Tradition and Rhetoric in Pauls Correspondence with the Corinthians [1 ed.] 1527546322, 9781527546325

Citation preview

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians Edited by

Harm W. Hollander

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians Edited by Harm W. Hollander This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by Harm W. Hollander and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-4632-2 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4632-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations ...............................................................x Chapter One .............................................................................1 The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 Harm W. Hollander Chapter Two ...........................................................................23 The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 Harm W. Hollander Chapter Three .........................................................................45 Seeing God “In a Riddle” or “Face to Face”: An Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13:12 Harm W. Hollander Chapter Four ..........................................................................55 Prophecy and Glossolalia and Paul’s Concern for Order in the Christian Assembly (1 Cor 14:26-33a) Harm W. Hollander Chapter Five ...........................................................................70 The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10 Harm W. Hollander and Gijsbert E. van der Hout

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Six .............................................................................89 The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 Harm W. Hollander and Joost Holleman Chapter Seven ......................................................................117 The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians Harm W. Hollander Chapter Eight .......................................................................144 Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ Adherents in Corinth Harm W. Hollander Chapter Nine ........................................................................162 “A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3 Harm W. Hollander Bibliography.........................................................................187 Index of Ancient Sources .....................................................205

PREFACE

This volume brings together a number of essays that have been published before, and which deal with topics and passages in the apostle Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. Apart from two essays written with two of his students, all were written by the editor himself between 1991 and 2012 (and published between 1993 and 2013) when he was a lecturer at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Leiden (The Netherlands). The essays have been slightly revised for this volume; additions (in the footnotes) are denoted by square brackets. The primary aim of all the essays is to elucidate Paul’s ways of defending himself against the attacks of some Corinthian Christians and his attempts to persuade all his readers in Corinth to keep on living according to the law of God. In order to achieve this goal, it is first necessary to realise that Paul was an active member of the Graeco-Roman, Hellenistic society of the time and, more precisely, belonged to a Jewish-Hellenistic milieu. That means that he was thoroughly acquainted with all kinds of Hellenistic concepts, motifs and traditions. My view is, therefore, that any interpreter of Paul’s letters must first look for those concepts, motifs and traditions that Paul shared with many of his contemporaries by means of careful analysis of a number of the particular and important terms and words used by the apostle. But that is certainly not all. Having made such an analysis, the interpreter should examine the specific ways in which Paul uses these concepts, motifs and traditions to convince those he is addressing of his standpoint, position or point of view. Paul certainly demonstrates some rhetorical skills; something which

viii

Preface

is in fact nothing more than “the art of speaking or writing so as to persuade people effectively” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). We do not know, of course, whether the apostle was always successful in persuading his addressees; in the case of the Corinthian Christians this may be doubted. In any case, the interpreter should investigate all the rhetorical devices employed by the apostle to convince by means of a careful discourse analysis of the thread and progress of his argument. The essays in this volume hopefully represent a successful attempt to combine both methods of exegesis; to trace the views and ideas the apostle Paul shared with his contemporaries as well as to discover the manner in which he used and adapted them in order to persuade his addressees effectively, but without the liberal sprinkling of difficult and preferably Latin terms usually found in the rhetorical analyses of Paul’s letters, which seem mainly to be intended to impress. The essays collected in this volume were originally written for the following publications: -chapter 1: New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 89-104 -chapter 2: New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 456-70 -chapter 3: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (2010): 395-403 -chapter 4: The Expository Times 124 (2013): 166-73 -chapter 5: Novum Testamentum 38 (1996): 224-36 -chapter 6: Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 270-91 -chapter 7: Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 117-35

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

ix

-chapter 8: The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken, edited by Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden, 179-91. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013 -chapter 9: The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence, edited by Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, 103-21. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007 For permission to reprint these articles I would like to thank Cambridge University Press (chs. 1 and 2), SAGE Publishing (chs. 3 and 4), E. J. Brill Publishers (chs. 5, 6, 7 and 8), and Ashgate/Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group (ch. 9). I feel privileged to have collaborated with two of my students during my time at the Faculty of Theology at Leiden; first, with Joost Holleman, PhD student at the time and now a managing partner for a venture capital and growth equity firm in Amsterdam (see ch. 6), and second, with Gijsbert E. van der Hout, MA student at the time and now a minister of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) (see ch. 5). I thank both for their indispensable help. Thanks are also due to Cambridge Scholars Publishing and their Commissioning Editor Adam Rummens for their willingness to publish this volume and for their help with the preparation of the manuscript. Finally, I wish to dedicate this book to the late Professor Dr Marinus de Jonge and to Professor Dr Klaus Berger, both of whom were my teachers during my studies at the Faculty of Theology in Leiden in the 1970s. They introduced me to the wonderful world of New Testament exegesis, and taught me the methods for interpreting ancient texts. The Editor

ABBREVIATIONS

EWNT

Balz, H., and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1980-1983

LCL

Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann

LXX

Septuagint

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

OT

Old Testament

OTP

Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983-1985

NT

New Testament

PG

Migne, J.-P., Patrologia Graeca. 162 vols. Paris: J.-P. Migne’s Imprimerie Catholique, 1857-1866

REB

Revised English Bible

ThWNT

Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1933-1979

CHAPTER ONE THE TESTING BY FIRE OF THE BUILDERS’ WORKS: 1 CORINTHIANS 3:10-15 HARM W. HOLLANDER

One of the most interesting passages to deal with the apostle Paul’s thoughts on the Last Day and the final Judgment is found in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Far from being an excursus, a digression or an insertion, having almost nothing to do with its context, 1 the verses are an important element in Paul’s arguments on the diversity in the Christian community in Corinth in chapters 1-4. It runs partly parallel with verses 5-9, illustrating the same point along more or less similar lines: people responsible for the growth of the Christian communities are just servants of God and will be recompensed according to their labours at the end of time. Though the general function of the passage seems to be clear, the details are not. In particular, the judgment imagery seems to be “somewhat inconsistent,” 2 due to Paul’s supposed use of several fire motifs in verses 13-15. 3 Related to these questions 1

So, e.g., Bultmann, Predigt, 98; Branick, “1 Corinthians 1-3,” 26263. 2 Kuck, Judgment, 185. 3 According to Weiss, for instance, there are “hier also eigentlich 3 Bilder in einander geflochten” (Korintherbrief, 82); Lang speaks of

2

Chapter One

there is the issue of origin. Do we find here traditional topoi introduced by Paul for the sake of argument 4 or rather is the description of final divine judgment “unique in its emphasis on the disclosure and testing of individual works”? 5 Through a detailed analysis of the passage with the help of Traditionsgeschichte and Religionsgeschichte I will try to give some new answers to these questions. Parties and heroes: 1 Corinthians 1-4 In 1 Corinthians 1-4 the apostle Paul responds to reports from the people of Chloe about a totally divided Christian community in Corinth. There were several groups or parties, one claiming to belong to Paul, another to Apollos, another to Cephas (Peter), and–presumably–another to Jesus Christ (1:1112). 6 It seems likely that Christians in Corinth put their faith in “heroes,” men who were thought to play an indispensable part in their salvation. And if there was a Christ party, its members did not confess Jesus Christ as the unique Saviour of all mankind, but only as their private saviour. The Christians in Corinth admired Paul, Peter, Apollos (and Christ), while the

“vier geläufige Vorstellungen” brought together by the apostle “in lose Verbindung,” viz., “1. das Motiv vom brennenden Haus …, 2. die Erwartung, dass der kommende Herr mit Feuer erscheint …, 3. die Vorstellung der eschatologischen Feuerprobe … und 4. die sprichwörtliche Redewendung vom Gerettetwerden durchs Feuer” (ThWNT 6.944); and Radl even distinguishes “mindestens vier Feuer-Motiven” (Ankunft, 105). 4 So, e.g., Radl, Ankunft, 101. 5 Kuck, Judgment, 181. 6 On these parties, see esp. Barrett, “Cephas and Corinth”; Fitch, “Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ”; Vielhauer, “Kephaspartei”; Sellin, “Weisheit”; Baumann, Mitte und Norm, 49-55.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

3

adherents of each group regarded themselves as superior to all the others. As was to be expected, the apostle rebukes the addressees for being so divided. He even calls them “infants in Christ” and people who are still “(all too) human.” Slogans like “I belong to Paul” or “I follow Apollos” do not go well with a Christian way of life (3:1-4). Missionaries will be recompensed at the end of time: 1 Corinthians 3 In the third chapter Paul argues that he himself, Apollos and Cephas are “nothing” and that adhering to them is not a cause for pride (3:5, 7, 21-22). He refers to the example of two of them, himself and Apollos; Apollos, according to Acts 18:2419:1, had worked as a missionary among the people of Corinth after Paul had left the city. Men who proclaim the Gospel all over the world are in Paul’s opinion simply God’s agents. They do their jobs according to the tasks which God has allotted to each of them. So Paul was charged with the foundation of the Christian community in Corinth whereas Apollos was responsible for the building up of the local church. In 3:6-9 Paul first compares the Christian community with a garden, a field. The Christians in Corinth are God’s field. Paul is the one who planted and Apollos the one who watered. Both worked closely together but–and this is essential in Paul’s view–it is God who gives the growth. Without God’s activity there would not have been any Christians in Corinth. Paul and Apollos have been appointed to be his servants, his assistants, in his plan of salvation. They had to answer his call, and they had to perform their tasks well. For, as the apostle continues, each of them, that is Paul himself and Apollos and of course

