Scythian Perspective or Elusive Chiasm: A Reply to Douglas A. Campbell

Scythian Perspective or Elusive Chiasm: A Reply to Douglas A. CampbellAuthor(s): Troy W. MartinSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 256-264Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561383 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 13:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:23:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561383?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SCYTHIAN PERSPECTIVE OR ELUSIVE CHIASM: A REPLY TO DOUGLAS A. CAMPBELL

by

TROY W. MARTIN Tiibingen

Two recent articles' address the problem of the couplet barbarian/Scythian in Col. 3:1 lb and agree that the traditional interpretation of this couplet as overlapping categories is unsatisfactory since the other couplets in this verse describe mutually exclusive categories such as Greek/Jew, circumcised/uncircumcised, and slave/free.2 Both articles concur that barbarian and Scythian should also be understood as mutually exclusive categories but propose quite different explanations of this exclusivity.

The earlier of the two articles criticizes the traditional interpretation for assuming a Greek perspective that includes Scythian in the category of barbarian. This article proposes instead that this couplet is antithetical and mutually exclusive if understood from a Scythian perspective since Scythians view all non-Scythians as barbarians. This article concludes that understanding barbarian and Scythian from a Scythian perspective permits this couplet to describe mutually exclusive categories in agreement with the other antithetical couplets in this verse.

The later article, written by Douglas A. Campbell, criticizes the traditional interpretation for failing to recognize the elusive chiastic structure of Col. 3:1 lb (128; cf. 121-126). This article proposes reading the last two couplets barbarian/Scythian and slave/free as a chiasm similar to the chiastic structure of the first two couplets Greek/Jew and circumcised/uncircumcised (127-128). According to the A-B-B-A structure, barbarian corresponds to free and Scythian corresponds to slave. Through a socio-historical approach, this article seeks to establish that

i I wish to thank Saint Xavier University for granting me a sabbatical and the Theological Faculties at Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tiibingen for hosting me and pro- viding research resources.

2 Troy W. Martin, "The Scythian Perspective in Col. 3:11," NovT 37 (1995) 249- 261; Douglas A. Campbell, "Unravelling Colossians 3:1 lb," JVTS 42 (1996) 120-132.

C Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Novum Testamentum XLI, 3



THE COUPLET BARBARIAN/SCYTHIAN IN COL. 3:11

Scythian means slave (129-132) and concludes that Scythian is opposed to barbarian "in terms of the social categories slave and free" (128).

In a subsequent short note, Campbell criticizes the Scythian perspective proposed by the earlier article as not "entirely plausible for a number of reasons."3 These reasons deserve a reply. First, Campbell claims the Scythian perspective limits the couplet to "a straightforward ethnic" antithesis that would not function plausibly in the audience of Col. 3:1 lb (83). The Scythian perspective, however, places no such limitation upon the couplet since the Cynic materials discussed in this article figuratively use this couplet to express a Scythian perspective. The

"straightforward ethnic" antithesis between barbarian and Scythian provides the basis for the figurative use of this couplet but does not exclude the figurative use. A recent monograph argues at length that Cynic Philosophy poses the problem at Colossae and explains how Col. 3:1 lb, interpreted from a Scythian perspective, functions plausibly in the over- all argument of this letter to the Colossian Christians.4

Second, Campbell argues that the Scythian perspective is implausi- ble because "presumably a genuinely Scythian perspective on all out- siders would be expressed in the appropriate indigenous dialect (to speak Greek contradicts the point!)" (83). Campbell's presumption is contra- dicted by the Cynic Epistles, which are written in Greek and never- theless present a Scythian perspective.5 Indeed, ps. Anacharsis writes his first letter, which consistently adopts a Scythian perspective, in Greek because he addresses the Athenians. Audience, not ethnic perspective, determines the language a multi-lingual speaker uses.

