Notes

1. . Such an analysis already has been used fruitfully by Richard Rubenstein in his My Brother Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1972). Interestingly Rubenstein uses Freud and Norman O. Brown to explore those Pauline motifs usually collected under the rubric “Christ mysticism.” My own approach centers on the other major thematic in Paul, justification by grace through faith.
2. . Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, trans. Denis Savage (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 261–309.
3. . Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. Joan Riviere (London: Hogarth Press, 1949), p. 141.
4. . Ibid., p. 80.
5. . Ibid., p. 92.
6. . E.g., ibid., p. 44.
7. . Freud seems to have been somewhat ambivalent about artistic expression; see the discussions in Ricoeur, pp. 163–77; Norman O. Brown, Life against Death (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1959), pp. 55, 67; Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civili‐zation (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), pp. 127–33. For art as a mild narcotic see Freud, pp. 27–28.
8. . Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id, trans. Joan Riviere, rev. ed. (London: Hogarth Press, 1962), p. 46, and Civilization, p. 88.
9. . For a convenient summary see Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (Harmondsworth [England]: Penguin Books, 1973), pp. 150–64, and Ego, pp. 21–26.
10. . First stated in Sigmund Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle, trans. and ed. James Strachey (New York: Liveright Publishing Corp., 1970), the German original appearing in 1920.
11. . Freud, Ego, p. 24.
12. . E.g., in his Civilization, pp. 81–92.
13. . Ibid., pp. 82–83.
14. . The subtitle of Brown's Life Against Death is The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History.
15. . Throughout Brown. See his opening statement: “There is one word which, if we only understood it, is the key to Freud's thought. The word is ‘repression”” (p. 3).
16. . Ibid., pp. 110–34.
17. . Ibid., p. 101.
18. . Ibid., p. 155.
19. . See Brown's chapters on Jonathan Swift and Luther. Brown frequently turns to William Blake as well as Jacob Boehme as allies.
20. . Ibid., pp. 145–56.
21. . Ibid., pp. 108–9.
22. . Ibid., pp. 307–8.
23. . Marcuse, Eros. Brown, however, refers to Eros only once in Life, p. 141.
24. . Marcuse, pp. 217–51; Brown, p. 98.
25. . Marcuse, p. 32.
26. . The word “historical” is crucial in this sentence. The sickness is not located in the individual “nature” of a person but rather comes into being as this individual is grafted into civilization.
27. . Herbert Marcuse, One‐Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964), p. 257.
28. . Brown, pp. 87–109.
29. . E.g., Ibid., pp. 2627, 48, 308.
30. . Ibid., pp. 42–49.
31. . Ibid., p. 49.
32. . “The abolition of repression would abolish the unnatural concentrations of libido in certain particular bodily organs…” (ibid., p. 308). Cf. also pp. 25–26, 176. Also Marcuse, Eros, pp. 184–85.
33. . Marcuse, Eros, pp. 159–71; Brown, 174–76.
34. . A coinage of Brown in his Love's Body (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 235.
35. . Brown, Life, pp. 272–78.
36. . The pre‐Fall state in glory is never explicitly described by Paul, but it is hard to doubt that he assumed this idea which seems to have been universally accepted in postbiblical Judaism. He hints at it in Rom. 3:23.
37. . Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, trans. Katherine Jones (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1939), pp. 111–14.
38. . Chaps. 62–63.
39. . E.g., II Bar. 46:3; IV Ezra 7:29.
40. . Rom. 8:38‐39; I Cor. 15:2627; Gal. 4:s–9; II Cor. 4:4.
41. . Rom. 4:2, 9:30‐32; 10:3; Phil. 3:9.
42. . Gal. 4:s‐9.
43. . I Cor. 1:17–25. This reveals my judgment that Paul is speaking in this section against Greek rhetoric and quasi philosophy rather than gnostic speculations; cf. my argument in “Paul: ΣOФOΣ and IINEYMATIKOΣ,“New Testament Studies 14 (1967–68): 33–55. The basic point, however, would hold even if Paul were attacking gnosticism, as many scholars argue today. Cf. Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 55.
44. . R. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting, trans. R. H. Fuller (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1962), p. 183.