4

Chapter One

everyone engaged in missionary activities, “will receive his wages according to his labour” (v. 8). Paul introduces in verse 8 a formula that is frequently found in Jewish and early-Christian literature in the context of God’s judgment of the righteous and sinners on the Last Day. The idea is found for example in Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 3:10, “But when the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled … I will bring the dead to life … so that I may render to each according to his works and according to the fruits of his own devices” (Harrington, OTP), and in Revelation 22:12, “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work” (੒ ȝȚıșȩȢ ȝȠȣ ȝİIJૃ ਥȝȠ૨ ਕʌȠįȠ૨ȞĮȚ ਦțȐıIJ૳ ੪Ȣ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ ਥıIJ੿Ȟ Į੝IJȠ૨)” (NRSV). 7 Everybody will be recompensed by God at the end of time according to the things he has done. In 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul applies this principle to God’s judgment of his agents. They will be judged by what each of them has done for the growth of

7

See also 1 En. 100:7, 2 En. 44:5, Ques. Ezra B 14, Matt 16:27, Rom 2:6, 2 Cor 11:15, 2 Tim 4:14, 1 Pet 1:17, Rev 2:23, 20:12-13, 1 Clem. 34:3, 2 Clem. 17:4, etc. The thought that everybody is rewarded according to his works is already found in the OT/LXX (see Ps 62:12 [61:13 LXX], Prov 24:12, Isa 40:10, 62:11, Jer 17:10, and Sir 16:1214), but its application to God’s final judgment in the eschaton is a later development. See Heiligenthal, Werke, 143-64, 171-82, 234-64.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

5

Christianity. 8 The apostle does not go into the subject of the kinds of rewards to be received by the missionaries. 9 In 3:10-15 Paul uses another metaphor to make the same point. It is prepared for in the last words of verse 9, “you are God’s building.” The planting image of the previous section is left behind in favour of a new image. Now the church in Corinth is compared with a building, 10 and Paul himself laid as it were its foundation when, during his stay in Corinth, he founded a small Christian community. He did so “according to the grace of God given to him” 11 and he did it well, “as a skilled master builder” (v. 10), 12 for the foundation he laid was Jesus Christ (v. 11). 13

8

Cf. Radl, Ankunft, 99-100. There is no difference of meaning between țȩʌȠȢ and ਩ȡȖȠȞ which is more usual in this context (see also v. 13). ȀȩʌȠȢ and ਩ȡȖȠȞ are found together in, e.g., 1 Thess 1:3, 3:5, Rev 2:2 and 14:13. Cf. in particular Wis 10:17, ਕʌȑįȦțİȞ ੒ıȓȠȚȢ ȝȚıșઁȞ țȩʌȦȞ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ. Cf. also Heiligenthal, Werke, 210 n. 176. See also n. 26 below. 9 By using the word ੅įȚȠȢ in v. 8b twice, Paul wants to underline once more that God is absolutely impartial and righteous, carefully weighing as it were one’s deeds and will recompense each individual missionary according to his individual achievements within the context of his specific task. He does not speak here about a general reward for all those who are called to the service of the Lord. Cf. Mattern, Verständnis, 170; Heiligenthal, Werke, 209-10. 10 The association of the two images is common: see, e.g., Jer 1:10 (Jeremiah’s call), 18:9, 24:6, Sir 49:7, Philo, Leg. 1.48, Odes Sol. 38:16-22. See also Vielhauer, Oikodome, 7-8, 37-38, 40-42, 74 n. 4. 11 Cf. 15:10, Rom 1:5, 12:3, 15:15, Gal 2:9, and Eph 3:7-8. Paul refers here to his apostolic commission. Or, in the words of Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 176, “Fundamentsetzer ist er als Apostel. Ebenso gilt aber zugleich das Umgekehrte: Als Apostel ist er Fundamentsetzer.” 12 Cf. Isa 3:3, and also Plutarch, Alex. 26 (Vit. par. 679F). 13 That is, “the word of the cross” (1:18), the knowledge of “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (2:2). Cf. also Maly, Gemeinde, 167-69.

6

Chapter One

Other missionaries have been called “to build upon it”:14 they were responsible for the deepening of the Christians’ faith and for the growth of the small Christian community. From the terminology (ਙȜȜȠȢ and ਪțĮıIJȠȢ in v. 10) it is clear that Paul, again, does not only have Apollos in mind but all those who were involved in the building up of the Christian church in Corinth, in short all the “heroes.” 15 But this time he excludes himself. Verses 12-15 deal exclusively with the builders or, in the words of the apostle in the previous section, with those who watered, not with the one who planted. Imperishable and perishable building materials/excellent and less qualified missionaries In 3:12-15 Paul works out the statement he made at the end of verse 10, viz. that every builder “must take care16 how he builds upon” the foundation laid by the apostle. All depends, in Paul’s view, on the materials used by the builders. He mentions six of 14

For the same imagery, see also Rom 15:20 and Eph 2:20. Its background is (Jewish) Hellenistic: see, e.g., Epictetus, Diss. 2.15.8, Philo, Cher. 101, Conf. 5, 87, Gig. 30, Mut. 211, Her. 116, Somn. 2.8, and Contempl. 34. On the use of ਥʌȠȚțȠįȠȝİ૙Ȟ, see Vielhauer, Oikodome, 75-81; Kitzberger, Bau, 64-72, and Kuck, Judgment, 17374. 15 It is doubtful if we should see in 3:10-15 “a reference to the work of all believers” (Kuck, Judgment, 174; see also Kitzberger, Bau, 66 and 70). It is true that in 1 Corinthians there are references to the individual responsibility for the upbuilding of the Christian community (see, e.g., 12:7, 14:3-5, 12, 26). But in view of the direct context, esp. 3:4-5 and 3:21-22, it is more plausible that Paul is referring to those people who were appointed to be missionaries and teachers. 16 For the parenetic function of the imperative of ȕȜİʌȑIJȦ in the context of judgment, see also Mark 4:24, 13:9, 1 Cor 10:12, etc. See also Heiligenthal, Werke, 211 n. 179.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

7

them: “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw” (v. 12). It is certainly not a scale of descending value, 17 for in that case Paul would have mentioned stone or clay as well. 18 His concern is not with the individual value or scarceness of the materials. Rather, he classifies the materials used by the church-builders in two groups: some materials endure fire and are imperishable, while others are consumed by fire and are perishable. Gold, silver and precious stones belong to the first group, wood, hay and straw to the second. It does not seem wise to ask whether Paul meant something in particular by gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and straw. Nor is it appropriate to ask whether all these materials were really in use as building materials at that time, or whether Paul had some fabulous building in mind or was perhaps thinking of Solomon’s temple with its gold, silver and precious stones. 19 All that seems

17

As is the case in, e.g., 4 Ezra 7:52-61. So rightly Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 16; cf. also Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11), 299. 19 So, with reference to 1 Chron 22:14-16, 29:2, 2 Chron 3:6, e.g., Gärtner, Temple, 56-60; Maly, Gemeinde, 68; Fee, Corinthians, 14041. Cf. Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 170 n. 40; Kuck, Judgment, 177. The fact that the Christian community is called “the temple of God” in vv. 1617 cannot be used as an argument in favour of the assumption that the apostle had Solomon’s temple in mind when he wrote vv. 10-12. Perhaps rather the reverse: the thought of the community as a building may have led to the introduction of the temple imagery in vv. 16-17 (cf. 2 Cor 6:16 and Eph 2:21). Neither is it plausible that Paul has developed the theme while thinking of the Feast of Tabernacles and the building of sukkoth in vv. 10-12 (as Massyngberde Ford, “God’s ‘Sukkah,’ ” 139-42, suggests) or some kind of apocalyptic building (cf. Vielhauer, Oikodome, 75 n. 5, and Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11), 300). 18

8

Chapter One

completely irrelevant here. 20 The apostle just wants to stress that there are excellent builders, who stimulate the Christian community and work hard for the promotion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (those who use the best materials: gold, silver and precious stones) and that there are less qualified, less stimulating people (those who use inferior materials: wood, hay and straw). As to the first cluster of materials, it was a matter of common knowledge that gold and silver are imperishable materials which are not consumed by fire but are instead refined. 21 This process of refining, which is in Greek usually expressed by the verbs ʌȣȡȠ૨Ȟ įȠțȚȝȐȗİȚȞ or țĮșĮȡȓȗİȚȞ is referred to in numerous OT and NT passages as well as in other Jewish and Christian sources, often in the form of a simile or metaphor (Prov 10:20, “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver [LXX, ਙȡȖȣȡȠȢ ʌİʌȣȡȦȝȑȞȠȢ@´ [NRSV], Sir 2:5, “For gold is proved in the fire [ਥȞ ʌȣȡ੿ įȠțȚȝȐȗİIJĮȚ ȤȡȣıȩȢ@,” and Philo, Sacr. 80, “let the fresh ripeness of the soul be ‘roasted’, that is tested by the might of reason, as gold is tested by the furnace. The sign that it has been tested and approved is its solidity [੪Ȣ ʌȣȡ੿ ȤȡȣıȩȢ … įİįȠțȚȝȐıșĮȚ@´ [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). 22

