The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11

The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11Author(s): Troy MartinSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 37, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 249-261Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561223 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 10:37

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 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:37:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561223?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


THE SCYTHIAN PERSPECTIVE IN COL 3:11

by

TROY MARTIN

Chicago

The pairing of barbarian and Scythian in Col 3:11 poses difficult exegetical problems. Each of the other pairs in this verse describe mutually exclusive categories such as Greek/Jew, circumcised/uncircumcised, and slave/free. In the opinion of many exegetes, the categories of barbarian and Scythian are not mutually exclusive but overlapping.' In Greco-Roman literature, Scythians are either hailed as the noblest or the most backward of barbarians.2 In either assessment, the term Scythian belongs to the category of barbarian according to the dominant usage of the terms from a Greek perspective.

Petr Pokorny concludes, "The next couple of terms is not an antithesis but an escalation: barbarian-Scythian" (Colossians [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991] 170). Peter T. O'Brien observes, "The list of terms overlaps somewhat. 'Barbarian' and 'Scythian' are not contrasted like 'Greek' and 'Jew,' or 'bond- man' and 'freeman.' Rather, they stand over against 'Greek' when the latter is used in its cultural sense" (Colossians, Philemon [Word Biblical Commentary 44; Waco: Word, 1982] 193).

2 The positive assessment of Scythians considers them to be a simple, nomadic

people living apart from the ills that afflicted Greco-Roman civilization. Strabo

says, "In fact, even now there are Wagon-dwellers and Nomads, so called, who life off their herds, and on milk and cheese ... and know nothing about storing up food or about peddling merchandise either, except the exchange of wares for wares. How, then, could the poet be ignorant of the Scythians.... Homer called 'most just' and 'proud' those who by no means spend their lives on contracts and

money-getting but actually possess all things in common except sword and

drinking-cup, and above all things have their wives and children in common, in the Platonic way" (Geog. 7.3.7; Horace Leonard Jones, The Geography of Strabo

[LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961] 3.196-199). The Cynics adopt this view and closely identify with the Scythians as the Cynic epistles attributed to the Scythian Anacharsis demonstrate (Abraham J. Malherbe, The

Cynic Epistles [SBLSBS 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986] 36-51). The negative assessment, however, dominates the Greco-Roman literature. This view considers the Scythians as a crude, ferocious, and inhuman people. Accordingly, Scythians become the lowest of barbarians in the estimation of almost all Greeks. For the numerous references, see Otto Michel ("Ex607i," TDNT 7.448).

Novum Testamentum XXXVII, 3 ? E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1995



TROY MARTIN

The exegetical tradition attempts to resolve the problems of this

pairing of barbarian and Scythian in two different ways.3 The first

approach considers Scythian within the category of barbarian.4

Depending upon the assessment of Scythian as a pejorative or a

positive reference, the term Scythian is understood as an example of the worse or noblest type of barbarian.5 The chief argument for this approach is that it maintains the common meanings of barbarian and Scythian. The chief defect in this approach is that the

pair barbarian/Scythian is not congruent with the other pairs since it does not depict mutually exclusive categories.

The second approach considers barbarian and Scythian as exclusive geographical or racial categories. Geographically, barbarian refers to peoples that live in the South while Scythian refers to peoples that live in the North.6 Racially, barbarian refers to the black race; Scythian to the white race.7 The strongest argument for this approach is that it makes the pair barbarian/Scythian con-

gruent with the other pairs in this list of exclusive categories. The

3 Michel comments, "It is hard to say whether ExiuOrl is simply an outstanding example of a barbarian people or whether &appapog and Exuir0g are meant to differ from one another culturally, geographically, and racially" ("xu6OrSg," 7.449).

4 Eduard Lohse comments, "The words 'barbarian' and 'Scythian' which follow in the series, are no longer juxtaposed to one another antithetically but are an enumerative continuation of the series.... The Scythians are cited as an

especially strange kind of barbarian" (Colossians and Philemon [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971] 144).

