‘Like the Scum of the World,the Refuse of All’: A Study of the Background and Usage of περίψημα and περικάθαρμα in 1 Corinthians 4.13b 1

Abstract

It has been widely assumed that Paul uses περίψημα and περικάθαρμα in 1 Cor. 4.13b in order to help the reader associate Christ-like apostolic suffering with the dehumanizing experience of the victims of expulsion rituals, since both words were allegedly used as technical terms for expulsion victims in the ancient Mediterranean world. A survey of the pertinent literature and inscriptions shows, however, that the terms were hardly ever connected with expulsion rituals until the ninth century, when Photius or the Byzantine churches of his time finally made the association in order to promote self-giving service among the believers. In view of this, the article also briefly explores possible alternative backgrounds to Paul’s use of the terms.

Keywords

Apostolic suffering expulsion rituals 1 Corinthians Paul Photius (Photios)redemption scapegoat

Ὡς περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα ἕως ἄρτι.

This article examines the background of 1 Cor. 4.13b, particularly Paul’s use of περίψημα and περικάθαρμα, as part of the larger theological discussion of his understanding of Jesus’ death. It is often suggested that behind these New Testament hapax legomena lies an allusion to the expulsion rituals that were widely practised in the ancient Mediterranean world (Stählin 1969: 84-93; Burkert 1979: 65).² This presupposition has affected the discussion of how one understands atonement (Finlan 2005: 33-34), and has made a considerable impact on the way these terms are translated.³

It is widely accepted that Paul utilized ancient expulsion rituals as one of the metaphors to explain the death of Jesus. When Jesus is described as becoming a curse or being made sin (Gal. 3.13; 2 Cor. 5.21), Paul is said to be comparing Jesus with an expulsion victim.⁴ If these texts only imply a connection between Jesus and the rituals by hinting at that mechanism, it is argued that those words in 1 Corinthians are the technical terms used to denote the ritual victims (Stählin 1969: 85). McLean, for example, regards expulsion rituals as Paul’s primary metaphor for explaining the death of Jesus (1996). Those who tend to see a strong relationship between the terms and the rituals appear to rely on the deﬁnition of περίψημα offered by Photius, the ninth-century Byzantine scholar and Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Lexicon:

Περίψημα: (I) fragments, or that which is under sandals, or ransom. (II) In order to remove a persistent evil, they spoke to the youth who is annually thrown into the sea, ‘May you be our περίψημα (περίψημα ἡμῶν γενοῦ)’, that is salvation and ransom. They threw into the sea just as a sacriﬁce dedicated to Poseidon (Lex. π /ΣB; cf. Phot., Ep. 256) (Theodoridis 2013: 222-23).

Thus Stählin concludes that Paul constructed 1 Cor. 4.13b with the ritual formula or ‘expiatory suffrage’ in mind so that the reader would make a connection between these rituals and Jesus’ death (1969: 91).

One should note that a nearly identical deﬁnition containing both Parts (I) and (II) of Photius’s remark appears in Manuscript B of Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων (ΣB), while the remaining manuscripts (ΣA, ΣC, ΣD) lack (II), which contains the ritual formula, in order to elaborate on the third deﬁnition of ‘ransom’ (see Cunningham 2003: 401). Although this lexical collection (Συναγωγή) is said to have been composed just prior to or is contemporaneous with Photius, ΣB belongs to the tenth century (Cunningham 2003: 14-19; Dickey 2007: 100-102). It is likely that Photius drew on Συναγωγή to write deﬁnition (I), yet one cannot be certain which work is responsible for (II), Photius’s Lexicon or the original (or earlier) Συναγωγή (Σ′). Both (I) and (II) also appear in Photius’s letter to his brother Tarasios (Ep. 256), with some alterations. For now, we assume that Photius composed (II), but we shall return to the matter below.

Although some scholars are reluctant to accept expulsion rituals as a background to Paul’s teaching on Jesus’ death, they fail to supply sufﬁcient evidence against this view (e.g., Martin 1986: 157; Fee 1987: 180), and exhibit signiﬁcant confusion over the basic matters of the rituals, such as their locations, stated purposes, procedures and the victims’ proﬁles (e.g., Schrage 1991: 1.349; Conzelmann 1975: 90 n. 49; Allo 1935: 78), thereby making their arguments unreliable.⁵ The confusion seems to be partly due to their uncritical reliance on the description of an expulsion ritual in Tzetzes’s rendition of Hipponax’s iambic poems (sixth century bce) in the twelfth century (Chiliades 5.728-739, 743-758) (Tzetzes 1826: 185-86) and a scholion by Triclinius on Aristophanes (ﬁfth–fourth century bce) in the fourteenth century (Schol. Eq. 1136c) (Jones and Wilson 1969: 1.2.243). This point will be clariﬁed in 2.2.3.

This article, therefore, examines the literature (and inscriptions) that use περίψημα and (περι)κάθαρμα up to the time of Photius. Based on the results of this survey, which contradicts the widely accepted assumption outlined above, a suggestion is made as to how the expulsion ‘formula’ might have come into existence. The study concludes with some suggestions of possible alternative backgrounds for Paul’s use of the terms in 1 Cor. 4.13b, suggestions which have a bearing on Paul’s understanding of Christology and redemption, although that is a topic for another paper.

1. On Περίψημα

1.1 General Observations

According to Thesaurus Linguae Graecae and other sources, 43 of the 58 occurrences of περίψημα are of analytical value, excluding the one used by Paul. The other 15 cases are either textual variants or repetitions of the term within a narrow context. Out of the 43 cases, 28 appear to be either direct quotations or clear references to 1 Cor. 4.13 (= 65%). If we include a further seven cases which seem to rely on the verse, 81% of all the usages are derived from Paul. Περίψημα is not found in any literature before Paul except once in Tob. 5.19.

Περίψημα derives from the verb περιψάω, which means ‘to wipe off, to cleanse’ (LSJ 1394). Therefore, the root meaning of περίψημα is ‘dirt that is wiped off as the result of cleansing something’ (cf. Hesychius, Lex. π). Thus it is translated as ‘dirt/scum/refuse’ and the like in 1 Cor. 4.13 (NRSV, REB, AV). It is of interest that Severianus (fourth century ce) deﬁnes it as ‘a cloth to wipe off dirt’ instead of ‘dirt’ itself (Fr. 1 Cor.; cf. an inscription found at a bath in Brixia, ‘PERIPSV MA SV’⁶). When the sense of ‘dirt’ is extended, the term is used to denote something worthless (Vit. Aesopi G35) or abhorrent (Ignatius Diachonus, Ep. 58; Evagrius, De oratione PG 79.1193; cf. Ignatius, Eph. 18.1), and it may also mean misfortune (P. Petaus 29).⁷

Applied to a person, the term often denotes the object of contempt and ill treatment. Thus, in quotations and references to 1 Cor. 4.13, the term is used as a symbol for the suffering of Jesus (Origen, Comm. Jo. 28.18; Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Cor. 13.2) and of believers (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fr. 1 Cor.; Didymus the Blind, Fr. Ps. 739.9). The negative connotations were reversed to make a positive symbol of Christian devotion (περίψημα being ‘scandal to the faithless, but to us salvation and eternal life’, Ignatius, Eph. 18.1), involving the love of enemies (Antiochus Monachus, Pandectae PG 89, hom. 40; Maximus Confessor, Liber asceticus 15), the forsaking of earthly glory (Petrus of Sicily, Historia 159) (see Papachryssanthou 1970: 59), and humility and humble service to the poor (Basil, Hom. Ps. PG 29.381; Theodoret of Cyprus, Canticum PG 81.208).