20

See also Weiss, Korintherbrief, 80; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 62; Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 170; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11), 299-300. 21 It will not do to make a sharp distinction between a fire that “refines” (in the case of gold and silver) and one that “burns” (in the case of wood, hay and straw), as, e.g., Vielhauer, Oikodome, 77-78 does. Paul just wants to underline that gold and silver are not consumed by fire, but “remain” in one way or another, over against wood, hay and straw. Cf. Herm. Vis. 4.3.4, and see n. 33 below. 22 See further, e.g., Num 31:22-23, Job 22:25, Ps 12:6 (11:7 LXX), 66:10 (65:10 LXX), Ezek 22:18-22, Zech 13:9, Mal 3:2-3, Wis 3:4-

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

9

By mentioning these two precious metals Paul certainly has this topic in mind. That he adds a third element, that of precious stones, which of course is somewhat different from gold and silver in its reaction to fire, is due to the fact that the three form a regular cluster 23 (2 Chron 32:27, Prov 8:10-11, 19 LXX, Dan 11:38 Th, Rev 18:12, and Apoc. Ps.-Meth. 11:14). Obviously, Paul took up this triplet with an eye to their imperishableness which was traditionally connected with two of them (gold and silver). The last three materials mentioned by the apostle in verse 12, wood, hay and straw, also belong closely together. They were known as materials that are easily consumed by fire. See, for instance, Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 20.65.1, “for, since the huts were made of reeds and straw (ਥț țĮȜȐȝȠȣ țĮ੿ ȤȩȡIJȠȣ and the fire IJȠ૨ ʌȣȡȩȢ was forcibly fanned by the breeze, the aid brought by the soldiers came too late” (Geer, LCL). 24 The weakness or perishableness of the three materials comes to the fore particularly when used in metaphors and similes, as found in OT and NT texts and in related literature; see, for instance, Exodus 15:7, “you sent out your fury, it consumed them like stubble (LXX, ੪Ȣ țĮȜȐȝȘȞ ´ (NRSV), and Zechariah 12:6, “I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot on a pile of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves (LXX, ੪Ȣ įĮȜઁȞ ʌȣȡઁȢ ਥȞ ȟȪȜȠȚȢ țĮ੿ ੪Ȣ ȜĮȝʌȐįĮ ʌȣȡઁȢ ਥȞ 6, Philo, Decal. 48, 1 Pet 1:7, 4:12, Rev 3:18, Did. 16:5, Herm. Vis. 4.3.4, and Mart. Pol. 15:2. 23 ȁȓșȠȣȢ IJȚȝȓȠȣȢ certainly do not refer to some kind of costly building stones like marble (so, e.g., Deissmann, Paulus, 243-47; Jeremias, ThWNT 4.272 n. 5). See also above. 24 See further, e.g., Aristotle, Mete. 341b 27 (țĮȜȐȝȘ), Plutarch, Suav. viv. 14 (Mor. 1096C) (ȤȩȡIJȠȞ ਲ਼ țĮȜȐȝȘȞ), Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 3.29.2 (ʌȣȡȠ૨ıȚ IJȩȞ … ȤȩȡIJȠȞ), 5.21.5 (țĮȜȐȝȦȞ ਲ਼ ȟȪȜȦȞ), 16.41.5 (ȤȩȡIJȠȞ ਥȞȑʌȡȘıĮȞ), and Josephus B.J. 6.153 (ȟȣȜİȓĮȞ ਲ਼ ȤȩȡIJȠȣ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒȞ).

10

Chapter One

țĮȜȐȝૉ); and they shall devour” (NRSV). 25 It is surely this traditional image that led Paul to introduce these three materials over against gold, silver and precious stones. The builders, therefore, must take care how they build, because there are excellent as well as inferior materials and the choice of material has direct consequences for the building itself, the church. Paul then turns in verses 13-15 to the theme of God’s judgment. He has already pointed out before that everyone will be recompensed by God according to the things he has done (v. 8). So each builder’s work, 26 that is whether he has built with excellent or with inferior materials, “will become manifest ijĮȞİȡઁȞ ȖİȞȒıİIJĮȚ  for the Day will disclose it (ਲ Ȗ੹ȡ ਲȝȑȡĮ įȘȜȫıİȚ ” (v. 13). The terminology is traditional. “The Day” 27 refers, of course, to the Last Day, the Day of the Lord, the Day of Judgment, expressions that have their roots in the OT. 28 The term was taken over by Jewish and Christian writers to denote the end of time when God would judge all mankind. And it was believed that on that day everybody’s deeds, even secret deeds and thoughts, would become manifest and would be examined and judged; see, for instance, 4 Ezra 7:35, “And recompense shall follow, and the reward shall be manifested; righteous deeds 25

See also, e.g., Job 41:19-21, Isa 5:24, Joel 2:5, Obad 18, Mal 4:1 (3:19 LXX), Wis 3:7, and 6 Ezra 1:23, 1 En. 48:9, Apoc. El. 1:4, 5:23, and cf. finally Matt 6:30. 26 Here, the word ਩ȡȖȠȞ is used as the result of one’s mission. There does not seem to be any difference of meaning with țȩʌȠȢ, which Paul uses in v. 8 (against Kitzberger, Bau, 70-71). Cf. Pesch, “Sonderlohn,” 200 n. 5; Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 171; Kuck, Judgment, 174 n. 123; and see also n. 8 above. 27 Cf. 1 Thess 5:4, Heb 10:25, Barn. 7:9, 21:3, etc. 28 See, e.g., Isa 10:20, 13:6, 9, Amos 9:11, Zeph 1:15, 18, 2:3, Zech 12:3-4, and Mal 4:1-6 (3:19-24 LXX).

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

11

shall awake, and unrighteous deeds shall not sleep” (Metzger, OTP), 1 Enoch 45:3, 100:10, 2 Enoch 44:5, and especially 2 Baruch 83:2-3, “And he will surely judge those who are in his world, and will truly inquire into everything with regard to all their works … He will certainly investigate the secret thoughts … And he will make them manifest” (Klijn, OTP), 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Clement 16:3, “But you know that the day of judgment is already approaching … and then shall be made manifest the secret and open deeds of men (IJȩIJİ ijĮȞȒıİIJĮȚ IJ੹ țȡȪijȚĮ țĮ੿ ijĮȞİȡ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ” (Lake, Apostolic Fathers), and Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 4.3, “the fruit of the righteous will be plain (IJ૵Ȟ įȚțĮȓȦȞ Ƞੂ țĮȡʌȠ੿ ijĮȞİȡȠ੿ ਩ıȠȞIJĮȚ ” (Lake, Apostolic Fathers). This general idea of the Last Judgment, when all people will be judged by God according to their deeds, is applied by Paul to those who are called to build the church (in Corinth) on the foundation of Jesus Christ as laid by the apostle himself. On the Last Day their deeds done openly or secretly will be brought to light, will be disclosed,29 and they will be judged by God according to what each of them has done for the building up of the Christian community. In other words: all builders, all authorities in the Christian community, are servants of God, whose works cannot be approved or disapproved by the members of the church. The Christians in Corinth are not in a position to judge apostles and missionaries. It is God who, at the Final Judgment, will disclose

29

ǻȘȜȠ૨Ȟ means in this context the disclosure of secrets, of things hidden so far (in this case: of the deeds of the church-builders). Cf. Ps 51:6 (50:8 LXX), IJ੹ ਙįȘȜĮ țĮ੿ IJ੹ țȡȪijȚĮ IJોȢ ıȠijȓĮȢ ıȠȣ ਥįȒȜȦıȐȢ ȝȠȚ. See also Bultmann, ThWNT 2.61; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11), 301; Kuck, Judgment, 179.

