Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1—4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition 9780567661135

Citation preview

This book owes its origin to the one to whom it is gratefully dedicated - my friend and fellow student of Greco-Roman history, Paul Malcolm Puckett. In the spring of 2001, I sent three chapters of a manuscript entitled 'The Fool's Speech and the Apostle Paul' to Mac for comment. Among the questions that he raised in response was one which seemed easy to answer: Where and when did Paul appropriate the role of the 'fool' which he plays in 2 Cor. 11.1-12.10 with such devastating effect? 1 set about to write an introduction to my monograph on the 'fool's speech' in which I hoped to show that Paul's acceptance of the role of the 'fool' and, arising out of this, his evaluation of the message of the cross as 'folly' occurred in 1 Cor. 1 4 against the background of popular culture. The result is the book that you now hold in your hands. However, Mac Puckett's contribution to the present volume goes far beyond the question that instigated its composition. Taking responsibility for the detour in his friend's research, Mac faithfully read each chapter and generously offered suggestions and advice. For example, he insisted that I deepen my understanding of the psychology of 'gallows humor', and that I expand my treatment of Paul's self-parody in 1 Cor. 2.6-16. As the years roll on, I am increasingly conscious of the rare gift of such a friendship. Conversations with Dieter Georgi on the occasion of the 'Symposium on the Interpretation of Scripture as a Force for Social Change' at the Evangelische Akadernie Arnoldshain in the fall of 2001 encouraged me to pursue the popular theater as the most plausible social context for understanding Paul's language about the 'folly' of the message of the cross and his description of himself as a 'fool on account of Christ.' The footnotes of this book reveal how often Professor Georgi's insights anticipate the results of my research. A conversation with Holt Parker of the Department of Classics of the University of Cincinnati in the spring of 2002 illuminated the process by which the term pop65 became the common generic name for a mimic fool. I am grateful for his insights.

It is possible that this book will elicit the same response that Paul reported of his preaching: 'scandal!' and 'foolishness!' (I Cor. 1.23). In part, this is because the book calls into question an understanding of Paul which goes back to the second century. Alluding to 1 Cor. 1--2, Justin Martyr describes the offense caused by the message about the crucified Christ as 'madness' (pavia) rather than 'folly' ( ~ o p i u ) . 'This interpretation locates Paul's statement about the 'folly' of 'the word of the cross' (1 Cor. 1.18) in the long debate over the use and abuse of reason, as its first and most influential proposition.' The tradition has followed Justin with remarkably few exceptions. In his acclaimed study of 'Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross,' Martin Hengel cites Justin in the opening paragraph, and substitutes 'madness' for 'folly' in his paraphrase of Paul's thought.' Our research into Paul's language has led in a different direction. For most Greek speakers in the time of Paul, the term popia meant 'stupidity' rather than 'ab~urdity.'~ A social stigma attached to the Greek term popiu that is not generally associated with the English word 'folly.' The term popia designated the attitude and behavior of a particular social type: the lower class moron. The 'foolishness' of this social type consisted in a weakness or deficiency of intellect, often coupled with a physical grotesqueness. Because the concept of the laughable in the Greco-Roman

I . Justin Apol. 1, 13.4. As is often the case with Justin's allusions to scripture, thc refercnce lo I Cor. 1-2 in Apol. 1, 13.4 has the quality o f a reminiscence. rather than a citation. Some scholars question Justin's use of Paul; but see the allusion to I Cor. 10.4 in Dial. 13.1 and to I Cor. 1 1 . I 9 in Dial. 35.3. 2. S. Stowers, 'Paul on thc Use and Abuse of Reason' in Greeks, Roman.r, and C11ri.srians: Ersajs in Honor of' Ahralfum J . Malhurhe, ed. D. Balch, E. Ferguson, and W. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 253-86. esp. 255-62; F. Voss. Das Wori vow Kreui und die menschlichu Vernunfi: Eine Unrersuchung zur Soieriologie des I . Korin~l~erhriejies, FRLANT 199 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2002). 3. M. Hengel. Crztcifixion in rhe Ancient World and rlie Follj of the Message oj'rhe Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) 1, 2, 7, 89. 4. See chs. 2 and 3 below.