The one who performed such a service was called a περίψημα, meaning ‘a [humble] servant’, especially when it was used independently of 1 Corinthians (Ignatius, Eph. 8.1; Barn. 4.9; 6.5). By the time of Eusebius (fourth century ce), this sense of servanthood seems to be well established. He relies on the account of Dionysius of Alexandria (third century ce) and recounts the self-giving medical service of Christians. They cured the sick, but were infected by the sickness, with some even dying in the process. Eusebius comments, ‘the expression which in general seems to denote a mere gesture of courtesy, they then fulﬁlled in their deeds, going away as their περίψημα’ (Hist. eccl. 7.22.7). He seems to be saying that περίψημα was used in a popular expression of greeting, i.e. ‘I am your servant’, but is now being taken literally (Valesius 1659: 269). Some Egyptian believers took away with them the sickness (περίψημα) of the patients—that is, the unclean part to be cleansed (cf. Hippocrates, Epid. 5.1.2 on κάθαρμα)—and died, as though they themselves became an abhorrent disease.⁸

Remonstrating with the Corinthians for their arrogance, Paul compares their attitude with the humble service of the apostles, and he uses περίψημα (and περικάθαρμα) to impress upon the Corinthians the experience of humiliation and suffering involved in their service. Paul considers himself a co-sufferer with Christ (Phil. 1.29; 3.10) and a suffering servant (2 Cor. 6.4; 11.23). Therefore, it is understandable that, soon after Paul, the early church began using the term to denote the suffering of Jesus, and as a title for a Christ-like servant. In the following centuries, the term with its context of 1 Corinthians was popularly used to exhort believers to follow Christ and his apostles in their service to others. By the ninth century, the term περίψημα was well established as a symbol of Christian devotion to self-giving service.

The survey above shows that there is no text or inscription which directly connects the term with expulsion rituals before Photius. Even when Severianus expounds on the meaning of περίψημα in 1 Corinthians, it did not seem to occur to him to illustrate the sense of the term with reference to expulsion rituals (Fr. 1 Cor.) (Staab 1933: 241). Needless to say, no extant evidence supports the presupposition that περίψημα ἡμῶν γενοῦ was known as an expulsion formula in the ancient Mediterranean world.

1.2 The Alleged Cultic/Redemptive Nuance of περίψημα

There are a few cases where περίψημα is loosely associated with expulsion rituals and/or is traditionally translated as ‘ransom’ or ‘sacriﬁce’. The idea of a ransom or sacriﬁce is not directly connected with expulsion rituals, yet, for the sake of thoroughness, these exceptional cases are considered in this section.

1.2.1 Origen (second–third century ce)

Prior to Origen, Clement of Rome illustrated the signiﬁcance of the self-giving service of Jesus by reminding his audience of kings and rulers who had given their lives to save their cities (1 Clem. 55.1; cf. Alexander of Lycopolis, Cont. Man. 24). Perhaps regarding these examples of heroic deaths as genesis myths of expulsion rituals,⁹ Origen introduces Clement as one who acknowledged the liberating effect of expulsion rituals to validate the idea of human salvation by sacriﬁcial rituals (Comm. Jo. 6.54; cf. Cont. Celsum 1.31). He goes on to list death by martyrdom, the death of expulsion victims, and apostolic service with reference to 1 Cor. 4.13b, all as examples of a self-giving act akin to Jesus’ death ‘as the sacriﬁcial lamb’ (Comm. Jo. 6.55). This is the only case which makes a correlation between περίψημα and expulsion rituals before Photius. However, this connection is at best a loose one. Origen’s logic proceeds as follows: Paul and the apostles brought salvation to many through their experiences of humiliation and self-giving service in preaching and living out the gospel. Martyrs, through their heroic deaths, led their cities to freedom. Expulsion victims, through their experience of humiliating banishment, brought deliverance to their communities. These stories are presented as appropriate illustrations for the saving effect of the death of Jesus. Origen uses 1 Cor. 4.13b, which includes περίψημα (and περικάθαρμα), to describe the apostolic service, yet he never directly connects the term(s) with the rituals.

1.2.2 Ignatius (ﬁrst–second century ce)

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius of Antioch refers to himself as a περίψημα: ‘I am your περίψημα, I sanctify myself for you, Ephesians (περίψημα ὑμῶν καὶ ἁγίζομαι ὑμῶν Ἐϕεσίων)’ (Eph. 8.1). Schoedel ﬁnds in the term a ‘sacriﬁcial image’ (1985: 63-64), and Holmes even translates it as ‘humble sacriﬁce’ (2007: 189). The general theme of martyrdom in the letters of Ignatius may have affected their interpretations. However, in the immediate context, Ignatius is warning the Ephesians against deceptive teachings and reminding them of the authoritative teachers of truth, i.e. the bishop of Ephesus as ‘like Lord himself’ (6.1) and Ignatius as ‘your περίψημα’ (8.1) with no cultic nuance involved. When the author of Barnabas uses περίψημα with reference to his role as a teacher, Holmes translates the term as ‘servant’ (4.9; cf. 6.5).¹⁰ Thus Ignatius’s use of the term is appropriately translated as ‘your servant’, since he is emphasizing his humble devotion for the beneﬁt of the Ephesians.

1.2.3 Ostian Inscription (third century ce?)

On the wall of a house in Ostia there is an inscription which reads: ‘The lady of the house is your περίψημα’. Van Buren translates the term as ‘scape-goat’ explaining that ‘the lady of the house had taken upon herself the burden … borne by another, thus relieving him of it as the κάθαρμα of the Athenians and the “scape-goat” of the Hebrews’ (1931: 318). However, this explanation is somewhat abrupt and forced. A more natural reading would be: ‘The lady … is your servant’. This sense of περίψημα is evidenced in other inscriptions. Epitaphs found at the courtyard of a church in Trachonitis in Syria, and Augusta in Carthage, and an inscription found in a village near Smyrna, all commemorate the deceased one by addressing them as ‘servant (περίψημα) of yours/servant of good soul/servant of all’.¹¹

1.2.4 Hesychius (ﬁfth–sixth century ce)

Some texts of Hesychius’s Lexicon deﬁne περίψημα as ‘ransom (ἀντίλυτρα)’ (A²⁰⁸) and ‘life for life (ἀντίψηχα)’ (A²⁴⁸). Since both terms are used predominantly (around 95%) by Christian authors before and at the time of Hesychius,¹² it is suspected that they are part of the interpolation (Glossae Sacrae, as late as the eighth century) that comprises a large part of the lexicon (Dickey 2007: 88-89). Together with the fact that the Vallicelianus texts above (A) are dated to the tenth or eleventh centuries (see Hansen 2005: 96), special caution is required when using Hesychius’s Lexicon as evidence that περίψημα was understood in terms of a ‘ransom’ and/or ‘sacriﬁce’. This sense of the term may go back to Cyrillus in the ﬁfth or sixth centuries, or it may have started to acquire these senses in the later centuries, as evidenced in Συναγωγή (ἀπολύτρωσις).

1.2.5 Book of Tobit (third–second century bce)

Tobit, in his old age, wishes to leave some money for his son Tobias. The father tells him to go to the land of Rages to retrieve ten talents of silver from Gabael. Hannah worries about the safety of the journey and complains to her husband: ‘Do not heap money upon money, but let it be περίψημα for our child (περίψημα τοῦ παιδίου ἡμῶν γένοιτο)’ (Tob. 5.19). NRSV and NETS translate περίψημα as ‘ransom’. Moor supports this translation and explains that the term regularly means ‘refuse’ but sometimes ‘ransom’ (1996: 182, 189). However, the term’s occasional use in a redemptive sense is not supported by the evidence, as demonstrated by the survey provided above. Περίψημα meant ‘ransom’ only once (or twice if Συναγωγή is independent of Hesychius) out of 58 occurrences, and that is probably about 800–1,000 years after the composition of this story. One may expect that the surprising appearance of the hapax legomenon in the LXX would stimulate discussions of the passage among the Jews. However, the wording of the passage in the LXX is the same in both the longer (G^II in Codex Sinaiticus) and the shorter (G^I in Codex Vaticanus) versions. The extant Qumran text is too fragmentary for analysis.¹³

One could argue that the major theme of almsgiving in the book supports the redemptive interpretation of the verse. The guardian angel Raphael instructs Tobit and Tobias that almsgiving saves one from death, puriﬁes all sins, and makes one fulﬁl life (Tob. 12.9). Although ransom and almsgiving are different, the idea of giving money for deliverance could be said to connect the two. If so, then Tobit’s wife may be saying: ‘If your money saved many of the poor, now let it save your son’. However, if such a redemptive nuance is intended, why not use a term that clearly bears a redemptive sense, such as λύτρον, ἐξίλασμα and their derivatives, rather than a term that rarely, if ever, even connotes the idea?