5 Pejorative interpretations like those of J.B. Lightfoot and Otto Michel prevail

among commentators. Lightfoot explains, "The Apostle offers the full privileges of the Gospel to barbarians and even barbarians of the lowest type" (St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [London: Macmillan, 1875; reprint, Zonder- van Commentary Series; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979] 216-217). Michel says, "The obvious meaning is that even the offence which a Scythian must give to natural sensibility is overcome by the baptism of the Messiah Jesus" ("Ex6u0n," 7.450).

6 Arguing that the list of Greeks, Jews, barbarians, and Scythians represents

the nations in the four quarters of the Greco-Roman world, J.A. Bengel suggests that the barbarians are the most southerly of uncivilized peoples and the Scythians the most northerly (Gnomon Novi Testamenti [Tibingen: J.G.P. Schrammi, 1742; ET, Gnomon of the New Testament, Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1860] 2.468- 469). However, he does not place Scythian and barbarian in completely exclusive categories but prefers to understand Scythian as an intensified subcategory of barbarian.

7 Theodor Hermann builds upon Bengel's suggestion and intimates that the contrast may be between the white Scythians and the black barbarians of Somalia or Ethiopia ("Barbar und Skythe. Ein Erklarungsversuch zu Kol 3, 11," Theologische Bldtter 9 [1930] 106-107).

250



SCYTHIAN PERSPECTIVE

most serious flaw in this approach is that it restricts the meaning of barbarian to peoples living on the southern side of the Mediterra- nean Sea.8 Although these peoples are indeed referred to as bar-

barians, barbarians live in all directions of the Mediterranean world.9 Furthermore, cultural and especially linguistic criteria determine the category of barbarian more than geographical or racial criteria.'0

Both of these basic approaches in the exegetical tradition assume a Greek perspective in the interpretation of the pair bar-

barian/Scythian.1' This perspective causes the first approach to

deny the pair refers to mutually exclusive categories even though the immediate context requires such an understanding. This

perspective induces the second approach to adopt untenable restric- tions upon the meanings of the two terms. Both approaches are defective because they rely upon a Greek perspective for their inter-

pretation of the pair, and neither of these basic approaches is able to resolve the exegetical problems associated with the pairing of barbarian with Scythian in Col 3:11 because they operate from this Greek perspective. A new approach is needed that permits the

perspective of the text to emerge. The following interpretation attempts such an approach.

An interpretation of this third pair of categories should begin with the recognition that this pair does not necessarily reflect a

8 Eduard Schweizer critiques the suggestions by Bengel and Hermann when he

says, "To take this to indicate four nations set in the west, east, south, and north

respectively is difficult, in spite of the fact that the expression 'barbarian' is occa-

sionally applied to Africans. The word rather denotes anyone who is a non-Greek; and for the west, the Romans would be more obvious than the Greeks. Thus it is hardly a racial contrast between black and white that the writer has in mind here" (The Letter to the Colossians [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982] 199). Schweizer is correct except for his understanding of barbarian as exclusively a non-Greek.

9 The ancient authors who describe these peoples as barbarians do not restrict the term to these peoples.

10 Strabo states, "I suppose that the word 'barbarian' was at first uttered

onomatopoetically in reference to people who enunciated words only with dif-

ficulty and talked harshly and raucously, like our words 'battarizein....' Those, therefore, they called barbarian in the special sense of the term at first derisively, meaning that they pronounced words thickly or harshly; and then we misused the word as a general ethnic term, thus making a logical distinction between the Greeks and all other races" (Geog. 14.2.28; Jones, Strabo, 6.302-305). Lightfoot correctly comments, "The word pappapoS properly denoted one who spoke an inarticulate, stammering, unintelligible language" (Colossians, 217).

1 Hans Windisch states, "We are thus forced to explain the formula [barbarian/Scythian] in relation to p3ppapoS/"EEXXlv" ("3appapoS," TDNT 1.553). All commentators adopt this incorrect assumption.