Chapter 1

Paul's description of the gospel as 'foolishness' (ppicr), although it is found in only one epistle,' has played a crucial role in the history of Christian thought.' Theologians as diverse as Tertullian and Chrysostom ~ Erasmus and Kierkegaard in the modern in the early ~ h u r c h ,and period,"ave seen in Paul's characterization of the Christian message as 'folly' the formulation of an essential truth of their own religious philosophies. The meaning of Paul's declaration. 'the message about the cross is foolishness' (1 Cor. 1.18), is usually taken to be self-e~ident,~ so that it functions as a cipher for whatever ideal is central to a given theological system. So, for dialectical theologians, the pwpicr rob ~qpGypaso5 is the paradox by which God determines the existence of

1 . I Corinthians. esp. 1.18-25, 27; 2.14: 3.18-19; 4.10. 2. The history of the reccption of Paul's idea has not been written; see, however, the study of W. Nigg. Der cl~ri.srlicheNarr. (Zurich: Artemis, 1956). which traces the 'fool of Christ' through selected literature from Simeon of Edessa to Dostoyevsky's Idior. 3. Tertullian, Adver.vus Marcionem 5.5--7; De Carne Chrisri 4-5 in Terrulliani Opercr I. ed. E. Dekkers (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1954); John Chrysostom, Honriliue in Epi,vtulan~I ad Corinrltios, ed. Migne, PG 61.9-382. 4. D. Erasmus. Moriue Etlconlium in Opera Oninia. ed. C . Miller (Amsterdam: NorthI~IollandPublishing Company, 1979); English translation by B. Radice, fiasrnus. Praise of Foil?, (London: Penguin Books, 1993); see esp. the final section in which Erasmus praises the Christian folly of Paul in a touching and earnest manner. S. Kierkegaard. 'Of the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle' in The Presenf Age. trans. A. Dru (New York: Harper & Row, 1962) 89-108. 5. In most commentaries on I Cor., the terms pwpia. pwpaivw, ~op6c. generate little discussion, so e.g., ti. Lietzniann, An die Korinther IjII. H N T 9 (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck. 1949) 9; C.K. Barrett, A Cornmentory on the Firsf Epistle to the Coritithians, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 52; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1975) 41, 45. 47; A. Lindemann, Der er.rtr KorintherbrieJ H N T 9:1 (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck. 2000) 44, 45. 47: so also in monographs devoted to I Cor. 1-2. e.g. U. Wilckens. Weishelt trnd Torheil: Eine exegetisch-religion.vgesc/~ichtliche Unter.r~rchungzu I. Kor. I und 2, BI-IT 26 (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1959) 24; and even in the lexica. e.g., G. Bertram, 'pop&', T D N T 4 (1967) 845: 'The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are lost (I Cor. 1. In), to Gentiles or Greeks (1.23). to the natural man in general (2.14). Paul is obviously right in this.'

Paul, the Fool of Christ

human beings in the world,6 while for theologians of the death of God, it provides the occasion for human beings to reestablish an authentic relation to time and history.' That Paul's formulation should have proven so influential is testimony to the power of his thought and rhetoric. But the assumption of self-evidence and the familiarity of the theme have erected an invisible barrier to exploration of one of Paul's most astonishing formulations. Until such an investigation is undertaken, a chapter in the history of Christian theology remains unread, and it is one of the most interesting. When the attempt is made to determine what Paul meant by 'foolishness', it is generally explained that 'foolishness' (popia) is defined negatively, as the opposite of 'wisdom' (adia).' This seems a reasonable assumption given the dialectical manner in which Paul introduces the discussion in 1 Cor. 1.17: with calculated abruptness,' the gospel (cGyyckiCca&i~)is defined negatively as the rejection of 'eloquent wisdom' ( a d l a Lbyou)."' Paul then proceeds to explain this contrast,'' beginning with the thesis statement: 'For the message about the cross is foolishness.. . ' (1.18a). The meaning of 'foolishness,' then, logically depends upon the content of 'wisdom,' and varies, naturally, as 'wisdom' is understood differently by the interpreters.'? So, when 'wisdom' is understood as 'cleverness in speaking"' or 6. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 38, 41. 43, 45. 46, 88. referring to Karl Barth, T l ~ e Resurrecrion of rhe Dead (New York: Revell. 1933) 15-21; similarly, E. Kasemann. 'The Saving Significance of the Death oC Jesus in Paul' in idem, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 40-41. 7. Harvey Cox, The Feast of Fools, (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1969) 27. 43, responding to T . J. J. Altizer. Toward a New Christianiry (New York: Harcourt, Brace. 1967) 11. 13. 8. Wilckens, Weisheir und Torheit, 24: 'Mwpia ist ein allgemeines Urteil, gcmessen an dem was o d i a Myou ist.' Similarly, Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbriej; 44. 9. For the stylistic device of abruptness and contrast in order to introduce a theme. compare Rorn. 1.16; Phil. 1.20; see the insightful comments of J. Weiss, Der er.pte KorinfherbrieL 23. 10. On he translation o r o@ia Myou in I Cor. 1.17, see W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Tesramenr and Other Eurly Chrisrian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 934; S. Pogolon; Logos and Sophia: The Rlirroricul Siruatioti of I Corinrhians. SBLDS 134 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 108-13; and the discussion below. 11. The conjunction yip marks vs. I8 and the paragraph it introduces (I .18-25) as thc explanation of vs. 17b; thus Weiss, Der erste KorinthrrhrieJ 24; cf. Conzclmann, I Corinthians, 41 n. 9. 12. On the diverse understandings oToc+ia in I Cor. 1.17 among modern interpreters. see D. Litfin, St. Paul:r Theology of Proclun7otion: I C'orinrhians 1-4 und Greco-Roman Rhc.roric, SNTSMS 79 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 2 4 . 13. In thc sense of rhetoric. e.g.. J. Calvin. Commenrarius in epi~tolatnprioren1 utl Corinrhios, C R 77 (Brunsvigae, 1892) 320; C. F. G . Hcinrici. Dus ersre Sen~1,~lschreiheri de., Apostel Paulus an die Korinther (Berlin: Hertz, 1880) 91; E. B. ,4110, Saint Paul. Premiere ~ ~ i r aus r e Corintkiens (Paris: Gabalda. 1934) 21; H. D . Betz. 'Thc Problcm of Rhetoric and