12

Chapter One

their work and will administer justice to each of them individually. 30 Fire as a means of testing at the end of time How it will be noticed which one worked with superior building materials and who with inferior materials, is indicated by Paul in the second part of verse 13: fire reveals one’s work, 31 fire will test 32 what sort of work each one has done. And this statement is elaborated in verses 14-15. First, positively: “If the

30

Cf. Heiligenthal, Werke, 210, 214. Most commentators are of the opinion that “the Day” (ਲ ਲȝȑȡĮ) is the intended subject of ਕʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİIJĮȚ; so, e.g., Weiss, Korintherbrief, 81; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 63; Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 16; Conzelmann, Korinther, 96 n. 18; Fee, Corinthians, 142; Radl, Ankunft, 103; Kuck, Judgment, 179. They refer to passages like Dan 7:9, Joel 2:3, 30, Mal 4:1, and 2 Thess 1:7, where this Day is associated with fire. But nowhere it is said that the Last Day “will be revealed.” The passive of the verb ਕʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚȞ does not seem to go with “the Day” (ਲ ਲȝȑȡĮ) in Greek. Consequently, it is more likely that IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ is the intended subject; so, e.g., Bachmann, Korinther, 164; St John Parry, Corinthians, 66 (but see 67!); Vielhauer, Oikodome, 77. First, because it fits the context where “the disclosure of each one’s works” is mentioned; second, because it goes well with the item that even secret deeds and thoughts will become manifest on the Day of Judgment (see above; for ਕʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚȞ associated with “secrets,” cf. Sir 1:30, ਕʌȠțĮȜȪȥİȚ țȪȡȚȠȢ IJ੹ țȡȣʌIJȐ ıȠȣ, and Luke 12:2); thirdly, because ਕʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚȞ does go with ਩ȡȖȠȞ (see, e.g., Sir 11:27, ਥȞ ıȣȞIJİȜİȓ઺ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ਕʌȠțȐȜȣȥȚȢ ਩ȡȖȦȞ Į੝IJȠ૨); and finally, since redundancy is not foreign to Paul’s style (see, e.g., Rom 7:14-25 and Gal 2:16), a supposed tautology in v. 13, an argument often put forward by the advocates of “the Day” as subject, is certainly not a decisive point against ਩ȡȖȠȞ as subject. Quite the contrary! 32 For įȠțȚȝȐȗİȚȞ in this context, see above (and n. 22). 31

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

13

work which any man has built survives, 33 he will receive a reward.” 34 Next, negatively: “If any man’s work is burned up, he will be fined, 35 but he himself will be saved, 36 but only as through fire.”

33

That is, “remains as it was,” “stands,” over against “is burned up” in v. 15. Cf. Herm. Vis. 4.3.4, “The golden part is you, who have fled from this world, for even as gold is tried in the fire and becomes valuable, so also you who live among them, are being tried. Those then who remain (ȝİȓȞĮȞIJİȢ) and pass through the flames shall be purified by them” (Lake, Apostolic Fathers), and Did. 16:5. 34 ȂȚıșઁȞ ȜȒȝȥİIJĮȚ (cf. v. 8), which is here, of course, meant in a strictly positive sense: the church-builder, whose work survives, will be rewarded. The nature of the reward(s), which is obviously not eternal salvation as such, is not made explicit, but it seems clear that Paul anticipates some special joy for faithful missionaries. Cf. also Pesch, Sonderlohn, and Kuck, Judgment, 182. 35 ǽȘȝȚȦșȒıİIJĮȚ which means either “he will suffer loss,” that is, he will lose the reward, whatever that will be, or “he will be fined,” he will pay the penalty. Both interpretations have their pros and cons, but the latter is, in my opinion, to be preferred, as it is more suitable to the immediate context. For this rendering is the exact opposite of ȝȚıșઁȞ ȜȒȝȥİIJĮȚ “will be rewarded.” Besides, “will be fined,” which of course does not refer to a loss of salvation, but nevertheless sounds quite threatening, fits in very well with the following “but he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” And finally, the statement “is in complete harmony with the payment policy found in many of the secular contracts relating to temple construction,” as Shanor pointed out in the article “Master Builder,” 470. That Paul did not elaborate upon the nature of the fine(s) is not strange: neither did he in the case of the nature of the reward(s). For a discussion on the meaning of ȗȘȝȚȠ૨Ȟ see also Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 172 n. 53; Kuck, Judgment, 182-83; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11), 303. 36 ȈȦșȒıİIJĮȚ. Since Paul is referring to God’s judgment on the Last Day, the verb must be understood soteriologically. Paul speaks of the final salvation and not just of a narrow escape.

14

Chapter One

One of the most striking elements in the passage is the role of fire. Traditionally, fire is an agent of God’s judgment on the Last Day, destroying all those who have turned against God. 37 In 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, however, fire is not depicted as the agent of God’s punitive wrath, but as a means of testing the quality of the builders’ works. 38 What “remains” is good; what “is burned up” not. And consequently, some builders will be rewarded and others fined. A well-known parallel: Testament of Abraham 13 As a parallel to this particular idea, Testament of Abraham 13 (Rec. A) has been mentioned. 39 In this passage, the archangel Michael explains to Abraham, during his heavenly journey, a judgment scene which the patriarch has just witnessed. It is not the final judgment by God that is described here, but the judgment of men immediately after death. The judge turns out to be Abel, the brother of Cain. Two angels, one on the right and one on the left, record sins and righteous deeds. Another angel, called Dokiel, holds a balance in his hand and weighs

37

Cf., e.g., Isa 66:15-16, Jub. 9:15, Sib. Or. 3:72-74, Matt 3:10. See further esp. Kuck, Judgment, 180 n. 155. 38 Since v. 13c does not speak of fire as an instrument of God’s punishing judgment, there is not a shift from theophany in v. 13c to testing in vv. 13d-15a (see also above and n. 31). Neither does Paul speak of the purging fire of purgatory or the fire of hell, which were opinions advocated by a number of early-Christian and mediaeval church Fathers and theologians; cf. Gnilka, Fegfeuer; Kuck, Judgment, 180-81 nn. 157-58. 39 See esp. Fishburne, “I Corinthians III. 10-15.” He was not the first to mention this parallel in connection with 1 Cor 3. In n. 2 on p. 109 he refers to Héring who brought up the T. Ab. passage in his Corinthians. Earlier, however, Weiss did the same in his Korintherbrief.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

15

the righteous deeds and sins of each soul. A fourth angel, Purouel, holds the fire in his hand, and he tests the work of men through fire įȠțȚȝȐȗİȚ IJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ਩ȡȖĮ įȚ੹ ʌȣȡȩȢ  And if the fire burns up the work of anyone țĮ੿ İ੅ IJȚȞȠȢ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ țĮIJĮțĮȪıİȚ IJઁ ʌ૨ȡ  immediately the angel of judgment takes him and carries him away to the place of sinners, a most bitter place of punishment. But if the fire tests the work of anyone and does not touch it İ੅ IJȚȞȠȢ į੻ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ IJઁ ʌ૨ȡ įȠțȚȝȐıİȚ țĮ੿ ȝ੽ ਚȥİIJĮȚ Į੝IJȠ૨), this person is justified and the angel of righteousness takes him and carries him up to be saved İੁȢ IJઁ ı૴ȗİıșĮȚ in the lot of the righteous. And thus, most righteous Abraham, all things in all people are tested by fire and balance (ਥȞ ʌȣȡ੿ țĮ੿ ȗȣȖ૶ įȠțȚȝȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ . (vv. 11-14; Sanders, OTP)

The similarities between both passages are indeed striking. In both texts it is told how works are tested by fire on a day of judgment, and also the language is quite similar. But it does not necessarily imply a dependence of one text upon the other.40 40

Fishburne thinks it does and he tries to prove Paul’s dependence on T. Ab. His argumentation, however, is far from convincing, apart from the fact that it is quite unlikely “that T. Abraham was written and circulated early enough to have been known by Paul” (Kuck, Judgment, 91). One example may suffice here. On p. 112 he assumes that in 1 Cor 2:9 Paul “is quoting rather freely from the Isaianic passages mentioned (i.e. Isa 64.4 and 65.17).” As to the words IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȖĮʌ૵ıȚȞ Į੝IJȩȞ, which are not found in the Isaianic passages (IJȠ૙Ȣ ਫ਼ʌȠȝȑȞȠȣıȚȞ Į੝IJȩȞ), he believes that Paul was dependent on T. Ab. 3:3, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, who is summoning him (Abraham) to those who love him (IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȖĮʌ૵ıȚȞ Į੝IJȩȞ).” It is, however, far more probable that Paul did not quote freely from Isaiah, but joined an apocalyptic tradition found in a number of Jewish and Christian writings, a more or less fixed unity that could be altered, shortened or amplified according to the literary needs of

16

Chapter One

The differences between both texts are a serious obstacle to the assumption of such a dependence. In Testament of Abraham 13, for instance, there is a judgment of men, righteous and sinners, by Abel immediately after death, whereas Paul speaks about God’s judgment of good and unskilled church-builders at the end of time. In the Testament of Abraham the fire in the angel’s hand is not the only means of testing men’s work: it is also weighed in a balance which is held by the second angel. Moreover, the sequence of the words and sentences is in both texts not exactly the same, as is also the case with the terminology. Finally, the reference to perishable and imperishable materials as we find in 1 Corinthians 3:12 is completely absent in Testament of Abraham 13. A more or less fixed tradition Since the differences between 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 and Testament of Abraham 13 are a real obstacle to the assumption of a dependence of one text upon the other, one should take into account the possibility that both authors were familiar with a more or less fixed tradition about fire as a means of testing men or their work in the context of God’s judgment of the righteous and sinners. 41

each individual author. Cf. also Berger, “I Kor. II.9.” Kuck wants to explain the close verbal resemblances between vv. 13-15 and T. Ab. 13:11-13 by “the activity of Christian scribes who reworked the text of the Testament of Abraham under the influence of their familiarity with 1 Cor 3” (Judgment, 184; cf. 9; and cf. Sanders, OTP, 1.889). But such an influence on a scribe of T.Ab. remains, though possible, highly speculative. 41 Radl, Ankunft, 101-2, thinks that both texts present the same traditional topoi. He is of the opinion that Paul and the unknown author of T. Ab. were familiar with an existing scheme (“ein vorgegebenes Schema”) that ran something like:

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

17

The first stage in the development of this tradition, the general presupposition behind it, may be the motif that fire cannot touch righteous men, since God stands by them. A well-known passage in this context is Daniel 3, where it is told how Daniel’s three friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were cast into the burning fiery furnace but remained unhurt: Ƞ੝Ȥ ਸ਼ȥĮIJȠ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ țĮșȩȜȠȣ IJઁ ʌ૨ȡ … Ƞ੝Ȥ ਸ਼ȥĮIJȠ IJઁ ʌ૨ȡ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ Įੂ IJȡȓȤİȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ țĮIJİțȐȘıĮȞ (3:50, 94 LXX). The men who had cast Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace, however, were caught by the fire and died. 42 Similar stories are found in Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6:16-18 and 38:3-4. In the first passage, we read how Abram was thrown by Joktan and his men into a fiery furnace, But God caused a great earthquake, and the fire gushing out of the furnace leaped forth in flames and sparks of flame. And it burned all those standing around in sight of the furnace. And all those who were burned in that day were ਦțȐıIJȠȣ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ IJઁ ʌ૨ȡ įȠțȚȝȐıİȚ İ੅ IJȚȞȠȢ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ ȝİȞİ૙, ȝȚıșઁȞ ȜȒȝȥİIJĮȚǜ İ੅ IJȚȞȠȢ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ țĮIJĮțĮȒıİIJĮȚ ȗȘȝȚȦșȒıİIJĮȚ But the verbal similarities between both texts do not necessarily point to a common (written) scheme, nor do the two İ੅ IJȚȢ (IJȚȞȠȢ) phrases, which are regular “Sätze heiligen Rechts” (cf. Käsemann, “Sätze heiligen Rechtes,” 248-60; Berger, “Sätzen heiligen Rechts”; Berger, “ ‘Sätze heiligen Rechts’ im N.T.”). Heiligenthal, Werke, 260-62, assumes an originally Persian tradition adopted by Paul and the author of T. Ab. The assumption is, however, based on no more than one piece of literature, viz., the Oracle of Hystaspes as found in Lactantius, Inst. 7:21 (on this text, see below). Unfortunately, Heiligenthal has not examined the tradition behind 1 Cor and T. Ab. more thoroughly. 42 On this story, see esp. Haag, “Dan 3:1-30,” and Kellermann, “Danielbuch,” 54-57.

18

Chapter One 83,500. But there was not the least injury to Abram from the burning of the fire (non est nec modica facta lesura, in concrematione ignis).

The second passage tells the story of seven pious men who were not willing to sacrifice to Baal and were taken by the servants of Jair to burn them in the fire, And when they had put them in the fire, Nathaniel, the angel who was in charge of fire, came forth and extinguished the fire and burned the servants of Jair. But he let the seven men escape (extinxit ignem, et incendit pueros Iair. Viris autem septem fugam dedit). (Harrington, OTP)

The same motif is also formulated as a more or less general principle: sinners cannot escape God’s wrath, neither on earth nor in the underworld, but God will have mercy on the righteous. Even fire will not harm a righteous man: ijȜઁȟ ʌȣȡઁȢ țĮ੿ ੑȡȖ੽ ਕįȓțȦȞ Ƞ੝Ȥ ਚȥİIJĮȚ Į੝IJȠ૨ (Pss. Sol. 15:4). 43

43

Cf. Pss. Sol. 13:6, ੖IJȚ įİȚȞ੽ ਲ țĮIJĮıIJȡȠij੽ IJȠ૨ ਖȝĮȡIJȦȜȠ૨, țĮ੿ Ƞ੝Ȥ ਚȥİIJĮȚ įȚțĮȓȠȣ Ƞ੝į੻Ȟ ਥț ʌȐȞIJȦȞ IJȠȪIJȦȞ These texts, particularly Dan 3:50, 94 LXX, explain the use of ਚʌIJİıșĮȚ in T. Ab. 13:13. Cf. also Mart. Pol. 15-16: when Polycarp has been condemned to the stake and the men in charge of the fire start to light it, “those of us to whom it was given to see beheld a miracle … For the flames, bellying out like a ship’s sail in the wind, formed into the shape of a vault and thus surrounded the martyr’s body as with a wall. And he was within it not as burning flesh but rather as bread being baked, or like gold and silver being purified in a smelting-furnace … At last when these vicious men realized that his body could not be consumed by the fire (ȝ੽ įȣȞȐȝİȞȠȞ Į੝IJȠ૨ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ ਫ਼ʌઁ IJȠ૨ ʌȣȡઁȢ įĮʌĮȞȘșોȞĮȚ)” (Musurillo, Martyrs), Mart. Pion. 22, and Mart. Paese and Thecla, in Till, Heiligen- und Martyrerlegenden 1.77-80 (text), 89-90 (trans.). On the influence of Dan 3 on martyrdom literature, see Kellermann, “Danielbuch,” 51-59.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

19

In a following stage, this general rule was linked up with the motif of God’s judgment of men, either immediately after death or on the Last Day. Fire was not only mentioned as a means of punishment but was also introduced as an instrument of testing men: all will have to go “through the fire,” the righteous will remain unhurt, sinners will be burned. See, for instance, And then all will pass through the blazing river and the unquenchable flame įȚ੹ ĮੁșȠȝȑȞȠȣ ʌȠIJĮȝȠ૙Ƞ țĮ੿ ijȜȠȖઁȢ ਕıȕȑıIJȠȣ  All the righteous will be saved ıȦșȒıȠȞIJĮȚ  but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages. (Sib. Or. 2:252-55; Collins, OTP) And he saw fiery gates, and at these gates he saw two lions lying there from whose mouth and nostrils and eyes proceeded the most powerful flames. The most powerful men were entering and passing through the fire, and it did not touch them (transiebant flammam, et non tangebat eos). And Ezra said, “Who are they, who advance so safely?” The angels said to him, “They are the just whose repute has ascended to heaven …” And others were entering that they might pass through the gates, and dogs were ripping them apart and fire was consuming them (ignis comburebat). And Ezra said, “Who are they?” The angels said, “They denied the Lord.” (Vis. Ezra 3-10; Mueller and Robbins, OTP) Then he brought me to a river of fire … And that river had wisdom in its fire: It would not harm the righteous, but only the sinners by burning them. (T. Isaac 5:21-25; Stinespring, OTP) The same divine fire (divinus ignis) … will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment … Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain. But when He shall have judged the righteous, He will also try them with fire (sed et iustos

20

Chapter One cum iudicaverit deus, etiam igni eos examinabit). Then they whose sins shall exceed either in weight or in number, shall be scorched by the fire and burnt (perstringentur igni atque amburentur); but they whom full justice and maturity of virtue has imbued will not perceive that fire (ignem illum non sentient); for they have something of God in themselves which repels and rejects the violence of the flame. So great is the force of innocence, that the flame shrinks from it without doing harm (refugiat innoxius); which has received from God this power, that it burns the wicked, and is under the command of the righteous (impios urat, iustis temperet). (Lactantius, Inst. 7:21; Fletcher, Ante-Nicene Christian Library)44

Conclusion It seems likely that both the author of the Testament of Abraham and Paul were familiar with this more or less fixed tradition about fire as a means of testing men on the Last Day and adapted it independently, each according to his specific literary needs. They introduced it, because the theme of men tested by fire and the Jewish-Christian motif of being recompensed by God at the end of time according to one’s deeds share one fundamental item, viz. the absolute impartiality and objectivity of God’s judgment. 45 As a consequence of the combination of these two traditions it is the works of men that are, as hypostasized works, tested by the fire. This change was surely facilitated by the role and function of hypostasized 44

See also Sib. Or. 8:411 and Apoc. Pet. 6. In 2 Bar. 48:39, the fire seems to be a punishment rather than a means of testing people (sinners). The idea of a (river of) fire testing men in order to distinguish the good from the bad seems to derive from Persian belief. See on this esp. Lang, ThWNT 6.932-33 and Heiligenthal, Werke, 262. 45 Cf. Heiligenthal, Werke, 248.

The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

21

works in the context of God’s judgment in Jewish and Christian literature. 46 Remarkably, the author of the Testament of Abraham speaks about the testing of the works of men IJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ਩ȡȖĮ by fire, though in the judgment scene itself (T. Ab. 12) “the fiery angel, who held the fire” is said to test “the souls” IJ੹Ȣ ȥȣȤȐȢ  as the angel with the balance in his hand “weighed the souls” IJ੹Ȣ ȥȣȤȐȢ  This shift is most probably due to the fact that the scene shows two other angels recording men’s sins and righteous deeds, and by the fact that it shows the weighing of deeds, which was quite common. 47 The apostle Paul has adapted the traditional theme of the testing of men by fire in the context of God’s final judgment more thoroughly. First of all he mentions two kinds of building materials: superior materials like gold, silver and precious stones, and inferior ones like wood, hay and straw. He does so with an eye to their imperishableness or perishableness when brought into contact with fire. Then he introduces the traditional image of the testing of men by fire on the Last Day in combination with the motif of being recompensed by God at the final judgment according to one’s deeds. He has the works of the builders, as hypostasized works, tested by fire, that is, the sort of materials with which they have built. Since Paul does not speak of righteous men over against sinners but of two types of builders, both types being Christians, the reward seems to be something additional to salvation and the fine does not 46

Cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 7:35 (see above) and see Heiligenthal, Werke, 23448. 47 See, e.g., 4 Ezra 3:34, 1 En. 41:1, and 2 En. 52:15. The motif of a balance in Jewish and Christian judgment scenes–another element to underline God’s impartiality and objectivity–derives from the Jewish-Christian Umwelt, this time from the Egyptian culture and literature: see Heiligenthal, Werke, 253-60.

22

Chapter One

imply eternal punishment. Even the unskilled church-builder will be saved. However, he will be saved “as through fire.” 48 This expression has certainly nothing to do with the concept of purgatory. 49 It is just a consequence of the previous statement: as the works of the unskilled church-builder are burned up on the Day of God’s judgment, it is, in Paul’s view, more than natural that also the agent, the one who is responsible for these works, does not fully escape the fire. Only those who “destroy” ijșİȓȡİȚȞ 50 the church, the community of Christians, will miss salvation and will be “destroyed” by God (1 Cor 3:16-17). Thus the judgment imagery in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is far from being inconsistent. Paul uses a combination of traditional motifs to make clear that missionaries and other authorities in the Christian communities cannot and should not be judged by “ordinary” Christians. Church-builders are no “heroes,” they are simply God’s agents, and none of them can be regarded as superior to the others. It is God who, at the end of time, will disclose their work and will recompense each of them individually.

48

ੲȢ įȚ੹ ʌȣȡȩȢ. Cf. Amos 4:11, Zech 3:2, and 1 Pet 3:20, “the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water (įȚİıȫșȘıĮȞ įȚૃ ੢įĮIJȠȢ)” (NRSV); on this text, see Cook, “I Peter iii.20.” Cf. also Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11), 304, “Gemeint ist also: Wie ein angekohltes Holzscheit gerade noch aus dem Feuer gerissen wird, so wird mit knapper Not auch der gerettet werden, dessen Werk verbrennt. Dieser Vergleich ist durch das Bild vom Feuer nahegelegt”; Radl, Ankunft, 105, “Es liegt vielmehr eine Redensart vor, und diese umschreibt das knappe Davonkommen”; and Kuck, Judgment, 183, “the phrase pictures the unexpected and narrow escape of those whose works will not stand up to the fiery test.” 49 See also n. 38 above. 50 On the opposition of ijșİȓȡİȚȞ and ȠੁțȠįȠȝİ૙Ȟ in this context, see Gärtner, Temple, 59-60, and Kitzberger, Bau, 68-69.

CHAPTER TWO THE IDEA OF FELLOWSHIP IN 1 CORINTHIANS 10:14-22 * HARM W. HOLLANDER

In chapter 10 of his first letter to the Corinthians the apostle Paul brings to a conclusion the argument about eating food sacrificed to idols that began in 8:1. 1 After a reference to the people of Israel’s idolatry in the desert during the Exodus as a negative example in verses 1-13 he warns his addressees in Corinth to “flee from idolatry” (v. 14). It would provoke the Lord and “arouse his jealousy” and they would consequently lose eternal salvation (v. 22). In concreto, Corinthian Christians should not participate in cultic meals celebrated for the glory of pagan deities. The basis for the prohibition of idolatry is Paul’s understanding of Christian fellowship: Christians share in the worship of God and cannot share with pagans in the worship of pagan deities as *

For Professor Dr Henk Jan de Jonge (Leiden), on the occasion of his 65th birthday (September 28, 2008). 1 The exact structure of Paul’s argument in these three chapters and the relation between 8:1-13, 9:1-27, 10:1-22, and 10:23-11.1 need not bother us here. On this theme, see the commentaries, ad loc., and esp. Willis, Idol Meat, and Smit, Idol Offerings. On these chapters, see further in particular Newton, Deity and Diet, and Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 179-263. A review of past research is found in Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 4-37.

24

Chapter Two

well. The key in this passage seems to be the țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ/țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ word-group. 2 For it is mentioned explicitly in all three examples of cultic associations used by Paul to convince the Corinthian Christians of the dangers of idolatry, i.e. the associations of Christians (vv. 16-17), of Jews (v. 18), and of pagans (vv. 19-21, esp. v. 20). However, the exact meaning of țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ is not clear at first sight. Is it to be interpreted to mean “participation”; that is, having a part of Christ, God, or a pagan deity, or does it mean “partnership” or “association”; that is, having fellowship with other worshippers of the same God?3 In other words, is the unity with Christ at stake here or the believers’ unity with one another? Or is there perhaps a shift between vv. 16 and 17 and does Paul proceed from a “vertical” țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ (i.e. the Christians’ fellowship with their Lord) in v. 16 to its “horizontal” implications (i.e. a țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ with the Christian believers) in verse 17? A careful analysis of the Greek terms țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its cognates with a genitive as found in verses 16, 18, and 20 may help to answer these questions. In the next paragraphs it will be argued that it is the unity of the Corinthian Christians with each other that Paul wants to emphasize in these verses, and not so much the “fellowshipestablishing event between Christ and the believers.” 4 A new 2

So also, e.g., Findlay, “Corinthians,” 2.863; Fee, Corinthians, 463 n. 6; and esp. Willis, Idol Meat, 165-212. 3 Cf. Campbell, “ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ,” 356, “The ideas of participation and of association are both present, and the main emphasis may fall upon either of them, sometimes to the practical exclusion of the other.” On the history of interpretation of the use of țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ in these verses, see esp. Willis, Idol Meat, 167-212. Important contributions to the interpretation of țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its cognates in NT are Campbell, “ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ”; Seesemann, ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ; Jourdan, “Ȁȅǿȃȍȃǿǹ”; McDermott, “KOINONIA”; Panikulam, Koinonia; and esp. Baumert, “Ȁȅǿȃȍȃǿǹ.” 4 So Powers, Salvation, 170-78, esp. p. 171.

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

25

interpretation of verse 17, and in particular of the use of the verb ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ, will support this argument. Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 In 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 the apostle Paul warns the Corinthian Christians against the dangers of idolatry (v. 14). He admonishes them not to participate in cultic meals for the glory of a pagan deity. As Christians, as people who “drink the cup of the Lord” and people who “have a part in the Lord’s table,” they cannot and should not “drink the cup of demons” nor “have a part in the table of demons” (v. 21). Taking part in a pagan cultic meal is idolatrous and is incompatible with a true Christian life. A similar line of thought is found in Joseph and Aseneth 8:5, And Joseph said, “It is not fitting for a man who worships God, who will bless with his mouth the living God and eat blessed bread of life and drink a blessed cup of immortality (ਥıșȓİȚ ਙȡIJȠȞ İ੝ȜȠȖȘȝȑȞȠȞ ȗȦોȢ țĮ੿ ʌȓȞİȚ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠȞ İ੝ȜȠȖȘȝȑȞȠȞ ਕșĮȞĮıȓĮȢ) … to kiss a strange woman who will bless with her mouth dead and dumb idols and eat from their table bread of strangulation and drink from their libation a cup of insidiousness (ਥıșȓİȚ ਥț IJોȢ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਙȡIJȠȞ ਕȖȤȩȞȘȢ țĮ੿ ʌȓȞİȚ ਥț IJોȢ ıʌȠȞįોȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠȞ ਥȞȑįȡĮȢ).” 5

According to Joseph and Aseneth Jews are people who “eat blessed bread” and “drink a blessed cup” as opposed to pagans 5

Burchard, Joseph und Aseneth, and OTP 2.211-12. See also Jos. Asen. 8:11, “let her eat your bread of life, and drink your cup of blessing (ijĮȖȑIJȦ ਙȡIJȠȞ ȗȦોȢ ıȠȣ țĮ੿ ʌȚȑIJȦ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠȞ İ੝ȜȠȖȓĮȢ ıȠȣ),” and 12:5, “I have sinned … My mouth is defiled from the sacrifices of the idols and from the tables of the gods of the Egyptians (ȝİȝȓĮIJĮȚ IJઁ ıIJȩȝĮ ȝȠȣ ਕʌઁ IJ૵Ȟ șȣıȚ૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ İੁįȫȜȦȞ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ șİ૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ǹੁȖȣʌIJȓȦȞ).”