Third, Campbell asserts that the Scythian perspective does not explain the antithesis between barbarian and Scythian in Col. 3:1 lb since "[adp- Papog should be correlated with IciS60, both of which should oppose "EXrlv, for the slogan to work in true Cynic fashion" (83). Campbell's assertion assumes that the Cynic critique was limited to Greek civi- lization and idealized all barbarians. Even though this critique is most often directed against Greco-Roman culture, every culture fell under its purview. Ps. Diogenes describes the Persian kings in need of his

3 Douglas A. Campbell, "The Scythian Perspective in Col. 3:11: A Response to Troy Martin," NovT 39 (1997) 81-84, esp. p. 82.

Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empt Deceit Colossians as a Response to a Cynic Critique (JSNTS 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 195-200.

5 See Martin, "Scythian Perspective," 254-256.

257



TROY W. MARTIN

therapy to cure their luxurious lifestyle.6 Ps. Heraclitus criticizes the Persian custom of prostration and payment of homage.7 Responding to

King Darius' invitation to come to Persia, ps. Heraclitus declines saying, "All men who dwell on earth keep themselves from truth and from

practicing what is just. Because of their base folly, they cleave to insa- tiable desire and vainglory."8 Heraclitus does not expect to find better humans living in Persia than he finds in Greece. Cynics criticize both barbarian and Greek cultures for failing to realize the Cynic ideal life. When Cynics single out the Scythians as living a life according to

nature, they do not praise Scythian "barbarity" but the Scythian lifestyle, which corresponds to the Cynic ideal life.9 In contradiction to Campbell's assertion, therefore, CKi&;Nq cannot be correlated with pappapo; "for the slogan to work in true Cynic fashion" but must oppose this term as it does in Col. 3:1 lb. The Scythian perspective, therefore, does

explain the antithesis between barbarian and Scythian in Col. 3:1 lb.

Fourth, Campbell argues that the Scythian perspective is not plausible because it is "caught in a series of conundrums" since it requires a "Cynic reading of the couplet" but a Cynic reading requires "EXXiv to stand opposite cic6r(; or opposite p&appapoS (84). Campbell himself creates these conundrums by interpreting the couplet barbarian/Scythian from a Greek rather than a Scythian perspective. ' Only from a Greek

perspective, should "EXXlv oppose F'K-U&r or pdappapog; only from a Greek perspective, should TKci'Nr "be correlated with pdppapoS" (83-84). From a Scythian perspective, Kc9i<;S should oppose ap[papo; as it does in Col. 3:1 lb. Campbell's contention that the term Scythian "systemati- cally opposes "EXXnv or its equivalent" in Cynic materials and that

"consequently, we never see Scythian Cynics opposed to barbarians in the few pieces of literature written from that perspective and now extant" (83) is inaccurate. Ps. Anacharsis' first letter contrasts Scythians with others of foreign speech and specifically identifies these others not

only as Athenians but also as Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Persians."l Thus, a Cynic reading of the couplet instead of requiring "EXXlv to

6 Ep. 38.4; Abraham J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBLSBS 12; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1977) 162-163.

7 Ep. 8.1; Malherbe, Epistles, 206-207. 8 Ep. 2; Malherbe, Epistles, 188-189. 9 For a description of this life, see Troy W. Martin, "The Chronos Myth in Cynic

Philosophy," GRBS 38 (1997) 85-108. 10 Campbell's citation of Rom. 1:14, which articulates the Greek perspective, as anal-

ogous to Col. 3:11b, which articulates the Scythian perspective, demonstrates his interpretation of the later perspective in terms of the former. See p. 84 n. 9.

" Malherbe, Epistles, 36-39.

258



THE COUPLET BARBARIAN/SCYTHIAN IN COL. 3: II

stand opposite either ci0rli; or fpdfpapo; actually prohibits such a pair- ing. Neither this reading nor the Scythian perspective produces the conundrums Campbell creates.

Consequently, none of the reasons given by Campbell in his short note demonstrates the implausibility of the Scythian perspective. Instead, they demonstrate his misreading of this perspective in the Cynic materials and his insistence on interpreting Col. 3:11 b from the Greek

perspective. In this same short note, Campbell suggests that his own chiastic reading "manages to oppose barbarian and Scythian plausibly" and brings balance to "the four couplets in the series as a whole" (84). Both these suggestions also merit reply.

