Bibliography on Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2)

I'm currently doing some work on Phoebe, mentioned in Romans 16:1-2.  Here's the passage in Greek with my translation:

 

Συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, οὖσαν [καὶ] διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς,  ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων καὶ παραστῆτε αὐτῇ ἐν ᾧ ἂν ὑμῶν χρῄζῃ πράγματι· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ.

I recommend to you Phoebe, our sister, being a minister of the church at Cenchreae, in order that you may receive her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and   aid her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

 

Below you will find a list of books and articles that deal specifically with Phoebe.  If I've missed out anything significant, please let me know.  I'm particularly interested in published works, but if there are internet articles, I'd consider them.  Enjoy! 

 

 

Bibliography on Phoebe

 

Arichea, D. C. “Who was Phoebe? Translating Diakonos in Romans 16:1”, BT 39 (1988), 401-409.

Bassler, J. M. “Phoebe”, in Carol Meyers (ed.) Women in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 134-135.

Bieringer, R. “Women and Leadership in Romans 16: The Leading Roles of Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia in Early Christianity: Part I”, East Asian Pastoral Review 44 (2007), 221-237.

Campbell, J. C. Phoebe: Patron and Emissary. Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith; Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2009.

Clarke, A. D. “Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female: Paul’s Theology of Ethnic, Social and Gender Inclusiveness in Romans 16,” in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church, Peter Oakes (ed.) Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 103-125.

Cotter, W. “Women’s Authority Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional” NovT 36 (1994), 350-372.

Croft, S. “Text Messages: The Ministry of Women and Romans 16”, Anvil 21 (2004), 87-94.

Ellis, E. E. “Paul and His Co-Workers”, NTS 17 (1977), 437-452.

Ellis, E. E. Paul and His Coworkers”, DPL, 183-189.

Fiorenza, E. S. “Missionaries, Apostles, Co-workers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early Christian History, WW 6 (1986), 420-433.

Goodspeed, E. J. “Phoebe’s Letter of Introduction,” HTR 44 (1951), 56-57.

Jewett, R. “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission,” in J. Neusner, et al. (eds.). The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988, 144-64.

Kearsley, R. A. “Women in the Public East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynBul 50 (1999), 189-21.

MacMullen, R. “Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Historia 29 (1980), 208-218.

 

Mathew, Susan. Women in the Greetings of Rom 16.1-16:  A Study of Mutuality and Women's Ministry in the Letter to the Romans. LNTS. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2013.

 

Ng, E. Y. “Phoebe as Prostatis”, TJ 25 (2004), 3-13.

Osiek, C. “Diakonos and Prostatis: Women’s Patronage in Early Christianity,” HTS 61 (2005), 347-370.

Romaniuk, K. “Was Phoebe in Romans 16, 1 a Deaconess?” ZNW 81(1990), 132-34.

Schulz, R. R. “A Case for “President” Phoebe in Romans 16:2”, LTJ 24 (1990), 124-27.

Thomas, W. D. “Phoebe: A Helper of Many”, ExpTim 95 (1984), 336-337.

Trebilco, P.R. “Women as Co-workers and Leaders in Paul's Letters.” Journal of the Christian Brethren Research Fellowship 122 (1990): 27-36.

Whelan, C. F. “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church”, JSNT 49 (1993), 67-85.

Romans 1 and Same-Sex Marriage for Christians

I was recently asked to participate in a panel discussion on same-sex marriage from a Christian perspective.  More specifically, I was asked to comment on this issue from Romans 1.  Given the popular nature of the discussion, I had to be very careful with the way I phrased things, and so I ended up with the following notes which guided what I said.  I'd appreciate any thoughts or responses. 

----------------------------------------

The Letter of Romans: Two Stories

Paul’s letter to the Romans tells two stories. The first one begins right at the beginning, in 1:1-16. The first thing to realise, is that first story is the story of good news and it is God’s good news. It is the story of God, who has had a vision for humanity all along. And God made promises to certain individuals and nations, which were told through his messengers in the holy Scriptures. And God’s climactic plan, is ultimately and fully realised in the coming of God’s own Son. This Son was an heir to the people of God through King David. But his true identity as God’s son, was boldly indicated and validated through the resurrection of Jesus by God’s Spirit. And this news is for the whole world, because God’s promises relate to the whole world. And thus everyone is invited to participate in God’s restorative vision for the whole cosmos, and especially humanity - that group that is called to represent Him to others and creation. The story also tells of Paul, who is a slave (a metaphor of pure allegiance and devotion) to God’s purposes and also the Roman churches, who have embraced this fantastic news about who God is, and what God is doing.

BUT - to fully realise the extent of God’s covenant faithfulness to humanity, one has to tell the darker side of this story. The story of how humanity lost its way. And that is the topic of 1:18-32. This is the story of how things are NOT meant to be. It is a tragic story of exchanging truth for lies, of exchanging hope for despair, and of the distortion of God’s creative efforts and design for humanity.

God’s response to humanities disregard for his design and intention is not to enforce his wil. Rather God’s response is to allow us the freedom to make our own decisions, even though God himself is calling and inviting humanity into another way of life. God warns that there are consequences for disregarding his pattern and design, and that is why Paul gives a list of 22 or more, different activities that show that humanity has departed from God’s way. Doing evil, covetousness, malice; being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossiping, slanderers, God-haters, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventors of evil, rebellion toward parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartless, ruthless.