26

Chapter Two

who “eat from their (= the idols’) table bread of strangulation” and “drink a cup of insidiousness.” On these grounds a “mixture” of both parties is impossible. Paul’s reasoning seems to be similar: Christians who “drink the cup of the Lord” and “have a part in the Lord’s table,” cannot mix with impunity in the company of people who “drink the cup of demons” and “have a part in the table of demons.” For the food eaten by pagans at their cultic meals is “offered to demons” and not “to God” (v. 20), 6 that is, it is dedicated to pagan deities and it is eaten for their glory. The “Lord’s table” refers to the food on the tables which was eaten by the Christians in remembrance of (the death of) Jesus Christ, just as the “table of demons” refers to the food eaten by pagans for the glory of their gods. According to the OT/LXX there was a “table” in the tabernacle and–later on–in the temple, the so-called “table for the bread of the Presence,” from which the priests were allowed to eat. 7 The altar itself was also called the “table (of the Lord).” 8 Pagan deities had “tables” in their temples as well. 9 It is quite plausible that in using the term “table (of the Lord/of demons)” in this passage Paul has been influenced by the use of tables in Jewish and pagan temples. He does not seem to consider the “table of the Lord” and the “table of demons” as altars on which sacrifices were offered in honour of God or demons but rather as tables at which people were eating together, either as Christians in remembrance of

6

Cf. the expression “bread of strangulation” and “cup of insidiousness” in Jos. Asen. 8:5. 7 See, e.g., Exod 25:23-30, Lev 24:5-9, 1 Kings 7:48, 1 Macc 1:22, 4:49, 51; cf. also 1 Clem. 43:2, and T. Jud. 21:5. 8 See, e.g., Ezek 44:16, Mal 1:7, 12, and cf. T. Levi 8:16. 9 See, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.181.5, 1.183.1; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 5.46.7.

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

27

the death of Jesus Christ or as pagans for the glory of pagan deities. 10 As the “table” refers to the food eaten by Christians or pagans during their meetings, so the “cup (of the Lord/of demons)” refers to the wine drunk at the meals of both Christians and pagans. For these meetings are to be characterized as convivia or symposia; social gatherings at which food and wine were offered to the gods and at which like-minded people ate and drank together. After the meal there was usually some time for drinking wine, singing songs, playing music, and discussion. 11 Thus, Paul’s argument in verses 19-22 is quite clear: although idols and food offered to idols are “nothing” (v. 19; cf. 8:4-6) Christians should not share food with pagans at their symposia. For their food is sacrificed in honour of demons and not of God, and Christians should not “provoke the Lord” (v. 22) by eating idol food in a cultic context. Paul considers demons, represented by idols, obviously existent; in his view, participating in such a cultic act is to be avoided, because this cult is addressed to existences, which are opposed to God. 12 So, the Corinthian 10

Cf. also the formulation “to have a part in (or “to eat from,” “to share”) the table” (ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ) used by Paul in v. 21 and in, e.g., Philo, Ios. 196, Plutarch, Brut. 13.7 (Vit. par. 989F), and Lucian, Cyn. 7. Cf. also Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. 15 (Mor. 158C), “a table … is an altar of the gods of friendship and hospitality (ijȚȜȓȦȞ șİ૵Ȟ ȕȦȝઁȞ țĮ੿ ȟİȞȓȦȞ)” (Babbitt, LCL). On the expression “table of the God,” see also Willis, Idol Meat, 15-17. 11 See, e.g., Plato, Symp. 176A, Xenophon, Symp. 2.1, Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. 5 (Mor. 150D), and Lucian, Tox. 25. It is plausible that 1 Cor 11-14, too, should be understood against the background of such symposia; see esp. De Jonge, “Lord’s Supper”; De Jonge, Avondmaal en symposium; Alikin, Christian Gathering. 12 Cf. esp. Newton, Deity and Diet, 277-90, 349-57; Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 212.

28

Chapter Two

Christians should not become “partners in demons (țȠȚȞȦȞȠઃȢ IJ૵Ȟ įĮȚȝȠȞȓȦȞ)” (v. 20), the associates of members of a cult devoted to idols. 13 According to Paul the case of the people of Israel is somewhat similar: people who together eat food offered to the God of Israel are “partners in the altar (țȠȚȞȦȞȠ੿ IJȠ૨ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓȠȣ)” (v. 18). Not only the priests used to eat food offered to God, but also the people of Israel were allowed to eat food that was offered by the priests to God on some occasions. So we read in Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.221, that the sacrificial meals should not be hoarded, but be free and open to all who have need (ʌ઼ıȚȞ … IJȠ૙Ȣ įİȠȝȑȞȠȚȢ), for they are now the property not of him by whom but of Him to Whom the victim has been sacrificed, He the benefactor, the bountiful, Who has made the convivial company of those who carry out the sacrifices partners of the altar whose board they share (țȠȚȞȦȞઁȞ ਕʌȑijȘȞİ IJȠ૨ ȕȦȝȠ૨ țĮ੿ ੒ȝȠIJȡȐʌİȗȠȞ IJઁ ıȣȝʌȩıȚȠȞ IJ૵Ȟ IJ੽Ȟ șȣıȓĮȞ ਥʌȚIJİȜȠȪȞIJȦȞ). 14

What Paul wants to underline here is that when Israelites or Jews eat together for the glory of God they are a close-knit community, or in his words, “partners in the altar,” that is, partners who share in the food on the altar and who consequently share the same cult. Just as pagans are “partners in demons,” that is, associates in a cult devoted to demons, Israelites or Jews are “partners in the altar,” that is, participants in the worship of the God of Israel. In both cases Paul uses the 13

For the Jewish-Christian characterization of pagans as people who worship “demons,” see, e.g., Ps 96:5 (95:5 LXX), “all the gods of the nations are demons (ʌȐȞIJİȢ Ƞੂ șİȠ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ਥșȞ૵Ȟ įĮȚȝȩȞȚĮ),” Deut 32:17, Ps 106:37 (105:37 LXX), Bar 4:7, 1 En. 19:1, 99:7, Jub. 1:11, T. Job 3:3, Philo, Mos. 1.276, Acts 17:18, Rev 9:20, Barn. 16:7, and Justin, Dial. 30.3, 55.2, 73.2. 14 Colson, LCL. See already Lev 7:11-15 and Deut 14:22-27.

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

29

term țȠȚȞȦȞȠȓ followed by a genitive (IJ૵Ȟ įĮȚȝȠȞȓȦȞ and IJȠ૨ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓȠȣ). This certainly takes up the word țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ which is used in verse 16. There Paul argues that “the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks” implies “being partners in the blood of Christ (țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȠ૨ Į੆ȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨)” and that “the bread that we break” implies “being partners in the body of Christ (țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨).” Without any doubt Paul refers to the meals served when the Christian believers met weekly in remembrance of their Lord Jesus Christ and his last supper “on the night he was betrayed.” 15 Whereas Paul follows the usual order (bread–cup) in 11:23-26, he now names the cup first and the bread last, probably because he wants to speak about the bread at more length in the next verse. 16 “The blood of Christ (IJઁ Į੆ȝĮ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨)” and “the body of Christ (IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨)” refer to the death of Jesus Christ and its beneficial effects on the Christian believers. 17 For elsewhere in his letters Paul also uses the words “the blood of Christ” and “the body of Christ” as metaphors to refer to Jesus Christ’s death. 18 But what exactly does he mean by “being partners in the blood of Christ” and “being partners in the body of Christ”? In order to answer this question an analysis of the term țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its cognates with a genitive seems to be appropriate.

15

Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34, esp. vv. 23-26. For a survey of the literature on the Eucharist tradition in the letters of Paul, see esp. Fee, Corinthians, 465 n. 17, and Thiselton, Corinthians, 752-54, 853-55. 16 So also, among many others, Fee, Corinthians, 466; Thiselton, Corinthians, 764; Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 224. 17 Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 468. 18 See, e.g., Rom 5:9, “justified by his blood (ਥȞ IJ૶ Į੆ȝĮIJȚ Į੝IJȠ૨),” 7:4, “you have died to the law through the body of Christ (įȚ੹ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨),” 3:25, 1 Cor 11:24, 25, 27.