251



TROY MARTIN

Greek perspective since this pairing of barbarian and Scythian occurs third in a list of pairs that does not maintain a consistently Greek perspective. The first pair in the list reflects a Jewish point of view. 2 Ever since their incorporation into the Greek empire, the

Jews perceived non-Jews as Greeks.'3 If this first pair were to articulate a Greek perspective, the contrast would be between Greek and barbarian instead of Greek and Jew. The second pair in the list also adopts a distinction primarily important for the Jews.14 Since the list does not develop a Greek point of view in the first two

pairs, the Greek perspective should not be assumed for the third

pair of barbarian/Scythian either.'5 An interpretation of this third pair of categories should also rec-

ognize this pair describes mutually exclusive categories.16 The exclusive nature of both the two preceding pairs of Greek/Jew and circumcised/uncircumcised and the following pair of slave/free

12 Joachim Gnilka observes, "Das erste Gegensatzpaar gliedert die Menschheit vom judischen Standpunkt aus" (Der Kolosserbrief [HTKNT 10.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1980] 190). O'Brien explains, "It was necessary for Paul to underscore the abolition of the distinction between Jew and Gentile in the light of the Jewish stamp of the teaching he was countering" (Colossians, 192). O'Brien correctly recognizes the Jewish perspective reflected in the first pair, but he incorrectly assesses its relevance. The opponents at Colossae did not bear aJewish stamp. For substantiation of this assertion, see my forthcoming monograph entitled "By Phi- losophy and Empty Deceit": Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique.

13 Pokorny asserts, "The Gentile world is described as 'Greek'-a metonymy for the entire culture, its value system, and its religious milieu" (Colossians, 169). See also T.K. Abbott (Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1968] 285).

14 Gnilka notes, "Dem religiosen Gegensatz beider Gruppen ist das zweite Paar, ganz judisch empfunden, gewidmet" (Kolosserbrief, 190).

'5 Gnilka correctly observes the contrast in viewpoints between the first and the third pairs of categories. He states, "Charakteristisch fur diese Aufreihungen ist die latente Spannung, die zwischen den Gegensatzen Grieche-Jude einerseits und (Grieche-) Barbar andererseits besteht. Der erste is jidisch, der zweite helle- nistisch" (Kolosserbrief, 191). Although he correctly observes there is a contrast between the perspectives of the pairs, he incorrectly identifies the second as a Greek perspective.

16 A number of commentators argue that the author cannot contrast barbarian with Greek because he already used Greek to contrast Jew (Norbert Hugede, Com- mentaire de l'Epitre aux Colossiens [Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1968] 178 n. 83; and A.S. Peake, The Epistle to the Colossians [Expositor's Greek Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990] 3.540). The argument that this third pair cannot maintain exclusive categories because the author has already used the term "Greek" begs the question of why the author mentions barbarian at all. Three pairs are enough to make the point as Gal 3:28 demonstrates.

252




argues for such a conclusion.'7 Furthermore, the author lists these

pairs in order to affirm that Christ breaks down divisions.

Minimizing the disjunctive categories of Scythian and barbarian minimizes the potency of Christ's work in a passage designed to

emphasize this potency. Therefore, this pair should be interpreted as referring to mutually exclusive categories.

The exegetical problem now rests upon the meaning of the term barbarian. The Greeks employ the term to refer to non-Greek speaking peoples, and this meaning becomes overwhelmingly dominant. However, the meaning of this term depends upon the perspective of the person who uses it. In 1 Cor 14:11, Paul explains, "But if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a barbarian to the speaker, and he a barbarian to me." The meaning of the term barbarian is relative and based upon the linguistic perspective of the speaker.18 The Maccabean author describes the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator as "barbarian hordes."19 Thus, the term does not always refer to non-Greeks; it can be used by non-Greeks to refer to the Greeks.20