Yes, Paul does mention same-sex activity a few verses earlier (he had no clue what an “orientation” was, he was interested in practices that distort God’s design). However, Paul is not focussing on one group of individuals, but rather telling the story of the many and varied activities that humans do that are contrary to God’s design. By including all these vices, Paul reminds us that, “we all have sinned, and done what is wrong in his sight,” and we all have to make changes to our lives. AND there is NO-ONE that is morally superior to anyone else. We are all broken human beings, being called by God back together, so that together we can become a mosaic of God’s gracious intervention, so that we rebuild, and re-imagine ourselves as God’s image bearers walking in the trajectory of Christ.

And that is what the book of Romans sets out to do. So that sets the context in which to analyse Paul’s statements regarding same-sex activity.

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.

The most important element of this discussion is what Paul means by “natural” and “unnatural.” He is not referring to genetics but rather to God’s design for humanity and creation. God’s natural design is for one man and one women to be brought together into a covenantal relationship of mutual benefit and edification. Unnatural activity is thus anything that goes against this design.

I want to read you two quotes. The first is from Dan O. Via, a New Testament scholar.

Perhaps most importantly he regards same-sex relations as contrary to nature (1:26-27), contrary to the order of the world as created by God.

The second quote is from Luke Timothy Johnson, a New Testament scholar.

There is no need to belabour the obvious point that the classification of same-sex intercourse among vices is characteristic of Paul (Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). The issue in regard to such texts and the present-day struggle of communities with homosexuality is not so much an exegetical as a hermeneutical one.

I am not quoting these two scholars just because they agree with what I've said above.  I am quoting them because both Johnson and Via argue for acceptability of same-sex relationships. They do so not on the basis of any ambiguity in Scripture. They both concur that scripture is clear in its injunction against same-sex activity. They do so on the basis that they do not deem these passages relevant to contemporary Christian ethics.

Whereas I would argue, that the Genesis stories set the trajectory for human relationships, confirmed and validated by Jesus in his discussions of marriage, and negatively illustrated by the variety of New Testament authors which note where and how humanity has departed from God’s design. And we cannot just pick and choose which parts of God’s vision we want to embrace.

So what does this have to do with a conversation on same-sex marriage? Well, if Scripture prohibits a key activity that would consummate a marriage between two people, then it follows that for Christians who accept the authority of Scripture, it is not possible to be in same-sex marriage.

Reading Romans

Mike Bird is has a reading list for Romans for a course he will presumably be teaching. I'm not brave enough, nor have I read enough to teach a course on Romans. My experience in reading Jewett's tome (which I never finished) left me completely baffled as to the purpose and meaning of Paul's letter to Rome. However, in reading Jewett's articles, I've come to appreciate much of his perspective, and his pastoral heart. For example, at the end of brilliant and utterly helpful article, Jewett writes the following:

If Paul's grandiose argument were better understood, it might still provide a basis for achieving its original vision: to bring "all the peoples" (Rom 15:11) to praise the One whose gospel can still restore our eroded and fractured world to its intended righteousness.

Robert Jewett, "Following the Argument of Romans," in Word & World Volume VI, Number 4, pg. 389

I can't help but think that the world, including the church, should be helped by such scholarship with a pastoral and apostolic concern. Of course there will always be quibbles. I'm not sure about the supposed interpolations in Romans 16:17-20a and the concluding doxology in 16:25-27. [[I accept that these could undermine Jewett's case somewhat.]] But his work on Shame, unity, and the missionary purpose of Romans is, to this student, undeniable in its accuracy. His structuring of the argument employing the rhetorical features provided by Quintilius is helpful in unpacking Paul's argument.

My five top reads on Romans:

1. Paul Achtemeier, Romans (WJK)
2. N. T. Wright, “Romans,” in NIB (Abingdon)
3. R. Jewett, Romans (Fortress)
4. J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 9-16 (Nelson)
5. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 1-8, 9-16 (T & T Clark)

Romans is like a black hole. You could spend the rest of your life just studying this letter. Oh well, back to 1 Peter. :)

Banish Romans?

So, I have this (nasty? beautiful?) habit of waking up in the middle of the night with a million questions running through my mind. Usually they concern what I’m currently working on, but this morning was different. I’ve taken to reading “Monster Jewett”, you know, that mammoth commentary on Romans that took 25 years to research and write [and will probably take me almost as long to read, comprehend, digest and then respond to]. It’s really taking its toll on my intellectual abilities. I’ve read through his summary in The Cambridge Companion to Paul, I’ve followed his précis of the argument in The Romans Debate, and now I’m trying to read the actual commentary. SHA!

If Jewett is right, then most Roman’s commentaries have completely missed the point of Romans. But then again, is this not true for Cranfield, Dunn, and perhaps Wright as well? Which leads me to my point. If Romans is so plagued by the history of interpretation, and the “ugly ditch” that separates us from them, then would it not be helpful to ban all commentaries on Romans for the next hundred years and bury all those written already for the next two hundred years? At least this way, the next generation of scholars could start afresh, with fewer distractions.

Or perhaps, Romans should be left last to study. Romans was my first NT letter we worked through at college. I think I got an “A”. What a joke. I have no idea what Romans is about, what it’s trying to do, and how it’s trying to do it. I think the only clues I do have, is that it was written to various house and tenement churches, beset with racial strife and cultural barriers, explaining the MASSIVE and EXPLOSIVE implications of the gospel for the purpose of gaining a united apostolic base for the mission in Spain. Other than that, ask Jewett, Dunn, Wright, or perhaps Longenecker since he will be the next significant victim to fall prey to the allure and seduction of Romans.

Me, I’ll stick with 1 Peter for now. Romans can be avoided for at least a little while longer.