Moreover, the most common and original meaning of περίψημα makes perfect sense of the passage, and deems as unnecessary all recourse to currently unattested meanings. The focus of the immediate context is that the silver drives Tobias into danger, rather than delivering him out of danger, which undermines the idea that it functions as a ransom. Hannah thinks that the present life given by God is enough (Tob. 5.20), and that the husband’s yearning for silver would send her son on a dangerous journey (cf. 1.15) and put him at risk. Wanting to keep her son safe, Hannah wishes her husband to consider the money as not worth risking his son’s life and says: ‘Do not heap money upon money, but may the money be given up as refuse in relation to our child’.¹⁴

A somewhat similar expression is found in an Egyptian papyrus (second century ce in Karanis), in which a certain Tabetheus was apparently charged 1,200 drachmas because her son committed a murder, causing her to declare: ‘περίψημα of my son, may they go away (περ[ί]ψημ[ά] μου τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀπέλθωσιν)’ (P. Mich. 8.473). The sense of the term here is similar to that of Hannah’s statement, in that a mother is ready to regard a considerable sum of money as an abominable refuse compared to the life of her beloved son. A redemptive understanding of περίψημα in Tob. 5.19 and P. Mich. 8.473 may, therefore, be anachronistic.¹⁵

1.3 The Goat for Azazel and περίψημα

While the New Testament is silent about the ritual of goat expulsion,¹⁶ there are a few cases where the church fathers attempted a Christological interpretation of the Jewish ritual (cf. Ben-Ezra 2003). Barnabas, based upon the oral tradition of the ritual later recorded in Mishnah,¹⁷ explains that the two goats for the Day of Atonement are alike in appearance but different in destiny because they represent the two Advents of Christ (Barn. 7.6-11), i.e. the ﬁrst humble appearance and the second glorious advent (Justin Martyr, Dial. 40.4-5; cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3.7). Cyril of Alexandria (fourth–ﬁfth century ce) sees in the two goats the mortal stage where Christ died for the sanctiﬁcation of the church and the immortal stage where he was raised to transfer human sin to heaven (Glaphyra on Leviticus PG 69.588). It is of interest that, while Origen identiﬁes the sacriﬁcial goat as Christ, the goat for Azazel is understood as Barabbas, who was cast away into the wilderness to take away the sins of those who cruciﬁed Jesus (Hom. Lev. 10.2.2). That Origen does not connect Jesus with the Jewish expulsion victim may prove that his loose association between Jesus’ passion and Greek expulsion rituals (Comm. Jo. 6.54-55) is incidental.

In these discussions of the goat for Azazel, the term περίψημα never appears. It seems that the term was largely conﬁned to teaching on the Christian acts of self-giving service, while the discussion of the goat was applied to the functions and natures of Christ (Lyonnet and Sabourin: 1970: 279-81).

1.4 The Alleged Expulsion Formula and Photius/Συναγωγή B Text

Without underestimating the signiﬁcant contribution of the Byzantine scholar and Patriarch of Constantinople for understanding Graeco-Roman Antiquity and Late Antiquity,¹⁸ one must consider the implications of the aforementioned ﬁndings, namely, that περίψημα was hardly ever connected with expulsion rituals, and that the formula περίψημα ἡμῶν γενοῦ never appears in the extant literature before Photius. How, then, did the formula come into being in the ninth-century literature?

One could argue that Photius expressed the signiﬁcance of the term περίψημα and the rest of 1 Cor. 4.13b more than anyone before him, based on the fact that the term was used 58 times by 31 separate authors before him and 14 times by Photius alone. Apart from the fact that Paul is his favourite apostle,¹⁹ he probably found the apostolic saying quite convincing and useful for promoting Christian devotion to self-giving service. In the letter to Tarasios, Photius combines the deﬁnition of περίψημα with the exhortation to persevere in adversity, remembering the pious living embodied in the service of the apostle and his imitators, and comparing this with the suffering of an expulsion victim (Ep. 256). Photius’s understanding of περίψημα may be rooted in his appreciation of how Paul used the word.

On the basis of Photius’s statement in Amphilochia that he wrote a lexical work when he was just passing ‘the age of youth’ (c. 840, Quaest. 21), some argue that this work is the extant Lexicon (Lemerle 1971: 185; cf. Cunningham 2003: 20-21; Hunger 1978: 2.40). This implies that the lexical work might not represent his mature reﬂection on Paul’s letters in his later years. Thus the deﬁnition of περίψημα in the Lexicon only reﬂects Photius’s early and immature understanding of the term without his later reﬂection on Paul’s use of the term. However, Amphilochia continues that the youthful work was limited to words ‘most up-to-date and frequent’, because composing a comprehensive lexicon would require a long time. Since the existing Lexicon is quite voluminous, others conclude that Photius returned to write a fuller work in his later years (876–886), which is the existing Lexicon (Tzantzanoglou 1967: 14, 34; White 1981: 16). Considering also that the term περίψημα is neither up-to-date nor frequent, but ‘ancient’ (Photius, Ep. 256) and rare (Hesychius’s Lex. treats rare words), the later date of the extant Lexicon seems to be preferred. Therefore, the author’s appreciation of the lasting impact of 1 Cor. 4.13 on the church may have been reﬂected in his presentation of περίψημα.

Photius was well aware that Christian writers of the previous 800 years used the term to symbolize devotion to self-giving service, and that there was a tradition of Christological interpretations of the goat for Azazel. He may also have been aware of the loose association which Origen made between expulsion rituals and 1 Cor. 4.13b.²⁰ Photius may have taken the decisive step to formulate the expulsion saying in his lexical deﬁnition of περίψημα in order to bring together all the above traditions and further solidify Paul’s exhortation to a life of self-giving service. Experts on Photius, both admirers and critics, may recognize this as a characteristic of Photius’s approach to scholarship.²¹ Lemerle, for example, comments on Photius’s stance towards scholarship: ‘a new classicism, that would be the Byzantine classicism upon a Christian foundation, desiring not to reject, but on the contrary to use and partly assimilate Hellenism that is profane but no longer dangerous’ (1971: 196; cf. White 1981: 60-61).

Contrary to the suggestion that Paul’s expression of 1 Cor. 4.13b was inﬂuenced by a widely known expulsion formula, and intended to make a connection between his apostolic suffering and expulsion rituals (Stählin 1969: 91), it seems more plausible that Photius created the ritual formula in accordance with Paul’s saying in 1 Corinthians in order to emphasize the signiﬁcance of Paul’s apostolic suffering in light of the rituals. Though speculative, this hypothesis seems preferable to assuming the existence of a formula for which there is no evidence before Photius. If the evidence does not support the assumption that περίψημα is the ritual’s terminus technicus, one may understand that περίψημα came to be regarded as such through a gradual theological development within the church over no less than 800 years.²²

The analysis above has been based upon the assumption that the expulsion formula originated with Photius, which was subsequently added to the lexical entry of Συναγωγή (ΣB) in the tenth century. However, one should not disregard the possibility that the formula belonged to a parent text of ΣB (Σ′ʺ or Σb), which later came down to Photius and ΣB. In this case, the formulation of the ritual saying may reﬂect the result of the theological development delineated above, without any active initiation by Photius. That περίψημα started to carry the redemptive sense between the sixth and eighth centuries is evidenced in the lexical entries that equate the term with ἀντίλυτρα, ἀντίψηχα (Hesychius) and ἀπολύτρωσις (ΣA). Together with Origen’s creative or incidental association of expulsion rituals with the term, the devotional understanding of the term within the church, and the Christological interpretation of the goat for Azazel, the church of the late eighth or early ninth century may have provided the theological environment for the creation of the formula. With his deep appreciation for the apostle Paul, Photius then adopted the formula and the whole deﬁnition (II) in his lexicon and letter to his brother Tarasios. For this latter scenario, the fact that Suda’s deﬁnition of περίψημα is exactly the same as that of Photius may be signiﬁcant (Suda π 1355). Both texts derived from the same source (Σ′), which was composed either in the late eighth or the early ninth century (Cunningham 2003:14).²³