When the terms barbarian and Scythian are paired as they are in Col 3:11, only the Scythian perspective permits them to be understood as mutually exclusive categories. From a Scythian viewpoint, the term barbarian means anyone who is a non-

Scythian. This perspective is attested in the traditions concerning

17 Hermann states, "Diese Auslegung behauptet aber etwas, was noch des Nachweises bedarf: daig 3&ppfapoS und Exu60rS Gegensatzliches meint. Es sollte

wenigstens ein solches sein. Denn da die beiden ersten Paare und das vierte schroffe Gegensatze: den nationalen, religiosen und sozialen bezeichnen, so durfen fur das dritte, das mitteninne steht, auch Antitheta als Glieder erwartet werden" ("Barbar," 106).

18 Strabo says, "The fact is, however, that through our long acquaintance and intercourse with the barbarians this effect was at last seen to be the result, not of a thick pronunciation or any natural defect in the vocal organs, but of the peculiarities of their several languages.... as is also the case with us in speaking their languages" (Geog. 14.2.28; Jones, Strabo, 6.304-305).

19 See 2 Macc 2:21. Of course, the numerous foreign mercenaries in these armies could also explain this reference. In two other instances, however, the Maccabean author considers Greek practices to be more barbaric than Scythian practices. See 2 Macc 4:47 and 3 Macc 7:5. Andreas Lindemann comments, "Die aus jiidischer Sicht bestehende Scheidung der Menschheit in zwei Gruppen- 'Griechen', d.h. Nicht-Juden auf der einen, Juden auf der anderen Seite-ist

beseitigt" (Der Kolosserbrief [Zircher Bibelkommentare NT 10; Zurich:

Theologischer Verlag, 1983] 58). 20 Windisch correctly notes, "The Hellene is a 'barbarian' to the non-Hellenes,

as was Ovid to the 'barbarian' Getae" ("ap3papoS," 1.551).

253



TROY MARTIN

Scythia and especially concerning Anacharsis, a Scythian prince who visited Greece in the sixth century BCE. These traditions place non-Scythian speech and customs into the barbarian category. From a Scythian perspective, even Greeks are included in this

category. A number of epistles attributed to Anacharsis are preserved in

the Cynic Epistles. In a letter to the Athenians, Ps.-Anacharsis

remonstrates, "You laugh at my speech, because I do not pro- nounce the Greek sounds clearly. In the opinion of the Athenians, Anacharsis speaks incorrectly, but in the opinion of the Scythians, the Athenians do.'"21 This quotation illustrates that the Scythian perspective is just as capable as the Greek perspective of

establishing an exclusive category based upon one's mother tongue. Nevertheless, Anacharsis argues that articulate speech is a poor criterion upon which to divide humanity. Instead, he contends that intention and action provide better criteria and that moral

categories are better than the arbitrary category of proper speech.22 At the conclusion of his letter, Ps.-Anacharsis reverses the Greek

understanding of barbarian by asserting that employment of the criterion of proper speech as the Greeks do is the concern of uneducated and ignorant people.23

In a letter addressed to Solon, Ps.-Anacharsis adopts the Greek

perspective in order to criticize the Greek category of barbarian. Since wisdom and stupidity are the same for both Greeks and bar-

barians, he reasons, the classifications of Greek and barbarian are

inadequate and result in incorrect judgments about people. Ps.- Anacharsis uses his own experience of initial rejection by Solon because Solon considered him a barbarian as an illustrative proof to clinch his argument. Solon's initial refusal to offer hospitality is characteristic of a barbarian, not a civilized Greek. A Scythian like Anacharsis is able to comprehend and critique the arbitrary discrimination implied by the Greek category of barbarian.

In a letter to Croesus, last king of Lydia, Ps.-Anacharsis warns Croesus of the danger of adopting the Greek practice of private

21 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 1; Malherbe, Epistles, 36-37. 22 In a second letter, he argues that since wisdom and stupidity are the same

for both Greeks and barbarians, moral and immoral behavior should be the

categories used to differentiate human beings from one another instead of the

arbitrary categories of Greek and barbarian (Ep 2; Malherbe, Epistles, 38-39). 23 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 1; Malherbe, Epistles, 38-39.

