καταγινώσκω, Gal 2:12). For Paul, these beliefs preceded, and therefore justified, his anger toward and confrontation of his fellow apostle. How might Paul's later pseudonymous admirers have responded to the apostle's angry opposition to Peter in Antioch? Ephesians assumes that "the household of God [is] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone" (Eph 2:19b-20). Consequently, this author would have been baffled by the controversy among church leaders reflected in Gal 2:11-14. In addition, the expectation of putting away "all bitterness and anger and wrath" (Eph 4:31a) would seem to be at odds with Paul's conduct in Antioch. The author of 1 Timothy likewise assumes that long ago a unified church had been established by Paul.49 The protection of that one church from 'heresy' is why men need to gather without anger to pray (1 Tim 2:8). Psychologist Harriet Lerner notes a correlation between anxiety in any social system and the repression of individual expression: "The higher the anxiety in any system, the less tolerance people have for inclusiveness, complexity, and difference. When you live in a culture of fear, you will likely want to huddle in a little family or village where everyone is just like you."50 One need not (necessarily) accuse the author of 1 Timothy of inspiring a "culture of fear" to infer a correlation between his anxiety or fear about 'heresy' and call to repress human anger and, in addition, women's leadership in the community (cf. 1 Tim 2:9-15). Yet perhaps these same deutero-Pauline authors would have tolerated the apostle Paul's anger if it served to establish and protect the church against outsiders perceived as attempting to destroy that church. One fear (concern for the church's well-being) yields to another (individual expression of spontaneous emotions such as anger). My paper, which began with the psychology of anger, has now drifted into ecclesiology and the collective consciousness resulting from competing attempts at self-definition. None of the NT letters attributed to Paul resolves the ethical and existential dilemma posed by the expectations of repressing human anger and defending the good of the community, however construed. Instead, the biblical passages this paper has examined present suppressing anger as a categorical imperative without reflecting on possible limits or exceptions to its implementation. An exploration of this dilemma in ancient Judaism and early Christianity would be a fascinating topic for the Psychology and Biblical Studies Section to address at a future SBL meeting. IV. Bibliography M. Aloysia, "The God of Wrath?" CBQ (1946): 407-15. Bruce E. Baloian, Anger in the Old Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 1992). [Reviews include Theology Today 51 (1994): 338-39] Michel R. Barnes, "Galen and Antony: Anger and Disclosure," Studia patristica 30 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 136-43. Fred Berthold, Jr., The Fear of God: The Role of Anxiety in Contemporary Thought (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959). [Discusses Teresa of Ávila, Martin Luther, Freud, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Barth] H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). R. Bieringer, "Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief," in: Studies on 2 Corinthians (ed. R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht; BETL 112; Leuven: Leuven University, 1994), 181-221. David Alan Black, "Jesus on Anger: The Text of Matthew 5:22a Revisited," NovT 30 (1988): 1-8. Barbara E. Bowe, "Amazing Grace: Beyond Anger," BibToday 42/4 (2004): 235-40. Susanna Braund and Glenn W. Most, eds., Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen (Yale Classical Studies 32; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003). [Several excellent essays by reputable classicists, including W. V. Harris and C. A. Faraone] Pius PA25 .Y3 v.32 Friedrich Büchsel, "θυμός," TDNT 3.167-68. Alastair V. Campbell, The Gospel of Anger (London: SPCK, 1986). [Pastoral theology; reviews include ScotJT 41 (1988): 567-68] Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002). Daniel A. Dombrowski, "Anger in The Philokalia," Mystics Quarterly 24 (1998): 101-18. Jacob W. Elias, "'Jesus Who Delivers Us from the Wrath to Come' (1 Thess 1:10): Apocalyptic and Peace in the Thessalonian Correspondence," SBLSP 31 (1992): 121-132. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents [Unbehagen in der Kultur] (trans. James Strachey; New York: Norton, 1962 [1961; 1930]). BF 173.F682 1962 Peter Gay, ed., The Freud Reader (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989). Pius BF173 .F6255 1989 William V. Harris, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2001). [excellent monograph; includes "From Sickness to Sin: Early Christianity and Anger," 391-400] Pius BF575.A5 H346 2001 Martin Hengel, "Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik," in: Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (FS E. E. Ellis; ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 248-78. Peter Homans, The Ability to Mourn: Disillusionment and the Social Origins of Psychoanalysis (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989). BF175.4.C84 H66 1989 J. A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2.112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Idem, "The Struggle to Define Heilsgeschichte: Paul on the Origins of the Christian Tradition," BR 48 (2003): 45-67. Paul A. Kruger, "A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Anger in the Hebrew Bible," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26 (2000): 181-93. Kari Latvus, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings (JSOTSS 279; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). [Reviews include ZAW 112 (2000): 303] Harriet Lerner, Fear and Other Uninvited Guests (New York: HarperCollins, 2004). Michael Lerner, "Memory and Anger," Tikkun 2/4 (1987): 41-46. [on contemporary Jewish-Catholic relations] Lester K. Little, "Anger in Monastic Curses," in: Anger's Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages (ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1998), 11-35. Merlin ILL 10/25/05 George H. C. MacGregor, "The Concept of the Wrath of God in the New Testament," NTS 7 (1961): 101-09. Shahbaz Khan Mallick and Boyd R. McCandless, "A Study of Catharsis of Aggression," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4/6 (1966): 591-96. Dennis L. Okholm, "To Vent or Not to Vent? What Contemporary Psychology Can Learn from Ascetic Theology about Anger," in: Care for the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Psychology & Theology (ed. Mark R. McMinn and Timothy R. Phillips; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 164-86. [volume also includes an essay by Robert C. Roberts, "Outline of Pauline Psychotherapy," 134-63] Mary W. Patrick, "Autobiography and Rhetoric: Anger in Ignatius of Antioch," in: The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSS 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 348-75. John E. Pedersen, "Some Thoughts on a Biblical View of Anger," Journal of Psychology & Theology 2 (1974): 210-15. [Cf. Charles E. Cerling, Jr., "Some Thoughts on a Biblical View of Anger: A Response," Journal of Psychology & Theology 2 (1974): 266-68.] J. F. Procopé, "Epicureans on Anger," in: Philanthropia kai eusebeia (FS A. Dihle; ed. Glenn W. Most et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 363-86. Regular ILL 10/21/05 Peter Richardson, "Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9: 19-23 and Galatians 2: 11-14," NTS 26 (1980): 347-62. Hanna Roose, "Die Hierarchisierung der Leib-Metapher im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief als 'Paulinisierung': Ein Beitrag Zur Rezeption Paulinischer Tradition in Pseudo-paulinischen Briefen," NovT 47/2 (2005): 117-41. Gustav Stählin, "οργή," TDNT 5.382-447. Carol Tarvis, Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion (Rev. ed.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989). Lauri Thurén, "Was Paul Angry: Derhetorizing Galatians," in: The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSS 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 302-20. Notes 1 The author's thanks are due to Dereck Daschke, who commented on an earlier version of this paper. 2 Passages from the seven undisputed letters (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) this essay will discuss include 2 Cor 12:20, Gal 5:20, and Rom 1:18. From the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus), 1 Tim 2:8 will receive attention. For an excellent introduction to the points addressed in this paragraph, see, e.g., Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998 [1996]), 276-349. 3 Harris, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2001), 4. 4 Harris, Restraining Rage, 4, 5. 5 For the purpose of this paper's comparative analysis, I find Harris's four levels quite helpful. At times, however, an ancient (or modern) author or passage may not fall neatly into one level to the exclusion of the others. In Eph 4:22-32, for example, I find characteristics of levels one, two and four, and thus a measure of inconsistency within this passage. 6 Unfortunately, Harris, Restraining Rage, 393 does not distinguish between the undisputed and deutero-Pauline letters. Thus, this otherwise important and well-documented study is of limited value for assessing anger in letters attributed to Paul. 7 A formidable argument for the chronological priority of the Corinthian correspondence to Galatians is Paul's silence in 1 and 2 Corinthians concerning the (presumably later) controversy over circumcision, which Paul addresses in Galatians and Romans. 8 BDAG, 461, emphases original (s.v. θυμός). See further: Luke 4:28; Acts 19:28; Heb 11:27; 1 Clem. 50:4; 45:7; Hermas 5.2.4; Mart. Pol. 12:2; Friedrich Büchsel, "θυμός," TDNT 3.167-68; Harris, Restraining Rage, 50-70. 9 BDAG, 461; H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 284 ("outbursts of rage"). 10 For a survey of scholarship on Paul's opponents and the accusations Paul addresses in 2 Corinthians 10-13, see, e.g., Reimund Bieringer, "Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief," in: Studies on 2 Corinthians (ed. R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht; BETL 112; Leuven: Leuven University, 1994), 181-221. 11 See further D. Dale Walker, Paul's Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1) (WUNT 152; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 252: "Confronted with a deteriorating situation, Paul hurried to Corinth for an unscheduled visit. During this second visit, Paul did not encounter a church willing to defer to him. Many rejected Paul's identification of their behavior as sin and ignored his admonishments (2 Cor 12:20-13:1)." Cf. Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 299-300. 12 Gal 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger (θυμοί), quarrels, dissensions, factions, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." 13 The author of James objects to some type or (mis)understanding of Pauline theology on "faith and works" in Jas 2:14-26. On this point, see, e.g., Martin Hengel, "Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik," in: Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (FS E. E. Ellis; ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 248-78. 14 Lit.: "[the] anger of a man." 15 Cf. above on Harris, Restraining Rage, 4. 16 For the sake of consistency, I depart from the NRSV and translate as οργή as "wrath" and θυμός as "anger" in Col 3:8||Eph 4:31. In Greek, the semantic domains of these two words overlap (BDAG, 720). At Col 3:8||Eph 4:31, the NRSV translates οργή as "anger" and θυμός as "wrath." See also Harris, Restraining Rage, 53-54, who notes that οργή and θυμός, once distinguished by Plato and Aristotle during the classical period, came to be mixed beginning in the Hellenistic period by authors such as Philodemus. Consequently, the following distinction between οργή and θυμός, is no longer persuasive: "Where οργή is used thus [of human wrath], it is generally interchangeable with θυμός.... But θυμός is preferred for the passionate rage which boils up suddenly..., even though οργή seems by derivation to be particularly well adapted to express this.... This term, however, contains an element of awareness and even deliberation absent from θυμός" (Gustav Stählin, "οργή," TDNT 5.382-447 at 419). 17 Gal 5:21b: "I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." 18 Rom 1:18; cf. Rom 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4; 1 Thess 1:10. Cf. Harris, Restraining Rage, 395; Jacob W. Elias, "'Jesus Who Delivers Us from the Wrath to Come' (1 Thess 1:10): Apocalyptic and Peace in the Thessalonian Correspondence," SBLSP 31 (1992): 121-32. 19 In my opinion, the brief reference to anger in Col 3:8 does not allow for an assessment of this author's expectations concerning human feelings (levels three and four). 20 Gk.: αρθητω αφ' υμων. Lit.: "let it be removed from you." 21 See above on Restraining Rage, 4, 5, 393. 22 Eph 2:3. In addition, we who were once "darkness" are now "light" and need not be concerned with God's wrath, which "comes on those who are disobedient" (Eph 5:6-8). 23 Gk.: τον παλαιον ανθρωπον, Eph 4:22; cf. 4:25a: αποθέμενοι το ψευδος. 24 The present argument concerning μη λυπειτε in Eph 4:30 departs from BDAG, 604, which interprets this verb in terms of causing insult or outrage. 25 Eph 6:4. Not causing anger in others would correspond to Harris's level one or level three. Cf. Stählin, "οργή," 420. 26 This comparison does not, however, connote an argument that the author of Ephesians personally knew the apostle Paul. Cf. above on 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Rom 1:18. 27 Perhaps the author of Ephesians understood at least certain aspects of the apostle Paul's theology better than we sometimes acknowledge, given Ephesians's great indebtedness to the deutero-Pauline letter of Colossians. 28 Apparently citing Ps 4:5 (LXX: οργίζεσθε και μη αμαρτάνετε); cf. Col 3:21 (μη ερεθίζετε). The imperative οργίζεσθε could be either middle ("become angry") or passive voice ("become angered"). 29 See above on the plural of θυμοί in 2 Cor 12:20 and Gal 5:20. 30 We may further ask if a single classic (or contemporary) psychoanalytical category will suffice for the author of Ephesians (or, by extension, any of the NT authors). 31 Harris, Restraining Rage, 399. 32 As noted above concerning Col 3:8||Eph 4:31, οργή can be aptly translated as "anger" or "wrath." 33 The analysis to follow assumes Markan Priority, i.e., that the gospel of Mark was a source incorporated and edited by the authors of Matthew and Luke. 34 Gk.: περιβλεψάμενος αυτούς. In Mark 3:1-5, αυτούς ("they") refers generally to some among Jesus' audience in a synagogue. Mark does not otherwise specify who "they" are. 35 Matt 12:11-12: "He said to them, 'Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? [12] How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.'" 36 Matt 5:22a: πας ο οργιζομενος. Lit.: "everyone who becomes angry." This teaching of Jesus occurs only in Matthew. Cf. Harris, Restraining Rage, 391-92. 