2. On (περι)κάθαρμα

2.1 General Observations

We turn now to περικάθαρμα and κάθαρμα. Paul uses the former together with περίψημα in 1 Cor. 4.13. It is an intensiﬁed form with περί preﬁxed to κάθαρμα (Hauck 1965: 430-31). Κάθαρμα was a more general term. A variant reading of the verse with κάθαρμα instead of περικάθαρμα is found in the ninth-century uncial (G), and some church fathers prefer this reading (Chrysostom, Theodoret). The verb καθαρίζω means ‘to cleanse’ or ‘to remove in the process of puriﬁcation’.²⁴ Therefore the root meaning of (περι)κάθαρμα is ‘dirt removed in the act of cleansing’, thus ‘dirt/scum/refuse’. As the survey shows, the suggested difference in nuance – ‘dirt to be wiped away’ for περίψημα, while ‘dirt to be cleansed, swept off’ for (περι)κάθαρμα (Str–B, III: 338) – should not be taken too strictly. The primary concern of this section is whether (περι)κάθαρμα relates directly to expulsion rituals.

2.1.1 περικάθαρμα

The term περικάθαρμα is used 37 times before Photius (excluding Paul), 34 of which have analytical value. Of those 34 cases, 25 (73.5%) are quotations of or clear references to 1 Cor. 4.13. The term is used ﬁve times either prior to (Prov. 21.18 LXX) or contemporary to Paul (Vit. Aesopi, Apollonius, Epictetus).

The root meaning of ‘dirt/scum/refuse’ is observed in the lexical entry of the Roman grammarian Apollonius (Lex. hom. λ). A ﬁfth-century biblical commentary also uses the term in this sense (Catenae [NT]) (Cramer 1841: 478). As an extension of this meaning comes the idea of worthlessness, a sense which is found in the writing of Epictetus when he criticizes Priamus and others by calling their offspring περικαθάρματα (Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae 3.22.78; cf. Vit. Aesopi G14, 31) (Schenkl 1894: 308).

The term is most frequently used either when quoting 1 Cor. 4.13b or directly referring to the verse together with περίψημα as its synonym. Since these examples have been discussed in the survey of περίψημα, they are not repeated here. When the term is used independently of 1 Cor. 4.13, it is used as a symbol of the adverse circumstances experienced by faithful followers of Christ (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.7.51; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 12.10.7). The reader is exhorted to persevere in continuing good works, staying morally above reproach, or imitating Paul.

2.1.2 κάθαρμα

The word κάθαρμα occurs 149 times before Photius (excluding Paul), 131 of which have analytical value. The term seems to be used with the root meaning ‘dirt/scum/refuse’ 38 times (29%) (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.43; Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.231) (Nachmanson 1918: 93). Κάθαρμα then came to denote disease and its cause (Hippocrates, Epid. 5.1.2; cf. De morb. popular. 5.1.18). Strabo (ﬁrst century ce), speaking on the topic of alchemy, uses the term to denote a kind of sediment resulting from a chemical reaction in reﬁning gold (Geogr. 3.2.8).

The root meaning is extended to describe the worthlessness of people, things and ideas 85 times (= 65%). John Chrysostom (fourth–ﬁfth century ce) shows a contempt for luxurious things, describing them as τὰ καθάρματα τῶν ἀνοήτων (Scand. 22.4; cf. Demosthenes, De corona 128; Lucianus, Dial. mort. 3.1). The term was predominantly used as a sort of dehumanizing and foul insult (e.g., Aristophanes, Fr. 673a; Philo, Mos. 1.30.3; Josephus, War 4.241.2; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 7.30.5; Philostratus, Apoll. 1.12.24). The deprivation of human dignity is intensiﬁed as κάθαρμα is used together with ‘ﬁlthy dog’ and ‘non-human’ (Vit. Aesopi; Demosthenes, Mid. 185.5) (Eberhard 1872: 234). It is curious that when the term appears ﬁve times to replace περικάθαρμα with reference to 1 Cor. 4.13, the sense of self-abasement is primary (cf. Origen, Hom. Job 17.69; John Chrysostom, Compunct. Dem. 47.405). In the remaining three occurrences, the term seems to be used in the context of some form of ritual cleansing, to which we now turn.

2.2 The Cultic Use of κάθαρμα

2.2.1 Cleansing by Swine Blood

Aristophanes (ﬁfth–fourth century bce) describes a legal court scene. Inviting the court members he says, ‘come closer, within τοῦ καθάρματος’ (Arch. 44). An anonymous translator explains that the members sat at the seats cleansed by the blood of a pig sacriﬁced in the honour of Ceres, thus τοῦ καθάρματος means ‘the consecrated area’.²⁵ Hesychius may have had this custom in mind when he listed ‘piglet’ as one of the deﬁnitions of κάθαρμα (Lex. κ).

2.2.2 Sacriﬁce to Hecate

When Harpocration (ﬁrst–second century ce) deﬁnes ὀξυθύμια, he uses the term κάθαρμα:

Ὀξυθύμια: …the branches from which some people are hanged, struck with wood sorrels in anger. These trees are cut down and brought out to be burned. Didymus of Anticlides writes in his commentary that τὰ καθάρματα and ﬁlth are called ὀξυθύμια … ‘It is the statue of Hecate where they brought τὰ καθάρσια, and called [them] ὀξυθύμια’ (Lex. ο).

The action of striking the victims in anger may remind one of Tzetzes’s rendition of an expulsion ritual, ‘Stoning in the winter and striking with branches and squills, like a pharmakos’ (Chiliades 5.743-58), yet in this case κάθαρμα denotes the trees (or branches) which became ﬁlthy, probably from hanging the dead. That the trees are brought to the statue of Hecate as καθάρσια (that which is cleansed) rather than κάθαρμα is confusing, but the confusion between the two seems to have been so common that an anonymous lexicographer (ﬁrst–second century ce) took care to clarify the distinction (Περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων 258) (Nickau 1966: 68).

2.2.3 ϕαρμακός as κάθαρμα

Aelius Dionysius in Halicarnassus (second century ce) deﬁnes ϕαρμακός as ‘κάθαρμα of insigniﬁcant things. When Ionians were expanding, they said ϕαρμακόν. For they were cleansing the native custom of language, boundaries, and (festive) days because of the residence of the barbarians’ (Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα ϕ). The term ϕαρμακός was sometimes, but not always (also συβάκχος), used to denote an expulsion victim (cf. Lysias, Adv. Andokides 53; Harpocration, Lex. ϕ; Hipponax in Chiliades 5.743-758). However, Dionysius’s description lacks the idea of banishment and is hardly reminiscent of expulsion rituals. He seems to be referring to a discriminatory utterance against foreigners by Ionians, who fear that their barbarous inﬂuence would deﬁle the purity of the Ionian culture and land. The Ionians certainly called expulsion victims ϕαρμακοί according to Hipponax, and they may have used the dishonourable name of the ritual victims just to show their contempt of foreigners. Dionysius equates the name with ‘κάθαρμα of insigniﬁcant things’ to explain why the name is abhorrent, but he does not say that κάθαρμα is the name for expulsion victims as in the case of ϕαρμακός. It may be that this connection between κάθαρμα and the rituals was made later by Tzetzes and Triclinius, partly based upon this tradition.