In his article "Unravelling Colossians 3.1 lb," Campbell contends that "an elusive chiasm" connects the third couplet barbarian/Scythian to the fourth couplet slave/free and permits barbarian to oppose Scythian in terms of the social categories slave and free (127-128). This chiasm, however, does not oppose Scythian and barbarian since both terms refer to barbarians as in the traditional interpretation, which Campbell criticizes. Instead, this chiasm opposes slave, modified by Scythian, and free, modified by barbarian. The opposition then is not between Scythian and barbarian but between "free barbarian and Scythian slave" (128).

Campbell astutely recognizes this problem with his explanation and

attempts to substantiate that the term c60iriq alone means slave. He asserts that ?cK-iOrS; "denoted slaves procured from the north of the Black Sea" (129) and concludes, "In sum, many races living to the north of the Black Sea were dubbed 'Scythians' in NT times, and any slaves procured from this general area were also therefore known, rather

loosely, as the same-and there were indeed many such 'Scythian' slaves in the first century CE" (130-131). His geographical location of the Scythians is correct, and there were Scythian slaves during this

period just as there were from every other ethnic group, although deter-

mining the prominence of slaves from a particular ethnic group is prob- lematic. What Campbell must substantiate, however, is whether slaves were "known, rather loosely, as" Kt960at.

Campbell cites four ancient authors to prove cicO6ij denotes slave. He begins with Plutarch's record that a slave named EciOr60 was pre-. sent at the murder of Pompey. This slave, however, may not even be a Scythian. His name could arise from the mythical tradition, where

SicOr;S is the son of Heracles, or from any number of other reasons.

Campbell himself notes that a slave could "derive the name from that of the trader" who sold him or her (131 n. 37) and that Scythians were slave traders (131 n. 36). Campbell then cites Dio Cassius' record that

259



TROY W. MARTIN

Antoninus had both Scythian and Celtic retainers and that some but not all were slaves. Dio Cassius only proves that some Scythians were slaves but does not prove that 1ci0l; denoted a slave any more than it proves that KeXxovs denoted a slave. After all, he would not need to add that some of these Scythians were slaves if lc6K0S meant slave. He would only need to specify that some of these Scythians surpris- ingly were free. Neither Plutarch nor Dio Cassius supports Campbell's claim that Iciv&r;S means slave.

Campbell next cites Strabo, who only locates the Scythians north of the Caspian Sea but does not refer to them as slaves, and Pliny, who also locates the Scythians in this region and then comments that these "base-born Scythians descended from slaves." Campbell interprets Pliny's comment as an "explicit reference to slaves under the general rubric of 'Scythian"' (130), but Pliny does not use Scythian as a general rubric to designate slaves. He slurs the Scythians by disparaging their igno- minious origin. Such slurs were common in ethnic rhetoric but do not

prove that an ethnic designation necessarily means slave. Neither Strabo nor Pliny substantiates Campbell's claim that c'6&nS ; correlates "socio-

historically with 'slave"' (131). In support of his claim that Kc9riN; means slave, Campbell also cites

some secondary literature. This literature, however, is no more persuasive than the primary literature. Indeed, this secondary literature is often less rigorous than Campbell in consulting primary sources. 0. Michel, for example, states, "In the Graeco-Rom. world the Scythian repre- sented a specific oriental slave-type located around the Black Sea."'2 The only evidence Michel gives for his statement is the unconvincing Plutarch text cited by Campbell. According to Campbell (122 n. 5; cf. n. 28), the source of the assertion that IK6TS; means slave in the sec-

ondary literature apparently derives from Mayor's comment, "Barbarian slaves were drawn in the main either from Western Asia (Lydians, Phrygians, Syrians, etc.) or from the tribes round the Black Sea, who were known by the generic name of Scythians."'3 Mayor's comment is

interesting both because it cites no primary sources and because it does not say that icG'rli; means slave. Mayor does not say there were barbarian slaves known as Scythians but that there were tribes generically known as Scythians around the Black Sea. Slaves were taken from these

12 "ZKfCi5K," 7TDJT 7.488. 13 RJ.G. Mayor, "Slaves and Slavery," in A Companion to Greek Studies (ed. Leonard

Whibley; Cambridge: University Press, 19062) 419. Since Mayor's work represents the source of much of the secondary literature Campbell cites, Campbell should have eval- uated the reliability of this source, which cites no primary texts.

