Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Bauman-Martin: Women on the Edge 261
the context of determining the behavior of the master, who is the person whose
conduct the Stoics sought to influence. 29
The theory of Aristotelian sources for the Haustafeln has three points in its
favor: the oijkonomiva topos includes the three crucial pairs of relationships
(husbands–wives, masters–slaves, parents–children); it stresses authority and
subordination within those relationships; and it emphasizes the importance of
harmonious household relationships for the state. 30 Further, like the Stoic duty
schema, it was a popular theme at the time when the NT writers were advising
Christian communities.
The classical treatises, however, differ from the Haustafeln in many of the
same ways in which the Stoic lists do. They do not predict the precise and
highly developed syntactical and grammatical form of the Haustafeln. Aristotle’s
discourses are rarely exhortative and address only the male authority figure.
31 The concern for financial issues, which Aristotle included as an integral
part of household management, is entirely missing from the Haustafeln. The
Aristotelian vocabulary differs from that in the Haustafeln, even when referring
to the same subjects. 32
The third hypothesized source of the Haustafel form is Judaism, in the
Hellenistic Jewish writings of Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Phocylides and/or
possible early rabbinic sources. The emphasis on the socially “inferior” group in
the Haustafeln—women, slaves, and children are always addressed first and
more thoroughly—is paralleled only in Judaism, both Hellenistic and nascent
29 Seneca wrote that it is possible that a slave can perform a “benefit” within a household, but
he is certainly not confident that a slave and master hold mutual responsibilities in maintaining the
harmony of the household or that slaves have moral ability (Ben. 2.18ff.).
30 The classical authors I examined were Plato, Aristotle, the Peripatetics, Philodemus, and
Areius Didymus (Bauman-Martin, “Intertextuality,” 75–82); but Balch further argued that Stoics
(Cicero and Ariston), Hellenistic Jews (Philo and Josephus), and the Neo-Pythagoreans (Bryson
and Callicatidas) adopted this classical topos. More importantly, he maintained that the topos was
popularly known during the period of early Christianity, as indicated by the fact that Dio Chrysostom
wrote a treatise with the title Concerning Household Management (“Let Wives Be Submissive,”
51–58).
31 The tendency of other scholars to accept Balch’s thesis without question is most evident in
the statement by Troy Martin: “Balch convincingly argued that the Haustafel schema originated
from the topos, ‘concerning Household Management.’ He cited Aristotle’s Politics 1.129.37–39
where three reciprocal relationships are discussed” (Metaphor and Composition, 127, my emphasis).
Aristotle’s references to women, children, and slaves are not reciprocal in any way.
32 For example, when Aristotle discusses husbands and wives, he uses the terms povsi" and
ajlochvo", while in every instance the Haustafeln use ajnhvr and gunhv. The classical philosophers use
the term a[rcesqai to indicate the submission required of inferior household members, while the
Haustafeln authors consistently use the verbs uJpotavssesqe for wives, uJpakouvein for children, and
both for slaves. Aristotle used the passive form a[rcesqai to indicate that slaves and so on were to
be ruled, whereas the Haustafeln used the middle form uJpotavssesqe to indicate that a personal
choice regarding obedience was required on the part of the subordinate.