Scholia on Aristophanes by Tzetzes and Triclinius do indeed equate ϕαρμακός and κάθαρμα and use both terms to refer to expulsion victims. ‘Φαρμακοί and those being offered for the puriﬁcation of the cities were called καθάρματα’ (Tzetzes, Schol. Arist. v. 454b); ‘[T]hey sacriﬁced them with a view to puriﬁcation from pollution and they called them καθάρματα’ (Triclinius, Schol. Arist. Eq. 1136c). It is their addition to Aristophanes’s description of the Athenian public sacriﬁce, which itself does not mention κάθαρμα (Rogers 1910: 158-59). In these scholia of the twelfth and fourteenth centuries one may observe signiﬁcant confusion between Ionian and Attic expulsion rituals and between expulsion rituals and sacriﬁcial rituals. One must exercise extreme caution, therefore, when using these works.²⁶

2.3 περικάθαρμα and כֹּפֶר

The only pre-Pauline use of περικάθαρμα is found in Prov. 21.18 LXX:

MT: àÄéùÑ îÇçÀñåÉø àÉäÅá ùÒÄîÀçÈä àÉäÅá éÇéÄïÎåÈùÑÆîÆï ìÉà éÇòÂùÑÄéøÓ רÌÉôÆø ìÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷ øÈùÑÈò åÀúÇçÇú éÀùÑÈøÄéí áÌåÉâÅã

A man who loves pleasure is in need (17a), he who loves wine and oil is not rich (17b), the wicked are כֹּפֶר to the righteous (18a), and the faithless are instead of the upright (18b).

LXX: ἀνὴρ ἐνδεὴς ἀγαπᾷ εὐφροσύνην ϕιλῶν οἶνον καὶ ἔλαιον εἰς πλοῦτον περικάθαρμα δὲ δικαίου ἄνομος

A man is lacking in riches if he loves pleasure making friends with wine and oil (17ab) and the lawless is περικάθαρμα of the righteous (18 a/b).

In this text, περικάθαρμα, a hapax legomenon in the LXX, appears to be a translation of כֹּפֶר which usually means ‘ransom’ (HALOT, II: 495). Origen’s Hexapla indicates that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion all replaced περικάθαρμα with ἐξίλασμα (ransom, expiatory offering) (Field 1875: 354). Although ἐξίλασμα itself appears only twice in the LXX (1 Sam. 12.3; Ps. 48.8), its verbal form ἐξιλάσκομαι is used 105 times, 75 cases of which are the translation of כֹּפֶר in the LXX. Theodotion, with its attempt to provide standard representations of important Hebrew terms, naturally avoided the anomaly in Prov. 21.18a LXX. Even Symmachus, which departs from the former literalism of Theodotion (and Aquila), accepted their revisions of the LXX. This indicates that περικάθαρμα may not have been considered an obvious translation, if not completely unacceptable, for כֹּפֶר at least in the second and third centuries ce.

Questions remain, however, over the translation of the LXX. While there is very little change between the MT and Targum,²⁷ the idea that ‘the wicked are a ransom for the righteous’ is not a straightforward axiom. Admitting the enigmatic nature of the phrase, the commentaries provide various explanations for the ransom metaphor being applied to the wicked. It is understood simply as a way of saying that it is the wicked, rather than the righteous, who suffer (Troy 1899: 406; Fox 2009: 687), or that the evil plotted by the wicked against the righteous falls upon the wicked themselves (Scott 1965: 126; Waltke 2005: 181-82), or that the divine punishment destined for a community ultimately only affects the wicked.²⁸

While the general theme of Proverbs is the contrast between the ways of the righteous and the wicked, Prov. 21.16-18 exclusively focuses on the destiny of the wicked. Instead of the ordinary antithetical construction of ‘the righteous is A, but the wicked is B’, vv. 17-18 are concerned with what awaits the wicked in the end, using synonymous parallelism which is unique in Prov. 21 MT. In the LXX, however, the parallelism in these verses is not maintained. In v. 17, the former sentence (17a) and the latter (17b) are combined into one sentence expressing the destiny of the wicked. In v. 18, however, the parallel structure seems to be lost by omitting one of the two phrases (thus περικάθαρμα δικαίου ἄνομος for either רÌÉôÆø ìÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷ øÈùÑÈò or for úÌÇçÇú éÀùÑÈøÄéí áÌåÉâÅã).

Having deemed the use of the ransom metaphor for the wicked (18a) to be inappropriate, the translator of the LXX may have sharpened the focus on the destiny of the wicked, as in v. 17, by concentrating on v. 18b while setting aside v. 18a. Another reading which Origen introduces in the Hexapla (Ἄλλος· ἀντὶ εὐθέων ἀσύνθετος) may reﬂect this decision.²⁹ Since the idea that the death of the faithful is a ransom for errant Israel was current in the period of translation (see 2 Macc. 8.1-5; cf. 4 Macc. 6.28-29),³⁰ the translator may have favoured it over the rather contradictory idea of Prov. 21.18a MT. As a noun, the term úÌÇçÇú in v. 18b means ‘the under part/that which lies underneath’. The prepositional sense of ‘instead’ develops from the idea that ‘one stands underneath others’ (HALOT, IV: 1721-22; Gesenius et al. 1906: 1065). The locative sense of ‘underneath’ appears in the subsequent proverb (22.27): ‘why is the bed taken away from underneath? (ìÈîÌÈä éÄ÷Ìç îÄùÑÀרÌÈáÀêÈ îÄúÌÇçÀúÌÆéêÈ)’ (cf. Exod. 24.4; Deut. 4.11). Regardless of the original intent, the translator of the LXX may have decided that v. 18b could be read: ‘the faithless are underside (underneath) of the upright’ (see Wis. 4.18 for a similar thought). If so, then the use of περικάθαρμα in the LXX emphasizes the downward destiny of the wicked; they would become useless and abominable dirt that is dropped underneath and trampled on by the righteous (cf. Apollonius, Lex. hom. p.109). Therefore, the LXX may have chosen the term περικάθαρμα in order to paraphrase Prov. 21.18 freely as: ‘The wicked one is like that which is swept away as dirt and lies underneath in relation to the righteous’, somewhat akin to the nineteenth-century English translation: ‘and a transgressor is the abomination of a righteous man’ (Brenton 1851: 807).

It is suggested, therefore, that Prov. 21.18a LXX does not prove that (περι)κάθαρμα was understood in a cultic or redemptive sense, let alone as the terminus technicus for expulsion victims, at the time of Paul.

3. Conclusion

This study has shown that both περίψημα and (περι)κάθαρμα in 1 Cor. 4.13b were not understood with reference to expulsion rituals until around the ninth century, when Photius (or ΣΒ tradition) made a connection between the terms and the rituals by introducing the formula περίψημα ἡμῶν γενοῦ. It is plausible to conclude, therefore, that 1 Cor. 4.13b cannot be treated as evidence that Paul sought to explain the signiﬁcance of the death of Jesus by the metaphor of this ritual.³¹

While space does not allow further discussion, this conclusion naturally leads to the question of what the possible backgrounds to the hapax legomena in 1 Cor. 4.13b might be. It has been suggested that Lam. 3.45 lies behind the terms, which reads: ‘Filth and refuse you made (us) in the middle of the peoples (ñÀçÄé åÌîÈàåÉñ úÌÀùÒÄéîÅðåÌ áÌÀ÷ÆøÆá äÈòÇîÌÄéí)’. The meaning of ñÀçÄé is ‘dirt as the result of scraping/sweeping something clean’, which is equivalent to the meaning of περίψημα and περικάθαρμα, and îÈàåÉñ denoting ‘object of rejection’ is not irrelevant either (HALOT, II: 539, 749; see also Holladay 1971: 180-81, 255). It is argued, therefore, that the exilic tradition of righteous servants suffering to restore the people to God is reﬂected in 1 Cor. 4.13b, and was in view when Paul summarized his experience of apostolic suffering.³² However, the LXX translates Lam. 3.45 freely as ‘you set us in the midst of the peoples to shut me up and to be rejected (καμμύσαι με καὶ ἀπωσθῆναι ἔθηκας ἡμᾶς ἐν μέσῳ τῶν λαῶν)’, and none of the revisers of the LXX applies either περίψημα or περικάθαρμα for those rare Hebrew terms.³³ Furthermore, the connection between Lam. 3 and Paul is not found among the church fathers or other writers.³⁴