Chapter 2

THEPROVENANCE O F THE CONCEPT We begin our search, accordingly, at the point where Paul appropriates the term 'foolishness' (popicr) as a description of his proclamation, since this is the earliest moment in the process of meaning that is ascertainable in the text. Determination of the original import of the word is crucial, since whatever significance the term acquires in the course of Paul's exposition is, in some sense, a reflex of the meaning it possessed at the point of appropriation. So, whence has Paul derived the concept of 'foolishness' (popicr) that he applies to his preaching of the message about the cross? It is clear, from the outset, that the source of the term is not to be found in the Old Testament.' To be sure, Paul repeatedly cites the Scriptures to justify and explicate his assertions about wisdom and foolishness.' But the term 'foolishness' (popicr) does not appear in any of the passages which Paul quotes.' Indeed, 'pop6~("fool") and its cognates are not common in

I.

W. Caspari, 'Uber den biblischen Begriff der Torheit', NKZ 39 (1928) 690; Gibb.

8. 2. Therc are six explicit citations of Scripture in I Cor. 1-4: Isa. 29.14 in 1.19; Jer. 9.22-23 in 1.31; Isa. 64.3 (52.15) in 2.9: Isa. 40.13 in 2.16; Job 5.12-13 in 3.19; and Ps. 93.1 1 in 3.20. On Paul's use of Scripture in this section of I Cor., see D. A. Koch. Die Schrgt als Zeuge des Evu1lge1iurn.v. Unter.suchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstiindnis der Schrifi bei Paulus, BHTh 69 (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986) 31, 3637.42, 71-72; G. R. O'Day, 'Jeremiah 9.2223 and I Corinthians 1.2&-31: A Study in Intertextuality', JBL 109 (1990) 259-67; C. Stanley. Paul and the Languuge of Scrip~ui-e. Citation Technique in rhe Pauline Epistles, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 185-94; R. Hays, Fir.~t Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville, K Y : John Knox. 1997) 28-29, 3 4 3 5 , 44-45, 59-60; Collins, Firsr Corinthian.c. 94-96. 3. The closest that Paul comes 10 the vocabulary of foolishness in the texts that he cites is the term navoupyia 'craltincss,' in 3.19 (Job 5.13) and the term '[utile,' $taro5, in 3.20 (Ps. 93.1 1). navoupyia is the antithesis to o@ia in Plato Menes. 247a: nkoa re i-nmrfilq x w p r < o ~ i v q 6r~aroaGvr)~ a sil< i kAAw &pcrknauoupyia 06 o d i a . t$aiutrar. Mataros can mean 'Loolish' in relcrence to persons; see Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 1084 s.v. Cf. Plato Soph. 231b: ncpi s j v paraiav Wooo+iav. In neither case does Paul's quotation agree with the majority tradition of the LXX: he substitutes navoupyip for @povi)otr in the citation of Job in 3.19. and replaces h d p d n w v with a@Qv in Lhe citation o i P s . 93.1 1 in 3.20. Whether Paul has modified the texts that he quotes in the interest of his argument, or follows a minority

' Torheir,'