254




possessions. He describes this practice as a foreign thing [&XX6rptov] that afflicts almost all humans and occasions many evils.24 In contrast to the foreign practice of the Greeks and most humans, Ps.- Anacharsis states, "But the Scythians have stood apart from all of these things. All of us possess the whole earth. What it freely gives, we accept. What it hides, we dismiss from our minds."25 He

explains that Solon, the Athenian, had tried to communicate the same truth to Croesus but Solon oculd not speak openly [avwtxpus] because he was not a Scythian.26 Ps.-Anacharsis expresses a

Scythian perspective that assumes the mutually exclusive categories of Scythian and non-Scythian. From this perspective, whatever is

non-Scythian is foreign even if it originates from the Greeks. Clement of Alexandria quotes Anacharsis as saying, "All the

Greeks speak Scythian to me (eLoi 8 78Iavte "EXXrnive axuOt0ouatv]."27 In this quotation, Anacharsis uses a disparaging verb to characterize the Greeks. The Greeks created the verb axu0txo from the noun Exu6071 [Scythian] in order to describe

anyone who acts or talks in a degraded manner like the Scythians. As a Scythian, Anacharsis views the speech and customs of the Greeks to be just as barbaric as the Greeks view the speech and customs of the Scythians.

Lucian's dialogue between Anacharsis and Solon on the topic of athletics illustrates this principle. Throughout this dialogue, Anacharsis misunderstands and ridicules the activities of the Greek athletes as insanity. Solon replies to Anacharsis:

It is only natural, Anacharsis, that what they are doing should have that

appearance to you, since it is unfamiliar and very much in contrast with Scythian customs. In like manner you yourselves probably have much in your education and training which would appear strange to us Greeks if one of us should look in

upon it as you are doing now.28

24 Ps.-Anacharsis relates to Croesus, "I have heard that this evil which befalls most men has befallen you, too. From this evil, others follow. For neither great wealth nor possessions of fields has ever brought wisdom. For, it is said, those per- sons whose bodies are filled with many foreign things will also be filled with diseases" (Ep 9; Malherbe, Epistles, 46-47).

25 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 9; Malherbe, Epistles, 49-50. 26 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 9; Malherbe, Epistles, 50-51. 27 Stromata 1.16; William Wilson, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Ante-

Nicene Christian Library 4; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880) 1.403. 28 Lucian, Anacharsis 6; A.M. Harmon, Lucian (LCL 162; Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1969) 4.6-7.

255



TROY MARTIN

Solon's reply operates from the same principle as Anacharsis'

quotation. Greeks appear to Scythians as Scythians appear to Greeks. What one considers strange and foreign depends upon one's native perspective.

A letter of Ps.-Diogenes to the "so-called" Greeks inverts the Greek perspective and adopts the Scythian one in order to castigate the Greeks. At the beginning of this letter, Ps.-Diogenes calls down a plague upon the so-called Greeks. At the end of his letter, he reiterates his imprecation to the Greeks, "I call a plague on you real barbarians, until you learn in the Greek way and become true Greeks."29 His description of the true Greeks indicates that he is

referring to the Scythians.30 From this Scythian perspective, Ps.-

Diogenes classifies the Scythians as true Greeks and the Greeks as real barbarians.

Understanding the pairing of barbarian and Scythian from a

Scythian perspective rather than a Greek perspective resolves the

exegetical problems of Col 3:11. Everyone who does not speak Scythian is a barbarian to the Scythian. This perspective permits the pair of barbarian/Scythian to be interpreted along with the other pairs in this list as a mutually exclusive category. This

perspective is attested in the traditions about Scythia that illustrate a relationship between barbarian and Scythian similar to the one in Col 3:11. The Colossian author affirms that Christ obliterates the

barbarian/Scythian pair of divisive cultural categories along with the other pairs of exclusive classifications listed in this verse.