If the Jewish tradition of the righteous sufferer was in view when Paul summarized the section on apostolic suffering (1 Cor. 4.11-13), Ps. 21.7 LXX (22.6 MT) might be another possibility: ‘And I am a worm and not human, a reproach of humankind and contempt of the people (ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι σκώληξ καὶ οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ὄνειδος ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἐξουδένημα λαοῦ)’. While there is no exact verbal correspondence to be found between the verses, the idea of dehumanization seems to be reﬂected in the psalm (Westermann 1955: 24-25; Kraus 1966: 179). The theme of contempt (of the cross) expressed by the term ἐξουθενημένα (1 Cor. 1.28), which continues throughout 1 Cor. 1–4 (see Kleinknecht 1984: 221-22; Hafemann 1990: 55-59; Thiselton 2000: 107-108), is made explicit in Ps. 21.7 by the cognate (ἐξουδένημα) as well. The choice of ἐξουδένημα (ἐξουθενημένα) impresses upon the reader the theme of human dignity, as it denotes the sense of ‘making an οὐδείς of someone’ (BDAG, 352). This connection between the wider context of 1 Cor. 4.13b and Ps. 21.7 seems to be assumed by Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 16.15, 17.1) and Eusebius (Dem. ev. 10.8.55).

This brief consideration might suggest that the suffering servant motif is unique to Paul within the New Testament (in the case of Lam. 3.45), or that Paul shares with the Gospel of Mark the tradition of stressing self-giving service with reference to Ps. 21, but that is a question for another investigation.

Footnotes

Appendix

Chart 2:

Literature survey via TLG and other sources

	περίψημα	περικάθαρμα	κάθαρμα
Occurrence until ninth century ce	56	37	149
Analytical Value	43	34	131
Referring to Paul	35 (81.5%)	29 (74%)	5
Others	6	5	126
Root meaning	‘dirt wiped off in the act of cleansing’ = refuse, scum	‘dirt removed in the act of cleansing’ = refuse, scum
Extended meanings	misfortune/object of contempt/adverse circumstances/humility/humble service/servant	object of contempt/adverse circumstances/humility/humble service	object of contempt (foul language, 65%)/humility/self-abasement
Cultic/redemptive nuance?	Tob. 5.19; P.Mich. 8.473; Ignatius, Eph. 8.1; Hesychius, Lex. π; Origen, Hom. Jo. 6.55	LXX Prov. 21.18	Aristophanes, Archarneses 44; Harpocration, Lex. ο; Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα ϕ;
Connection to expulsion ritual before Photius/ΣB	none/once only very indirectly in Origen		none

1.

This research was conducted at the University of Oxford during a period of sabbatical leave and was funded by Kwansei Gakuin University and Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research of the Ministry of Education (MEXT). I express my great appreciation for the hospitality of the Oxford New Testament Seminar, and to Professors Marcus Bockmuehl, Robert Morgan, Christopher Tuckett and Christopher Rowland, for their support and valuable comments on the subject matter, and to Jeremiah Coogan for directing me to some important Egyptian texts.

2.

Stählin’s assumption on the signiﬁcance of the terms (see below) inﬂuenced not only biblical studies, but also other ﬁelds such as religious studies and history of religions (cf. Burkert 1979). See also n. 4.

3.

The study will consider Prov. 21.18 LXX, Tob. 5.19 and brieﬂy Ignatius, Eph. 8.1 and the Ostian Inscription.

4.

Lightfoot 1896: 138; Bernard 1903: III, 73; Windisch 1924: 198; Thyen 1970: 190-91. Barrett translates: ‘We have become as it were the world’s scapegoats’ (: 112).

5.

For a careful discussion, see : 139-65.

6.

It may be a transliteration of περίψημα, meaning ‘dirt’ or ‘wiping cloth’ (see : I, 479).

7.

Bagnall and Cribiore translate [π]ερίψημα ὑμῶν τὰ παρέλ[θ]οντα as ‘what happened has been wiped away (of us)’ (: 276). It is a literal but unsatisfactory translation. Thus, ‘our misfortune’.

8.

While Henri Valois simply used the transliterated term, as in the Vulgate, when he commented, ‘they became their peripsema as they departed from this life (cum aliorum peripsema effecti ex hac vita migrarent)’ (Valesius 1659: 269), an anonymous translator of Valois (: 128) took the liberty of translating the term as ‘the ransom and expiation’.

9.

Burkert 1979: 59-77; Brenner 1983: 299-320. Cf. : 1-32.

10.

Holmes 2007: 388-89. : III, 90, 97) therefore translates it as ‘devoted slave/slave devoted’ (4.9; 6.5).

11.

Le Bas and Waddington 1870: 569; : III, 1320; Curtis and Kirchhoff 1777: 468. For an alternative reading of the epitaph in Augusta, see Schmidt 1891: III, 1320.

12.

The only exceptions are Bolus, Περὶ συμπαθειῶν 2.2; Lucianus, Lexiphanes 10.20; Alexander, Problemata 1.113.13; 1.115.9 (for ἀντιψυχ- words) and Zenobius, Epitome 2.48.11; Polyaenus, Excerpta 52.7.6 (for ἀντιλυτρ- words).

13.

Fitzmyer translates, ‘Let my son not cling [to mon]ey, but (let it be for him) like’ (4QTob b) (DJD, XIX: 44-45).

14.

Or ‘Let the money be rubbish (thrown away)’ (: 17, 105).

15.

For other readings of the term, see : 136-37.

16.

The author of Hebrews may have alluded to it (13.12), although it is more likely that the verse refers to either the sacriﬁce of the red heifer (Num. 19.3), the custom of carrying sacriﬁcial carcasses outside the Temple precinct (Lev. 16.27) or the tradition of conducting an execution outside the city (Lev. 24.14). See Spicq 1953: II, 426; Lane 1991: 541; : 570.

17.

: 274: ‘The two he-goats of the Day of the Atonement … be equivalent in appearance, height, and value, and that they be purchased simultaneously’ (m. Yom. 6.1.A-C).

18.

See , especially chs. 11 and 12.

19.

On Photius’s love and respect for the apostle Paul, see White 1981: 61; : 470-652.

20.

Whether Photius readily agreed with Origen’s theology is a moot point, since Photius expresses a dislike of Origen (Bibliotheca cod. 8). Photius comments that Origen’s On the First Principle is full of blasphemy, absurdity, impiety, nonsense (Henry 1977: 8.9). This may be partly due to the Filioque controversy which concerned Photius greatly, as he was engaged in the mission in Hungary during his patriarchate (cf. : 30-31).

21.

See Kattenbusch 1911: 44-49; Treadgold 1980: 66 for negative views, and : 59 for a positive view on Photius.

22.

This is quite contrary to Allo who suggests that the cultic sense of the term was lost by the time of : 76).

23.

The shared deﬁnition of περίψημα contains a curious explanation which perplexes the historians (see Hughes 1991: 162-63). The seaward destination of the victim reminds one of the ritual in Leukas, but the victim there is a young man, not a criminal (Strabo, Geography 10.2.9). The textual evidence for the sacriﬁce to Poseidon shows that it was not an expulsion ritual. The victim of the sacriﬁce was usually a bull (or bulls) (Apollodorus, Library 2.5.7; Homer, Odyssey 1.23; Strabo, Geography 8.7.2; Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus 1485), and in the case of Athenian sacriﬁce to Poseidon, a ship (or ships) was sacriﬁced to the god of the sea (Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library 12.48.1; Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 2.84). A pre-Photius lexicon (fourth century ce) recently introduced by Pavlides () does not alter the decision on this section.

24.