45. . The inclusiveness of covetousness as a symbol for all sin is seen also by Stanislas Lyonnet. Thus Rom. 7:7 is not a specific citation from the ten commandments but an “all‐embracing formula.” See Lyonnet's St. Paul, Liberty and Law (Rome: Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1962), pp. 5–6. Lyonnet argues in more detail in “L'Histoire du salut selon le chapitre VII de l'Epitre aux Romains,” Biblica 43 (1962): 144–47. He cites as additional evidence I Cor. 10:6, where epithumein used absolutely is inclusive of all sin.
46. . Rubenstein (n. 1 above), p. 11.
47. . Ibid.
48. . Bultmann's existential interpretations are also, as should be obvious by now, extremely congenial to the psychoanalytic interpretation. See his Existence and Faith, trans. and comp. Schubert M. Ogden (London: Hodder, 1961), pp. 145–57, and “Christ the End of the Law,” in Essays: Philosophical and Theological, trans. J. C. G. Greig (New York: Macmillan Co., 1955), pp. 3&66.
49. . E.g., II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; I Cor. 15:49 (reading the subjunctive with p. 46, x, A, C, D, G, and many other witnesses) and the many passages which speak of the presence of the spirit.
50. . Cf. I Cor. 15:44–49; II Cor. 4:4–6; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 3:20–21; and the discussion in my The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), pp. 92–112.
51. . See my Last Adam, pp. 23–29, 54–58.
52. . Sacrificial images appear in the Pauline letters because they are an established part of tradition, but in R. Bultmann's judgment they “do not contain Paul's characteristic view” (Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951–55], 1:296).
53. . I. Cor. 15:24–26; Rom. 10:4, where telos, since it is in the closest connection with the theme of ‘justification by faith, has to/be taken in the sense of finis. Cf. now P. Stuhlmacher, “Das Ende des Gesetzes,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 67 (1970): 14–39, for a strong statement of this position.
54. . Rom. 4:4–5; 5:15–21; I Cor. 1:26–31.
55. . Rom. 5:10; 7:7–11; I Cor. 10:6; II Cor. 5:18–20.
56. . Gal. 6:14.
57. . According to Freud, civilization is always accumulating more and more guilt (Civilization, p. 80). It is interesting to see that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its extreme emphasis upon sacrificial images, still has to worry about postbaptismal sin, e.g., in 10:26–27, in whatever form the author might have conceived of such sin.
58. . Freud, Moses, pp. 171–74. Also Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, trans. W. D. Robson‐Scott (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1964), pp. 27–28, 71. This judgment says nothing, of course, about the existence or nonexistence of God.
59. . It is precisely at this point that I am forced to part company with Rubenstein's provocative essay. He interprets what commonly is called Christ mysticism out of Freud's theory of the primal horde, with the ensuing murder of the father. Identification with Christ as elder brother is the solution to the problem of the guilt for the murder of the father (ibid., pp. 78–113). I do not doubt that moments of identification are present in the believer's relation with Christ. To base an interpretation of Paul on this theory is, however, to give priority to phytlogenesis rather than ontogenesis and to depend upon what is acknowledged today as a mythic statement rather than the documented clinical work of Freud the scientist. The implication here is that the symbol of God the father must be retained in Christian theology, despite the understandable misgivings of some thinkers; see Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973). Yet there is a sense in which even so one can speak of a movement “beyond God the Father.” It could perhaps even he described as a movement toward God the mother (reunion motifs), but nevertheless this movement could not avoid dealing with God the father. Certainly the process involves coming to terms with the mother image. Rubenstein can even say: “Thus, at the deepest level, fear of the infanticidal parent is fear of the mother” (n. 1 above, p. 67). However that may be, I think the desire toward reunion greater than the fear.
60. . From the perspective of the sociology of knowledge Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann show how groups which have radically “unworldly” views of reality attempt to keep the sect apart from the world (The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1967], pp. 156–61).
61. . Marcuse, Eros (n. 7 above), pp. 201–5; also Brown (n. 7 above), pp. 25–26.
62. . Marcuse, Eros, pp. 169, 196.
63. . “Peace,” noun and verb, about twenty‐six times; the verb “rejoice” about twenty‐three times; the noun “joy” about eighteen times. Various forms of the root for “freedom” about twenty‐two times. I developed analysis of these terms in my Paul for a New Day (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 29–37.
64. . I have argued elsewhere that these words in Gal. 5:22–23describe an existence of fullness and thus are not repressive “oughts” (see my “The Next Step: A Common Humanity),” Theology Today34 (1977 781):395–401).