Even though this Scythian perspective resolves the exegetical problems associated with the pairing of barbarian with Scythian in

29 Ps.-Diogenes, Ep 28.8; Malherbe, Epistles, 124-125.

30 Ps.-Diogenes states, "Those who are called Greeks were against the bar-

barians, while the barbarians think it necessary only to protect their own land, since they are content with what they have" (Ps.-Diogenes, Ep 28.8; Malherbe, Epistles, 124-125). The context of this statement and the Greek attack upon Scythia in 325 BCE indicate that he is referring specifically to Scythians. Ps.-Diogenes affirms the servitude of both Greeks and barbarians to popular opinion and conse- quently places both Greeks and barbarians in the same category (Ep 7.1; Malherbe, Epistles, 98-99). However, Cynic tradition portrays the Scythians as a race that lives the undeluded Cynic lifestyle. Ps.-Anacharsis writes to Croesus, "But the Scythians have stood apart from all of these things. All of us possess the whole earth. What it freely gives, we accept. What it hides, we dismiss from our minds. We protect our cattle against wild beasts, and in return receive milk and cheese. We have weapons, not to attack other people, but to defend ourselves, if it should be necessary" (Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 9; Malherbe, Epistles, 48-51).

256




Col 3:11, it raises the question of why the Colossian author adopts this perspective and deviates from the more common barbarian/Greek dichotomy.3' Recent investigations of Colossians that locate the Colossian opponents within certain Hellenistic

philosophical traditions suggest that an answer to this question may be found in these traditions. Eduard Schweizer examines

Pythagorean philosophy as the primary background for the

opponents. He states, "Hence we may conclude that the movement in Colossae was probably a kind of Pythagorean philosophy, embellished with rites borrowed from both Hellenistic mystery religions and Judaism. "32 He presents an epitome of his investiga- tion in his Colossian commentary.33 In a recent monograph, Richard DeMaris hails Schweizer's work as a "bona fide" alternative to previous approaches and accords philosophy a larger por- tion in the syncretistic background of the opponents than do

previous scholars.34 Nevertheless, DeMaris rejects Schweizer's identification of the philosophy as Pythagorean in favor of Middle Platonism.35

Neither Schweizer's Pythagoreanism nor DeMaris' Middle Platonism, however, provides an explanation for the Scythian perspective of Col 3:11. Nevertheless, these recent investigations suggest the importance of the philosophical background of the Col- ossian opponents for explaining a number of features in the Colos-

31 Michel suggests, "The name xx6UrOS is mentioned separately because of the

peculiar relations at Colossae" ("Exuj7Og," 7.449-450). His suggestion is correct, but unfortunately his explanation of these "peculiar relations" is unsatisfactory. His explanation that the Scythian is the worst type of barbarian does not preserve the dichotomy between the terms barbarian and Scythian.

32 Eduard Schweizer, "The Background of Matthew and Colossians," Jews, Greeks, and Christians (ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs; Leiden:

E.J. Brill, 1976) 255. 33 Schweizer, Colossians, 125-134. 34 DeMaris provides a current history of research on these proposals (The Colos-

sian Controversy [JSNTSup 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994] 18-40). He systematizes prior studies into five distinct approaches: Jewish Gnosticism, Gnostic Judaism, Mystical Judaism, Hellenistic Syncretism, and Hellenistic Phi-

losophy (Controversy, 38-39). He credits Lightfoot with establishing Judaism and Gnosticism as the parameters for the first four approaches and praises Schweizer for providing a fifth alternative to the previous suggestions (Controversy, 18-19, 88). DeMaris himself should be commended for organizing these diverse and varied

proposals into a coherent, comprehensible system. 35 DeMaris concludes, "Hence, the Colossian philosophy appears to be a

distinctive blend of popular Middle Platonic, Jewish, and Christian elements that cohere around the pursuit of wisdom" (Controversy, 17).