Περικαθαρίζω appears three times in the LXX. It is used for the trimming of tree branches (Lev. 19.23), the cleansing of one’s heart (Deut. 30.6) and the wiping away of sins (Isa. 6.7). Cf. : 452.

25.

Aristophanes 1932: 88, n. 4. Henderson translates as ‘the sacred precinct’ (: 61).

26.

Thus, contra : 88-100.

27.

‘A ransom for the righteous man is the wicked and robbers a ransom for the upright’ (: V, 46). 4QProverbs is too fragmentary and does not contain Prov. 21.18. Cf. DJD, XVI: 181-86.

28.

Murphy 1988: 161-62. See also a sarcastic understanding by : 181.

29.

See variant readings of the LXX (23, 252, 297, cf. 106, 253) in : 354. It might be argued that ἀντί could mean ‘for’ (for רÌÉôÆø in 18a) rather than ‘instead of’ (for úÌÇçÇú in 18b), yet the prepositional construction seems to reﬂect the suggested decision.

30.

The Deuteronomic idea of divine vindication (see Deut. 32) may have been developed into the notion of the redemptive value of the suffering of the righteous. See Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 2009: 15; : 140.

31.

This does not exclude the possibility that the Gentile audience heard the echoes of the expulsion rituals in Paul (see Ben Ezra 2003: 165-76). While McLean uses evidence that reﬂects knowledge of the past (Harpocration, Lex. ϕ) to argue that the rituals were widely known until the third century ce, Conzelmann disregards Plutarch’s account (ﬁrst–second century ce) of an expulsion ritual (Quaest. conv. 6.8.1), concluding that the rituals were all unfamiliar customs of the ancient past. See McLean 1996: 104; : 90.

32.

Kleinknecht 1984: 55, 231-33. Without questioning the validity of Stähling’s assumption, he still prefers Lam. 3.45 as the background of 1 Cor. 4.13b. Cf. : 214-15.

33.

Aquila: λαλιὰν καὶ ἀτιμίαν ἔθηκας; Symmachus: κοπρίαν καὶ rejectamentum (Syro-Hex).

34.

This may be because it was difﬁcult to associate the expression in the LXX with Paul’s thought in 1 Cor. 4, and such HB passages as Ps. 22 and Isa. 53 were favoured by the primitive church for teaching on the effective death of Jesus. Based upon his knowledge of the Hebrew language, Jerome’s translation of Lam. 3.45 in the Vulgate is much closer to the MT.

References

Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt (John Chrysostom): Malingrey

A.-M.

(ed.), Jean Chrysostome: Sur la providence de Dieu (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961).

Archarnenses (Aristophanes): Wilson

Nigel G.

(ed.), Aristophanes Fabulae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Apostolic Fathers : Holmes

M.W.

(ed.), The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007).

Attika onomata (Aelius Dionysius): Erbse

Hartmut

(ed.), Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1950).

Chiliades (Tzetzes): Joanis Tzetzes, Βιβλίον ἱστορικῆς τῆς διὰ στίχων πολιτικῶν Ἄλφα δὲ καλουμένης (Leipzig: Sumplibus Fr. Chr. Guil. Volgelii, 1826).

Catenae : Cramer

John Anthony

(ed.), Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum (vol. 5; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1841).

Commentarii in evangelium Joannis (Origen): Blanc

Cecile

(ed.), Origène, commentaire sur saint Jean (5 vols.; Sources chrétiennes; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966–92).

Contra Celsum (Origen): Borret

Marcel

(ed.), Origène, Contre Celse (4 vols.; Sources chrétiennes; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967–69).

De adﬁnium vocabulorum differentia (Unknown lexicographer): Nickau

Klaus

(ed.), Ammonii qui dicitur liber de adﬁnium vocabulorum differentia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1966).

10.

Dissertationes ab Arriano (Epictetus): Schenkl

Henricus

(ed.), Epicteti dissertationes ab Arriano digestae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1894).

11.

Ecclesiaticae historiae (Eusebius): Valesius

Henricus

(ed.), Eusebii Pamphili, Ecclesiasticae historiae (Paris, 1659). English translation by an anonymous translator: Eusebius, The History of the Church et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1693).

12.

Epidemiae (Hippocrates): Littré

Émile

(ed.), Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocrate (Paris: Baillière, 1846).

13.

Fragmenta in epistulam i Corinthos (Severianus): Staab

(ed.), Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt (Münster: Aschendorff, 1933).

14.

Fragment 673a (Aristophanes): Edmonds

John Maxwell

(ed.), The Fragments of Attic Comedy (vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957).

15.

Geography (Strabo): Strabo, Geography (trans. Jones

H.L.

; vol. 10; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928).

16.

Hexapla : Field

Frederick

(ed.), Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (vol. 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875).

17.

Lexicon (Harpocration): Dindorf

Wilhelm

(ed.), Harpocrationis lexicon in decem oratores Atticos (vol. 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).

18.

Lexicon (Hesychius): Latte

Kurt

(ed.), Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon (vol. 1; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953); Mauricius Schmidt, Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965).

19.

Lexicon Homericum (Apollonius): Bekker

Immanuel

(ed.), Apollonii Sophistae lexicon Homericum (Berlin: Reimer, 1833).

20.

Onomasticon (Julius Pollux): Bethe

Erich

(ed.), Pollucis onomasticon (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1900, 1931).

21.

Oratones (Dio Chrysostom): von Arnim

Johannes

(ed.), Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia (vols. 1-2; Berlin: Weidman, 1893, 1896).

22.

Scholion in Aristophanem (Eq. 1136c) (Triclinius): Jones

D. Mervyn

Wilson

Nigel G.

(eds.), Prolegomena de comoedia: Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1969).

23.

Scholion in Aristophanem (in plutum) (Tzetzes): Positano

Lydia Massa

(ed.), Jo. Tzetzae commentarii in Aristophanem (Groningen: Bouma, 1960).

24.

Stromata (Clemens of Alexandria): Frühtel

(ed.), Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 17 (vols. 2, 3; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1960, 1970).

25.

Augusta in Carthage: Schmidt

Iohannes

(ed.), Corpus inscriptionum latinarum (Vol. 3; Berlin: Georgium Reimerum, 1891).

26.

Bath in Brixia: Hermann Dessau, Inscriptiones latinae selectae (vol. 2.1/3; Berlin: Weidmannsche, 3rd edn, 1955); Mommsen

Theodor

(ed.), Inscriptiones galliae cisalpinae latinae (CIL, 1; Berlin: Georgium Reimerum, 1872).

27.

House in Ostia: A.W. van Buren, ‘Epigraphica’, in Hadzsits

George D.

(ed.), Classical Studies in Honor of John C. Rolfe (Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1931): 315–19.

28.

Issiclaercui Near Smyrna: Curtis

Ernst

Kirchhoff

Adolph

(eds.), Inscriptionum graecarum (Berlin: Ofﬁcia Academia, 1777).

29.

Trachonitis in Syria: Le Bas

Philippe

Waddington

W.H.

(eds.), Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure (Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, 3.5 [Asie Mineure]; Paris: Librairie Firmin Didot Frères, 1870).

30.

Allo

E.-B.

1935 Saint Paul: Première épître aux Corinthiens (Ebib; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre).

31.

Aristophanes 1932 The Eleven Comedies (New York: Liveright).

32.

1998 Acharnians, Knights (CLC; trans. Henderson

; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

33.

Bagnall

Roger S.

Cribiore

Raffaella

2006 Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan).

34.

Barrett

C.K.

1968 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black).

35.

Ben

Ezra

Stökl

Daniel

2003 The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (WUNT, 1.163; Tübingen: Mohr).

36.

Bernard

J.H.

1903 ‘The Second Epistle to the Corinthians’, in Nicolle

(ed.), Expositor’s Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton): III, 1–119.

37.

Brenner

Jan

1983 ‘Scapegoat Ritual in Ancient Greece’, HSCP 87: 299–320.

38.

Brenton

Lancelot C.L.

1851 The Septuagint with Apocrypha (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons).

39.

Burkert

Walter

1979 Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley: University of California Press).

40.