65. . Esp. Rom. 10:34 where disobedience is seen as the refusal to accept Christ as the end of the law.
66. . As he does in Gal. 1:8 in the general context of his struggles on behalf of a law‐free gospel.
67. . The classic treatment, of course, is Anders Nygren's Agape and Eros: A Study of the Christian Idea of Love, trans. A. G. Hebert and Philip S. Watson, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan Co., 1932–39).
68. . The agapan family is used in the LXX for all kinds of love, including lust and rape, e.g., in the story of the rape of Tamar by Ammon (II Sam. 13:1, 4, 15). The subject is treated decisively by B. Warfield in his “The Terminology of Love in the New Testament,” Princeton Theological Review 16 (1918): 1–45, 153–203.
69. . Robert Joly, Le vocabulaire chrétien de l'amour estil original? (Bruxelles: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1968). His statistics prove that in the pre‐Christian centuries the use of the verb philein was declining while that of agapan increasing.
70. . Rom. 12:lO; 13:s‐10; Gal. 5:13–14.
71. . In addition to the above note see among others I Thess. 3:12, 4:18, 5:11; Gal. 6:2, I Cor. 12:25; Rom. 1:12, 12:5, 14:13, 19, 15:7, 14, 16:16. The theme of “building up” the church is similar.
72. . I Cor. 13:4–7.
73. . II Cor. 2:12–13, 7:5–7.
74. . Phil. 1:8.
75. . For the psychological side cf. Erich Fromm, Man for Himself (New York: Rinehart, 1947), p. 130; and for the theological, Martin Cyril D'Arcy, The Mind and Heart of Lo71e, Lion and 1Jnicorn: A Study in Eras and Agape (New York: H. Holt & Co., 1947), p. 70. The few remarks I have made in this paper obviously do not count as a refutation of Nygren's exegesis. 1 hope to do that elsewhere.
76. . Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1968), p. 43.
77. . Marcuse, Eros, p. 210.
78. . I Cor. 7:15.
79. . See my “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion  40 (1972): 296–97.
80. . In a beautiful study of nineteenth‐century American sects R. Kantor shows that sects or communes usually make some attempt to keep erotically motivated splinter groups from emerging in the context of the larger whole (Commitment and Community [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972], pp. 9–18, 44–45, 86–91).
81. . E.g., Rom. 12:3–8; Rom. 14; I Cor. 12.
82. . I Cor. 1:26–31; Rom. 3:27.
83. . I Cor. 5:3–5; Gal. 6:l. It is true that in the salutation of the letter to the Philippians he does greet the bishops and deacons (1:1), and in the earlier I Corinthians, in a list of different kinds of activities in the church, he uses the word kubernesis (“administration”), perhaps a general term foreshadowing the later technical term episkopos.
84. . See my “Paul and the Eschatological Woman” (n. 79 above), pp. 283–303, and my “Paul and the Eschatological Woman, Revisited,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 532–37; Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” History of Religions 13 (1974): 165–208; Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conuersation. in Context (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), pp. 99–101. I consider Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals as post‐Pauline. For the most recent marshaling of the evidence for and against authenticity see Norman Per‐rin's The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 121–23, 129–31, 264–65.
85. . The law is summed up and fulfilled in loving the neighbor. Paul feels content to use the Hellenistic catalogues of vices and virtues to make his general ethical points. The ethical performance–which Paul certainly expects–is the result of the Spirit and stems from the Faith existence of the believer. It is important to note that while Paul feels completely free to adopt Hellenistic ethical forms he studiously avoids that particular one called by scholars the Haustafel, although it appears in the deutero‐Pauline literature (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:184:1, among others). Paul's avoidance of this form is hardly accidental. The Haustafel is subordinationist and role oriented and thus explicitly accepts the inequality of people. Paul can use the catalogues because they do not imply roles of domination. See my Paul for a New Day (n. 63 above), pp. 57–74, for a more detailed exegesis of Pauline ethics.
86. . Lyonnet, St. Paul (n. 45 above), p. 16.
87. . Aquinas, Summa Theologica 11, 1, (1. 106, a. 2, cited in Lyonnet, p. 16.
88. . Contrast I Cor. 5:1–5 with 5:9–13; see my Paid for a New Day, pp. 51–56.
89. . Brown, p. 305.