260



THE COUPLET BARBARIAN/SCYTHIAN IN COL. 3: II

tribes just as they were from the Lydians, Phrygians, and Syrians, but these ethnic designations do not mean slave any more than Scythian does. Unless persuasive evidence is forthcoming, the secondary literature should not continue to perpetuate the mistaken claim that ZK6ci0 means slave or denotes a slave class. Neither the primary literature nor the secondary literature cited by Campbell substantiates such a claim.

Campbell's failure to substantiate that 9r{01l; alone means slave leaves only his "elusive chiasm" to oppose the terms barbarian and Scythian in Col. 3:1 lb. This chiasm is so "elusive" that it escapes the notice of

Joachim Jeremias, who recognizes the chiastic structure of Col. 3:11a but not 1 lb, as well as of Ian H. Thomson, who does not mention this chiasm in his recent study of Pauline chiasmus.'4 The problem with chiasmus is that ancient authors neither define nor discuss this figure, and Thomson recognizes that even now "an adequate methodology for

identifying, verifying and using chiasmus as an exegetical tool has yet to emerge."15

Campbell complicates this problem by proposing successive chiasms in Col. 3:1 lb with the structure A-B-B-A-C-D-D-C, which include eight different terms. Indeed, the chiasm of Greek/uncircumcision andJew/cir- cumcision in the first half of the series gives Campbell "critical information for reading the second half of the series in v. 1 lb" as a chiasm

(128). Unfortunately, Campbell provides no other examples of such a double chiasm. Both Jeremias and Thomson investigate some compli- cated chiasms, but neither discusses a double chiasm. Even if examples of such a chiasm were produced, the warrant for a double chiasm in Col. 3:11 still requires demonstration. Thomson explains, "As a general rule, the greater the number of objective balances of vocabulary and

syntax in potentially corresponding elements, the more likely there is to be an authentic chiasmus present.""6 The lack of objective balance between barbarian and free as well as between Scythian and slave casts considerable doubt on Campbell's proposed double chiasm. His failure to substantiate that iac&60; alone means slave and that barbarian lexi-

cally corresponds to free indicates that this chiasm may be "a product of the commentator's ingenuity, artificially imposed upon the text."'7

" Joachim Jeremias, "Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen," ZNW 49 (1958) 146. Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (JSNTS 111; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Thomson does mention other passages in Colossians.

15 Thomson, Chiasmus, 22. 16 Thomson, Chiasmus, 33. " Thomson, Chiasmus, 34.

261



TROY W. MARTIN

Thus, Campbell's suggestion in his short note that his chiastic read-

ing "manages to oppose barbarian and Scythian plausibly" is difficult to accept (84). He fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that Ci;r0iq means slave and that Col. 3:1 lb is structured chiastically. His further suggestion in this short note that his chiasm brings balance to "the four couplets in the series as a whole" is also difficult to accept since the balance he claims is marred by two imbalances (84).

First, Campbell designates both nouns in the second couplet as

inversely modifying the nouns in the first couplet. The antithesis in both these couplets is between "circumcised Jew and uncircumcised Greek" (127-128). Even though the fourth couplet contains two adjectives, Campbell does not similarly designate these adjectives as inversely modifying the nouns in the third couplet. Instead, he designates slave, the first term in the fourth couplet, as a substantivized adjective modified

by ?KDi6S;, the second noun in the third couplet. Then he identifies

fiee, the second term in the fourth couplet, as an adjective modifying barbarian in the third couplet. The antithesis in these couplets is between "free barbarian and Scythian slave" (128). His inconsistent designation of nouns as modifiers and adjectives as nouns mars the balance he claims his chiastic reading brings to the couplets in Col. 3:11.