257



TROY MARTIN

sian letter. Of all the philosophical traditions, Cynic philosophy best explains the adoption of the Scythian perspective in Col 3:11. In particular, two aspects of Cynic thought significantly contribute to this explanation.

First, the Cynics distinguish themselves from the rest of deluded

humanity by identifying with the Scythians. The Cynic materials cited above assume the Scythian/barbarian dichotomy as analogous to the Cynic/deluded humanity dichotomy so essential to the Cynic self-conception. Other materials also assume this analogy and relate

Cynics to Scythians in dress and in living a life free from cultural constraints. Ps.-Anacharsis writes to Hanno:

For me, a Scythian cloak serves as my garment, the skin of my feet as my shoes, the whole earth as my resting place....Therefore, since I am free from those things for which most people sacrifice their leisure, come to me, if you need anything of mine.36

He writes to the son of a king:

...you are a slave, but I am free. And you have many enemies, but I have none. But should you be willing to throw away your money, to carry bows and a quiver, and to live as a free citizen with the Scythians, then these same conditions will obtain for you, too.37

This Cynic identification with Scythians is not surprising since the

Scythians derived their way of life from Exiu60S, the son of Heracles, and the Cynics look to Heracles as the patron saint of their way of life.38 Thus, the Cynics identify with the Scythians and use this identification to distinguish themselves from the rest of humanity.

If the Colossian opponents share this aspect of Cynic thought, the analogy of Scythian and Cynic provides an explanation for the Colossian author's selection of the dichotomy barbarian/

Scythian.39 In his list of all the divisive categories obliterated by Christ, this author is careful not to overlook the divisive category established by the Cynics themselves.40 The Cynics exclude and

36 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 5; Malherbe, Epistles, 42-43. 37 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 6; Malherbe, Epistles, 42-43. 38 Herodotus, History 4.8-10; A.D. Godley, Herodotus (LCL; Cambridge: Har-

vard University Press, 1957) 2.206-211. 39 The heresiologers understood Ex6url in Col 3:11 to be a reference to the

opponents at Colossae. For a discussion and references, see Lightfoot (Colossians, 219).

40 These categories are usually labeled aocp6o [wise] and TupoS [deluded]. For the uses of these terms in Cynic materials, see the Greek index in Malherbe's Cynic Epistles.

258




castigate everyone who does not adopt their simple, uncultured way of live and live a life according to nature. Even though the Cynics are opposed to divisive cultural categories, their teachings and actions result in the creation of divisive categories as is plain to the Colossian author and to the Christians suffering under their

opponents' critique. The Colossian author proclaims that Christ has so completely obliterated the arbitrary categories dividing humanity that he has abolished even the divisive Cynic categories of those who live according to nature as the Scythians and those who do not.

A second aspect of Cynic philosophy significant for explaining the Scythian perspective in Col 3:11 is the Cynic assessment of the human predicament. In spite of their separation from the rest of

humanity, Cynics blame the evils that afflict humanity precisely upon the imposition of divisive categories such as the ones mentioned in Col 3:11. Ps.-Anacharsis writes to Croesus:

The earth was long ago the common possession of the gods and men. In time, however, men transgressed by dedicating to the gods as their private precincts what was the common possession of all. In return for these, the gods bestowed upon men fitting gifts: strife, desire for pleasure, and meanness of spirit. From a mixture and a separation of these grew all the evils which afflict all mortals: tilling the soil, sowing, metals, and wars.4'

Ps.-Anacharsis' explanation of the cause of evils as the division of the original unity of gods, humans, and the cosmos and as the

holding of private property reflects a basic Cynic rationale.

Using similar reasoning, Ps.-Heraclitus chides the Ephesians for their ethnic pride that excludes the non-Ephesian from their city. Writing to Hermodorus, he says: I am persuaded that nobody is an Ephesian except in the sense that a dog or a cow is an Ephesian. An Ephesian man, if he is good, is a citizen of the world. For this is the common country of all men, in which the law is not something written, but is God, and the one who transgresses against what is not fitting is impious.42

In the same letter, he castigates the Ephesians for enslaving other humans and questions, "How much superior are the wolves and lions to the Ephesians? They do not reduce one another to slavery, nor does one eagle buy another eagle, nor does one lion pour wine for another lion...."43 He concludes that the Ephesian practice of

41 Ps.-Anacharsis, Ep 9; Malherbe, Epistles, 46-47. 42 Ps.-Heraclitus, Ep 9.2; Malherbe, Epistles, 210-211. 43 Ps.-Heraclitus, Ep 9.4; Malherbe, Epistles, 212-213.

259



TROY MARTIN

constructing exclusive ethnic and socio/economic categories engenders envy, hatred, and animosity.44

The description of a new humanity in Col 3:11 that ignores all

ethnic, religious, cultural, and socio/economic barriers cogently addresses this Cynic assessment of the human predicament.45 The Colossian author's description of a new humanity in Col 3:11 occurs in the middle of a discussion of the clothing metaphor. It forms a transition from the practices of the old humanity that are to be put off (3:8-9) and a transition to the practices of the new

humanity that are to be put on (3:12-17). The position of this des-

cription implies that all these categories that separate humans from one another are part of the old humanity with its evil practices. The

position of this description also implies that certain practices enjoined upon the new humanity are possible because of the breakdown of these divisive categories.

This Cynic understanding of the human problem may explain the distinctive application of the Pauline antitheses in Col 3:11. Pauline antitheses are used in 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:28 to

emphasize the unity that Christ effects for the church. However, in Colossians the emphasis is upon the repudiation of the evils associated with the old humanity and the realization of the practices of the new humanity.46 This particular application of these antitheses is unique to Colossians and addresses the Cynic under-

standing of the primary obstacle to realizing the ideal human com-

munity. The author of Colossians affirms that Christ has destroyed all the divisive categories that engender evils and prohibit the realization of the ideal human state. Christ resolves the human

problem even when that problem is articulated in Cynic terms. For the Colossian author, Christ so completely resolves the problem

44 Ps.-Heraclitus, Ep 9.7-8; Malherbe, Epistles, 214-215. 45 These four types of barriers are recognized by almost all commentators. For

example, see F.F. Bruce (The Epistle to the Colossians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968] 274). Martin Dibelius notes the loose connection of the syntax of oitou in this verse. He identities the kingdom of the new humanity [Reich des neuen Menschen] as the place where all these barriers are erased (An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon [HNT 12; Tuibingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1927] 32).

46 Lightfoot recognizes a difference in perspective between Galatians and Col- ossians. He proposes that in Galatians Paul contends against national exclusiveness but in Colossians against intellectual exclusiveness (Colossians, 99). Although he correctly observes a distinction, he does not correctly identify the distinction.

260




that even the divisive category established by the Cynics themselves is obliterated.

Obviously, establishing the Cynic background for the opponents at Colossae far transcends the present essay.47 Nevertheless, positing a Cynic affiliation for the opponents at Colossae permits an adequate explanation for the Scythian perspective in Col 3:11. The Cynics identified with the Scythians in order to express a sharp distinction between themselves and the rest of humanity. At the same time, the Cynics inconsistently advocated that all human evils arise from segregation and differentiation. By stating that Christ obliterates the mutually exclusive categories of barbarian and

Scythian as well as the other exclusive categories in this verse, the Colossian author astutely underscores for his readers this Cynic inconsistency and the remedy Christ offers. The Colossian author

adopts a Scythian perspective for the pairing of barbarian/Scythian to address certain inconsistent aspects of his opponents' philosophical self-conception.

47 I provide an extended argument for such a background in my forthcoming monograph. See n. 12 above.

261



Documents

The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11