Conzelmann

Hans

1975 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

41.

Cramer

J.A.

1841 Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum (vol. 5; Oxford: Oxford University Press).

42.

Cunningham

Ian C.

(ed.) 2003 Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων (Berlin: de Gruyter).

43.

Curtis

Ernst

Kirchhoff

Adolph

(eds.) 1777 Inscriptionum graecarum (Berlin: Ofﬁcia Academia).

44.

Dickey

Eleanor

2007 Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

45.

Eberhard

Alfred

1872 Fabulae romanenses graece conscriptae (vol. 1; Leipzig: Teubner).

46.

Eusebius 1693 The History of the Church et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

47.

Fee

Gordon D.

1987 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

48.

Field

Frederick

(ed.) 1875 Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (vol. 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press).

49.

Finlan

Stephen

2005 Problems with Atonement (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

50.

Fox

Michael V.

2009 Proverbs 10–31 (AYB, 18B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

51.

Gesenius

Wilhelm

. 1906 Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

52.

Hafemann

Scott J.

1990 Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

53.

Hansen

Peter A.

2005 Hesychius Alexandrianus (Berlin: de Gruyter).

54.

Hanson

Anthony

1982 ‘1 Corinthians 4^13b and Lamentations 3⁴⁵’, ExpTim 93: 214–15.

55.

Hauck

1965 ‘κάθαρός, κτλ’, in TDNT, III: 430–31.

56.

Healey

John F.

Cathcart

Kevin

Maher

Michael

McNamara

Martin

(eds.) 1991 The Aramaic Bible: The Targum of Job, The Targum of Proverbs, The Targum of Qohelet (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

57.

Henderson

(ed.) 1998 Aristophanes, Clouds. Wasps. Peace (LCL, 488; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

58.

Hengel

Martin

1981 The Atonement (trans. Bowden

John

; London: SCM Press).

59.

Henry

René

1977 Photius Bibliothèque (Collection Byzantine; Paris: Société d’Édition).

60.

Herrin

Judith

2007 Byzantium (London: Penguin).

61.

Holladay

William L.

1971 A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill).

62.

Holmes

Michael W.

(ed.) 2007 The Apostolic Fathers (trans. Holmes

M.W.

; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 3rd edn).

63.

Hughes

Dennis D.

1991 Human Sacriﬁce in Ancient Greece (London: Routledge).

64.

Hunger

Herbert

1978 Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung).

65.

Jones

D. Mervyn

Wilson

Nigel G.

(eds.) 1969 Prolegomena de comoedia: Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff).

66.

Joslyn-Siemiatkoski

Daniel

2009 Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs (New York: Macmillan).

67.

Kattenbusch

Ferdinand F.W.

1911 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (ed. Schaff

Philip

; vol. 9; New York: Funk & Wagnalls).

68.

Kleinknecht

Karl Theodor

1984 Der leidende Gerechtfertigte (WUNT, 13; Tübingen: Mohr).

69.

Koester

Craig R.

2001 Hebrews (AB, 36; New York: Doubleday).

70.

Kraft

Robert A.

1965 The Apostolic Fathers (vol. 3; trans. Kraft

R.A.

; New York: Thomas Nelson).

71.

Kraus

Hans-Joachim

1966 Psalmen (vol. 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Erziehungsvereins, 3rd edn).

72.

Lane

William L.

1991 Hebrews 9–13 (WBC, 47B; Waco, TX: Word Books).

73.

Le Bas

Philippe

Waddington

W.H.

(eds.) 1870 Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure (Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, 3.5 [Asie Mineure]; Paris: Librairie Firmin Didot Frères).

74.

Lemerle

Paul

1971 Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).

75.

Lightfoot

J.B.

1896 St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians (London: W.F. Draper).

76.

Littman

Robert J.

2008 The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (Leiden: Brill).

77.

Lyonnet

Stanislas

Sabourin

Léopold

1970 Sin, Redemption, and Sacriﬁce (Rome: Biblical Institute).

78.

Martin

Ralph P.

1986 2 Corinthians (WBC, 40; Waco, TX: Word Books).

79.

McLean

B. Hudson

1996 The Cursed Christ (JSNTSup, 126; Shefﬁeld: Shefﬁeld Academic Press).

80.

Mommsen

Theodor

(ed.) 1872 Inscriptiones galliae cisalpinae latinae (CIL, 1; Berlin: Georgium Reimerum).

81.

Moor

Carey A.

1996 Tobit (AB, 40A; New York: Doubleday).

82.

Muraoka

(ed.) 2009 A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters).

83.

Murphy

Roland E.

1988 Proverbs (WBC, 22; Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson).

84.

Nachmanson

1918 Erotiani vocum Hippocraticarum collectio cum fragmentis (Gothenburg: Eranos).

85.

Neusner

Jacob

1988 The Mishnah (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

86.

Nickau

Klaus

(ed.) 1966 Ammonii qui dicitur liber de adﬁnium vocabulorum diffrentia (Leipzig: Teubner).

87.

Oesterley

W.O.E.

1929 The Book of Proverbs (WC; London: Methuen).

88.

Papachryssanthou

1970 ‘Les sources grecques pour l’histoire des Pauliciens d’Asie Mineure’, Travaux et mémoires 4: 3–67.

89.

Pavlidou

Kleoniki

2005 Ein frühbyzantinisches Glossar zu den Briefen des Apostels Paulus: Handschriftliche Überlieferung und kritische Ausgabe (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Leichert Verlag).

90.

Rogers

Benjamin B.

(ed.) 1910 The Knights of Aristophanes (London: G. Bell & Sons).

91.

Schenkl

Henricus

1894 Epicteti dissertationes ab Arriano digestae (Leipzig: Teubner).

92.

Schmidt

Iohannes

(ed.) 1891 Inscriptionum Africae proconsularis latinarum supplementum (CIL, 3; Berlin: Georgium Reimerum).

93.

Schoedel

William R.

1985 Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

94.

Schrage

Wolfgang

1991 Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKK, 7; Zürich: Benziger & Neukirchener).

95.

Scott

R.B.Y.

1965 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (AB, 18; New York: Doubleday).

96.

Spicq

1953 L’Épitre aux Hébreux (vol. 2; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 2nd edn).

97.

Staab

1933 Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt (Münster: Aschendorf).

98.

Stählin

1969 περίψημα, in TDNT, VI: 84–93.

99.

Theodoridis

Christos

(ed.). 2013 Photii Patriarchae Lexicon (vol. 3; Göttingen: de Gruyter)

100.

Thiselton

Anthony C.

2000 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

101.

Thyen

Hartwig

1970 Studien zur Sündenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen und jüdischen Voraussetzungen (FRLANT, 96; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

102.

Treadgold

Warren T.

1980 The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies).

103.

Troy

Crawford H.

1899 The Book of Proverbs (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

104.

Tzantzanoglou

Kuriakos

1967 Τὸ Λεξικὸ τοῦ Φωτίου, Χρονολόγηση—Χειρόγραϕη Παράδοση (Thessalonike: Zeno).

105.

Tzetzes

Joanis

1826 Βιβλίον ἱστορικῆς τῆς διὰ στίχων πολιτικῶν Ἄλϕα δὲ καλουμένης (Leipzig: Sumplibus Fr. Chr. Guil. Volgelii).

106.

Valesius

Henricus

(ed.) 1659 Evsebii Pamphili, Ecclesiasticae historiae (Paris).

107.

van Buren

A.W.

1931 ‘Epigraphica’, in Hadzsits

George D.

(ed.), Classical Studies in Honor of John C. Rolfe (Freeport: Books for Libraries): 315–19.

108.

van Henten

Jan W.

1997 The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People (Leiden: Brill).

109.

Waltke

Bruce K.

2005 The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15–31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

110.

Westermann

Claus

1955 Gewendete Klage: Eine Auslegung des 22. Psalms (Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins).

111.

White

Despina Stratoudaki

1981 Patriarch Photios of Constantinople (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox).

112.

Windisch

Hans

1924 Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn).