Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

260
Journal of Biblical Literature
A close comparison of these Haustafel characteristics with Aristotelian,
Stoic, rabbinic, and Hellenistic Jewish antecedents suggests that the particular
form of the Haustafel cannot be traced to one specific source, but that the
Christian writers were influenced by a wide variety of literary traditions. In all
of the comparisons, the similarities between the Greco-Roman texts and the
Haustafeln are superficial and outweighed by their differences.
The Stoics, including Cicero, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and
Hierocles, and the early Christians were interested in similar social relationships,
and both listed the duties of the groups who were taking part in those
relationships. But the similarities end there. There are no substantial similarities
between the vocabulary, style, and/or grammar of the Stoic lists and the
Haustafel form. For example, the Stoic term kaqhvkonta never appears in the
NT codes, and the Stoic diatribe is not appropriated by the NT writers. Important
Haustafel terms, such as uJpotavssesqai, are not found in any Stoic text. 26
The basic Haustafel sentence structure—(a) address, (b) instruction, (c) connecting
word, (d) rationale—is not even approximated in Stoic lists. The imperative
mood, widely used in the Haustafeln, is found only in Epictetus
(Discourses 3.21–25 and Ench. 30).
Likewise, the Stoic codes were lists of duties for the perfection of the individual,
rather than a formula for community harmony based on religious belief.
The reciprocity of the NT exhortations is not present in the Stoic duty lists.
While the Haustafeln speak directly to women as spiritually responsible, the
Stoics never addressed women directly. 27 Likewise, while the Christian writers
spoke directly to slaves as equals in the eyes of God, the Stoic paradigm was
inapt for dealing with slaves, because Stoicism dealt with the typical individual
in his relationships and slaves were never viewed as typical. Even Epictetus, a
former slave, never addressed them in duty lists. 28 Slaves are mentioned only in
of the exhortation uses the vocative and second person forms; (5) a particular sentence structure
consisting of address, instruction, expansion, and rationale; (6) a consistent vocabulary; and
(7) clearly stated motivations, both overall and for specific ethical actions, with the motivational
emphasis placed on the subordinate groups (see Betsy J. Bauman-Martin, “Intertextuality and the
Haustafel in I Peter” [Ph.D. diss. University of California at Irvine, 1997], 58–60).
26 @Upotavssw is used thirty-one times in the LXX, but to designate submission to God, never
to describe family relationships. Epictetus uses the verb to describe the submission of a man to
moral law, never to another human being. @Upotavssw was used to describe (the indicative, not
imperative) the relationship of wives to husbands in only two other Hellenistic texts: Ps-Call.
1.22.19-20 and Plutarch Conj. praec. 142E.
27 Crouch observes that only Epictetus (Diatr. 2.14.9) and Seneca/Hecaton (Ben. 2.18)
believe that a woman is capable of performing duties (Origin and Intention, 110).
28 Crouch, Origin and Intention, 116–17. Nor did other former slaves. See Susan Treggiari,
Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 241–43.