37 In addition, there may be other, complimentary rationales, such as suppressing the humanness of Jesus in general, in order to suppress possible comparisons of Jesus with other ancient miracle workers. See further: Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2.112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 335-36. 38 For a critique of this therapeutic approach, see Shahbaz Khan Mallick and Boyd R. McCandless, "A Study of Catharsis of Aggression," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4/6 (1966): 591-96; cf. Dennis L. Okholm, "To Vent or Not to Vent? What Contemporary Psychology Can Learn from Ascetic Theology about Anger," in: Care for the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Psychology & Theology (ed. Mark R. McMinn and Timothy R. Phillips; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 164-86 at 177; Lester K. Little, "Anger in Monastic Curses," in: Anger's Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages (ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1998), 11-35. 39 See Sigmund Freud, On Narcissism: An Introduction, in: Peter Gay, ed., The Freud Reader (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 548-50; and Fred Berthold, Jr., The Fear of God: The Role of Anxiety in Contemporary Thought (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), 60, who refers to Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (Garden City, NJ: Permabooks, 1953), 424; cf. Peter Homans, The Ability to Mourn: Disillusionment and the Social Origins of Psychoanalysis (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989), 122-24. 40 Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: Norton, 1962 [1961]), 28. 41 Civilization and Its Discontents, 42; cf. Homans, Ability to Mourn, 287-90. 42 So Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 59-63: "It is clearly not easy for men to give up the satisfaction of this inclination to aggression. They do not feel comfortable without it" (61). 43 Freud, Repression (Verdrängung), in: Gay, ed., Freud Reader, 570-71; idem, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, in: Gay, ed., Freud Reader, 627-28. 44 The following occurs at the conclusion of a paragraph that in 1931 Freud added to the end of Civilization and Its Discontents, 92: "And now it is to be expected that the other of the two 'Heavenly Powers', eternal Eros, will make an effort to assert himself in the struggle with his equally immortal adversary. But who can foresee with what success and with what result?" 45 See Lauri Thurén, "Was Paul Angry: Derhetorizing Galatians," in: The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSS 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 302-20, who prudently differentiates between "the pathos appeal of the text" of Galatians and Paul's "actual state of mind" (306); and Mary W. Patrick, "Autobiography and Rhetoric: Anger in Ignatius of Antioch," in: Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture, 348-75 at 375, who differentiates between the methods and goals of rhetorical analysis and historical reconstruction. Historical reconstruction is a necessary prerequisite to ascertaining the expression or experience of actual emotions (instead of rhetorical depictions of them). Given the difficulties of ascertaining the various Sitze im Leben of pseudonymous letters attributed to Paul, I have not found sufficient information to infer how much anger may actually have been expressed in these early Christian communities. Nor do I claim the competence to assign with confidence one theoretical category or another to a particular NT letter writer (let alone the lot of them) concerning anger or its repression. I also leave it up to specialists more qualified than I to comment on the possible unconscious motivations for such anger and for the calls to repress it in these letters. 46 See Carol Tarvis, Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion (Rev. ed.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), 38-41: "Although Freud, like Darwin, regarded aggression as an eradicable part of the human biological heritage, Freud emphasized the destructive, violent aspect of aggression, whereas Darwin saw aggression as self-defending and adaptive. Curiously, neither scientist paid much attention to anger. If they wrote about it at all, it was a subcategory or weaker expression of the basic aggressive drive" (39). 47 This idea for this paragraph is indebted in part to Peter Richardson, "Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9: 19-23 and Galatians 2: 11-14," NTS 26 (1980): 347-62; cf. Barbara E. Bowe, "Amazing Grace: Beyond Anger," BibToday 42/4 (2004): 235-40 at 239. 48 Our purpose remains comparative, not a speculative attempt to reconstruct Paul's psyche. See further: Betz, Galatians, 105-12; Kelhoffer, "The Struggle to Define Heilsgeschichte: Paul on the Origins of the Christian Tradition," BR 48 (2003): 45-67, esp. 55-61. 49 1 Tim 1:12-16; 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6-7; 3:10-11a; Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 13. 50 Lerner, Fear and Other Uninvited Guests (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 134.
|
|||
|
|
|||