Chapter 3

We meet one of these lower class types in the first tale of Apuleius' brilliant novel, The Golden Ass.' On his way to the baths in Hypata, the principal city of Thessaly, a merchant chances to see a companion of former days, a certain Socrates, sitting upon the ground, covered with a torn and coarse mantel, so thin and pale and miserable that he scarcely recognizes him. The merchant wonders what crime or misfortune has reduced his friend to such a state that he appears to be like a 'common beggar' who stands in the streets asking a hand-out of passersby. As he approaches his old friend, the poor wretch, blushing for shame, attempts to cover his face with his ragged mantle, and in the process exposes the parts of his body below the navel all naked. From beneath the mantle, Socrates cries out: 'Let fortune finish the job she has ~ t a r t e d ! ' ~ One might have encountered such a fool on the streets of any city in the Roman Empire, including Corinth, the home of Lucius, the hero of The Golden Ass.' Yet, realistic descriptions of lower class life, such as Apuleius provides, are rare in Greek and Latin l i t e r a t ~ r e The . ~ lives of 1. The Metan~orphoseso r Golden Ass is a Latin work of the second century A.D., but as Apuleius explicitly tells the reader ( M e t . 1.1). the story is derived from an older Greek original. On the sources of Tlre Golden Ass and its relationship. in particular, to the Greek short story entitled Lucius or the Ass preserved in the works of Lucian. see H. van Thiel. L)er Eselsromatl 2 Vols. (Miinchen: Beck, 1971-72); H. J. Mason, 'Fabula Graecanica; Apulc~us and his Greek Sources' in A. L. Hijmans and R. Th. Van der Paardt, Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass (Groningen: Bouma's, 1978) ch. I. 2. Apuleius Mer. 1.6-7; see the discussion of this episode in Winkler. Auctor and Acror. 126. 3. For Lucius as a Corinthian and Apuleius' knowledge ofcorinth and Cenchreae, see P. Veyne. 'Apulee a Cenchrccs,' Revue Philologique 39 (1965) 241; H. J. Mason, 'Lucius a1 Corinth.' Phoenix 25 (1971) 160. 4. On the rarity oC social realism in Classical literature, see Millar, 'The World of the Golden Ass'. 63, 65. 75. Two further examples of this lower class type appear in the literature of the High Empire. Philo (In F1uc.c. 6.36-38) relates an incident involving a poor strectcreature named Carabas, 'whose madness was not of the fierce and savage kind, . . .but of thc easy-going, gentler style.' This poor fool 'spent day and night in the streets naked, shunning neither heat nor cold, made game oC by the children and lads who were idling about.' In a politically tense situation. he was driven by rioters into the gymnasium. and mocked, 'as in

Chapter 4 CONFIRMATION AND CLARIFICATION When we return to 1 Corinthians 1 4 with this understanding of 'foolisl~ness,' we discover that many of Paul's statements become more intelligible. We begin at the end of the section,' because Paul has constructed his argument in such a way that he comes to speak last of the criticism that has given rise to the discu~sion.~ Thus Paul declares in 1 Cor. 4.10, 'We are fools on account of Christ' (fipe?~pwpoi 6 ~ Xpiat6v). h The sense in which Paul intends the term pwp6c is now clear from contemporary usage. Paul does not mean, merely, that he and his fellow apostles are regarded as simple and unsophisticated because of a lack of rhetorical or philosophical training.' Rather, Paul acknowledges that, on account of his apostolic calling (4.9), he is viewed as an example of a lower

I. For purposes o r this investigation, we define the rhetorical unit as consisting of 1 Cor. 14.It may be that these chapters, with the paraenesis in 5.1-6.1 1. originally constituted an independent letter. Weiss ( D e r erste KorintherbrieA xxxix-xliii) doubted the integrity of the canonical epistle. basing his conclusions upon breaks in the train of thought. discrepancies in reports o r events, sudden changes OF tone, and differences in outlook and judgment. Weiss' arguments were strengthened by the observations of W. Schenk, 'Der 1. Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung', Z N W 60 (1969) 21943; C. Senft, L a pretniere Ppilre cle Saint Paul uux Corinrhians, C N T 7 (Neuchatel: Neuchatel-Delachaux, 1979) 17-25; M. Biinker, Brie/J'ormular und rhetorisrhe Disposition in1 I . Korintherbrief (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 51-59. But even iT 1 Cor. 1.14.11 is not an independent letter, chs. 1 4 are manifestly a rhetorical unit, the beginning and end clearly marked by hortatory periods in 1.10 and 4.16; see C. J . Bjcrkelund. Parakalo. 14142, 14546; N . A. Dahl, 'Paul and the Church at Corinth according to 1 Corinthians l . l W . 2 1 ' in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented ro John Knox, ed. W . R. Farmer and C. F. D . Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 313-35. 2. On the logic of Pauline argumentation, that is, his tendency to delay mention of the cause of a dispute until he has defined key terms in his own sense, see Conzelmann. I Coritlthian.~,249; and, in general, F. Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus, 195-99. 3. Contra Hartmen, 'Some Remarks on I Cor. 2.1-5', 120; Pogoloff. Logos and Sophia, 119-21, 153-54; Litiin, S t . Paul's Tl~eologyof Prochmation, 197-201; Winter, Philo and Paul (imotlg the Sophi.~ts,161. 165, 201-202; Lindcmann, Der erste Korintherbriej; 44.

50

Paul, zhe Fool of Christ

class type,4 one whose weaknesses and deficiencies ( j p c i ~&o&vci