Campbell defends his designation by assuming that the four couplets in Col. 3:11 contain only two contrasts (126) as "in the closely parallel texts" in 1 Cor. 7:17-24; 9:20-22; 12:13 and Gal. 3:28, where "an initial contrast betweenJew and Greek (in a baptismal context) is always

followed by another contrast between slave and free (not between Greek and

barbarian)" (124). His limitation of the four couplets in Col. 3:11 to

only two contrasts found in the baptismal tradition is methodologically unsound. He cites Gal. 3:28 as "closely parallel" to Col. 3:11 but cor- rectly recognizes that Gal. 3:28 adds a third contrast male/female to the two traditional ones. He explains Paul's addition of this third contrast by saying that the baptismal tradition was "deployed by Paul with some flexibility in terms of the actual epistolary situation" (121). Campbell does not explain why Paul could flexibly add a third contrast in Gal. 3:28 but the Colossian author could not exercise a similar flexibility by adding a third or fourth contrast in Col. 3:11. Furthermore, the two traditional baptismal contrasts in 1 Cor. 7:17-24 occur in the context of other contrasts such as married and unmarried as the epistolary situation requires. The influence of the epistolary situation on the use of these contrasts is clearly indicated by Rom. 1:14, 16, where the con- trastJew/Greek is preceded, not followed, by the contrasts Greek/barbarian and wise/foolish, but the contrast slave/free does not occur at

262



THE COUPLET BARBARIAN/SCYTHIAN IN COL. 3:II

all. This passage demonstrates that the contrasts Greek/Jew and bar-

barian/Scythian in Col. 3:11 are a viable combination and that the contrast barbarian/Scythian should not be forced into a slave/free contrast as Campbell does.

The balance Campbell claims his chiastic reading provides is further marred because his reading, similar to the traditional interpretation he

criticizes, distinguishes the third couplet from the other couplets in the series. Maintaining a Greek perspective, Campbell does not interpret barbarian/Scythian as describing inherently exclusive categories, since both terms for him refer to barbarians. In his opinion, a Scythian is a barbarian, and a barbarian could be a Scythian. The terms in the other couplets, however, are mutually exclusive. A Greek is not a Jew. A circumcised person is not an uncircumcised person. A slave is not a free person. These couplets describe mutually exclusive categories even

apart from their placement in the series in Col. 3:1 lb. In contrast, the

couplet barbarian/Scythian does not describe exclusive categories accord-

ing to Campbell's interpretation. Maintaining the same Greek perspective toward Scythians and barbarians as the traditional interpretation, Campbell's chiastic reading confirms rather than removes the traditional imbalance of this third couplet in relation to the other couplets in Col. 3:11.

Thus, Campbell's suggestion that his chiastic reading brings balance to the four couplets as well as his suggestion that his reading manages to oppose barbarian and Scythian plausibly is not persuasive. Attempt- ing to unravel Col. 3:1 lb, Campbell's own chiastic reading unravels. The

Scythian perspective is not only more plausible but also more proba- ble than his "elusive chiasm." The Scythian perspective better explains the mutually exclusive categories of barbarian and Scythian in Col. 3:1 lb and provides the balance between this couplet and the other

couplets in this verse that Campbell seeks. Furthermore, the Scythian perspective is confirmed by primary sources whereas Campbell's "elusive chiasm" lacks such confirmation. Most importantly, the Scythian perspective supports, in Campbell's own words, "the exciting scenario of Cynics fomenting unrest at Colossae."'8 This perspective provides a socio-historical proof for this scenario that strengthens the linguistic and

exegetical proofs for Cynic opponents that a recent monograph on Colossians provides.'9

18 Campbell, "Scythian Perspective," 84.

19 Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, passim.

263



264 TROY w. MARTIN

The differences between the two recent articles explaining the couplet barbarian/Scythian in Col. 3:1 lb should not obscure their significant agreement that the traditional interpretation of this couplet as describ-

ing overlapping categories is unsatisfactory. These articles represent a watershed in the tradition, and future exegetes should interpret barbarian and Scythian as mutually exclusive categories. The exegetical issue then becomes whether an "elusive chiasm" or the Scythian perspective better

explains this couplet.



Documents

Scythian Perspective or Elusive Chiasm: A Reply to Douglas A. Campbell