30

Chapter Two

An analysis of țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its cognates with a genitive In the Graeco-Roman world țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ/țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ/țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙Ȟ are favourite terms to describe all kinds of business partnerships, joint enterprises, social and sexual relationships, and other sorts of associations. 19 They are also frequently used to characterize the close relationship between people having a meal together. A communal meal offered an opportunity to converse and to build friendships. 20 Eating together implies, or should imply, a close-knit community, a group of associates who are bound together by a joint interest. So we read, for instance, in Plutarch, Quaestionum convivalium libri IX 2.10.1 (Mor. 643A), For in my opinion, said Hagias, we invite each other not for the sake of eating and drinking, but for drinking together and eating together, and this division of meat into shares kills sociability (IJ੽Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ ਕȞĮȚȡȠ૨ıĮ) and makes many dinners and many diners with nobody anybody’s dinnercompanion when each takes his share by weight as from a butcher’s counter and puts it before himself. 21

19

See esp. Willis, Idol Meat, 167-81. Cf. already Seesemann, ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, 100, “Das Wort țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ spielt in der griechischen Literatur eine recht große Rolle. Abgesehen von einer Reihe von Spezialbedeutungen … ist es der ständige Ausdruck für die Gemeinschaft der Menschen untereinander.” 20 Cf. Newton, Deity and Diet, 246-49. 21 Clement and Hoffleit, LCL. See the entire passage Quaest. conv. 2.10.1-2 (Mor. 642F-644D), and further, e.g., Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. 15 (Mor. 158C), “For when the table is done away with, there go with it all these other things: the altar fire on the hearth, the hearth itself, wine-bowls, all entertainment and hospitality–the most humane and the first acts of communion between man and man (ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJĮIJĮ țĮ੿ ʌȡ૵IJĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȡઁȢ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȣȢ)” (Babbitt, LCL), 4 (Mor.149F), Quaest. conv. 4. praef. 1 (Mor. 660B),

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

31

But other kinds of relationships can also be described in these terms of partnership. The thing (or, occasionally, the person) in which people have a joint interest is usually expressed by a genitive. 22 Thus, in most instances, țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ/țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ with a genitive basically means “partnership,” “fellowship” or “sharing with one or more individuals who have a common interest in something (or someone).” 23 A number of examples from the literature of the Graeco-Roman period may illustrate this: This Herakleides was a Syracusan exile, a military man … but of an unsettled disposition, fickle and least of all to be relied upon when associated with a colleague in any command of dignity and honour (ਸ਼țȚıIJĮ į੻ ȕȑȕĮȚȠȢ ਥȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓ઺ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ਕȡȤ੽Ȟ ਥȤȩȞIJȦȞ țĮ੿ įȩȟĮȞ). 24 And yet even a well-bred guest at dinner has a function to perform, much more a hearer; for he is a participant in the

7.6.2 (Mor. 707C), 7.6.3 (Mor. 708D) (“A dinner party is a sharing of earnest and jest, of words and deeds [țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȖȐȡ ਥıIJȚ țĮ੿ ıʌȠȣįોȢ țĮ੿ ʌĮȚįȚ઼Ȣ țĮ੿ ȜȩȖȦȞ țĮ੿ ʌȡȐȟİȦȞ IJઁ ıȣȝʌȩıȚȠȞ]”; Minar, Sandbach, and Helmbold, LCL), Plutarch, Luc. 16.3 (Vit. par. 501E), Sir 6:10, and Philo, Spec. 1.221. 22 Cf. also Campbell, “ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ,” 357, “Theoretically, țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ might be used with three dependent genitives, of three different kinds … Commonly there is only one genitive, and in the large majority of instances this is, as might be expected, the genitive of the thing shared. More than five out of every six genitives used with țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ are of this kind”; McDermott, “KOINONIA,” 70, “The normal usage of țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its cognates is with a genitive of the thing participated in.” 23 Cf. Willis, Idol Meat, 168. 24 Plutarch, Dion 32.3 (Vit. par. 972D) (Stewart and Long, Plutarch’s Lives).

32

Chapter Two discourse (țȠȚȞȦȞઁȢ ȖȐȡ ਥıIJȚ IJȠ૨ ȜȩȖȠȣ) and a fellowworker with the speaker. 25 that she dared to do such wickedness as to murder the lawful wife of her king, who was the mother of the heirs to the throne (lit.: “[the king’s] partner in her relationship with the children who were brought up for kingship”) (ਕȞİȜİ૙Ȟ IJȠȜȝȒıĮıĮ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȞȘıȓĮȞ ȕĮıȚȜȑȦȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ țĮ੿ IJȑțȞȦȞ țȠȚȞȦȞઁȞ ਥʌ੿ ȕĮıȚȜİȓ઺ IJȡİijȠȝȑȞȦȞ  26 But where will you find me a Cynic’s friend? For such a person must be another Cynic, in order to be worthy of being counted his friend. He must share with him his sceptre and kingdom (țȠȚȞȦȞઁȞ Į੝IJઁȞ İੇȞĮȚ įİ૙ IJȠ૨ ıțȒʌIJȡȠȣ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ). 27 Friendship, they declare, exists only between the wise and good, by reason of their likeness to one another. And by friendship they mean a common use of all that has to do with life (ijĮı੿ įૃ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ IJȚȞ੹ İੇȞĮȚ IJ૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ȕȓȠȞ), wherein we treat our friends as we should ourselves. 28 For it is good that they should not be ignorant of one another, being members of the same race and partners in the same institutions (੒ȝȠijȪȜȠȣȢ IJİ ੕ȞIJĮȢ țĮ੿ IJ૵Ȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȠ૨ȞIJĮȢ ਥʌȚIJȘįİȣȝȐIJȦȞ). 29

25

Plutarch, Rect. rat. aud. 14 (Mor. 45E) (Babbitt, LCL). Plutarch, Art. 18.6 (Vit. par. 1020C) (Stewart and Long, Plutarch’s Lives). 27 Epictetus, Diss. 3.22.63 (Oldfather, LCL). 28 Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 7.124 (Hicks, LCL). 29 Josephus, A.J. 4.204 (Thackeray, LCL). For more examples of such a use of țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ or țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ with a genitive, see Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.32 (ijȚȜȓĮȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ), Thucydides, Hist. 7.63.4 (țȠȚȞȦȞȠȓ … IJોȢ ਕȡȤોȢ), Plutarch, Amat. 5 (Mor. 752A) (ਕijȡȠįȚıȓȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚț૵Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ), Brut. 13.7 (Vit. par. 989F) (țȠȚȞȦȞઁȢ ȝ੻Ȟ ਕȖĮș૵Ȟ … țȠȚȞȦȞઁȢ įૃ ਕȞȚĮȡ૵Ȟ). The apostle Paul also seems to use țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ 26

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

33

Just as țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its cognates are favourite terms to characterize the close relationship between people having a meal together, there are also quite a number of passages in Hellenistic literature where the genitive explicitly refers to the event of having a meal. Let me give just a few examples: And there is a friend who is a table mate (țȠȚȞȦȞઁȢ IJȡĮʌİȗ૵Ȟ). 30 to invite acquaintances and associates of one’s own, to share in the libations and the food and the talk over the wine and this way throughout his letters: apart from 1 Cor 10:16, 18, and 20 (see below), see 2 Cor 1:7 (“knowing that if you share with me the sufferings, you share also with me the consolation” or “knowing that if you are my partners in the sufferings, you are also my partners in the consolation” [İੁįȩIJİȢ ੖IJȚ ੪Ȣ țȠȚȞȦȞȠȓ ਥıIJİ IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮșȘȝȐIJȦȞ, Ƞ੢IJȦȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ʌĮȡĮțȜȒıİȦȢ]), Phil 2:1 (“If then there is … any consolation from love, any kind of fellowship from the Spirit [İ੅ IJȚȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ʌȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ]”), 3:10 (“and to share with him the sufferings” or “and to be his partner in the sufferings” [(IJ੽Ȟ) țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ (IJ૵Ȟ) ʌĮșȘȝȐIJȦȞ Į੝IJȠ૨]), Philem 6 (“the faith you share with us [ਲ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJોȢ ʌȓıIJİȫȢ ıȠȣ]”). Many interpreters and translators may argue that in these instances Paul uses the terms țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ in the sense of “participation in something” rather than “partnership” or “sharing with someone in something,” but in that case Paul would use the terms contrary to the standard sense in Hellenistic Greek. Finally, also 1 Cor 1:9 (ਥțȜȒșȘIJİ İੁȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ IJȠ૨ ȣੂȠ૨ ૃǿȘıȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ IJȠ૨ țȣȡȓȠȣ ਲȝ૵Ȟ) may be interpreted this way: the Corinthians are called into “a fellowship of believers based on their relationship with his (= God’s) son Jesus Christ our Lord.” In this text Paul may not refer to a fellowship of the Corinthians with Christ (through the Spirit), an interpretation that cannot be totally excluded (cf., e.g., Isa 1:23 LXX, “companions of thieves [țȠȚȞȦȞȠ੿ țȜİʌIJ૵Ȟ]”) and that is supported by almost all commentators, but to a society of Christian believers established on (their faith in) Christ (cf. Willis, Idol Meat, 209-11). 30 Sir 6:10.

34

Chapter Two the conviviality (ਥʌ੿ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ ıʌȠȞįોȢ țĮ੿ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ țĮ੿ ȜȩȖȦȞ ਥȞ Ƞ੅Ȟ૳ ȖȚȞȠȝȑȞȦȞ țĮ੿ ijȚȜȠijȡȠıȪȞȘȢ).31 and Lucullus, after some acquaintance with him (= Olthakus), was soon pleased with his acuteness and his zeal, and at last admitted him to his table and made him a member of his council (੮ıIJİ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ țĮ੿ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ʌȠIJ੻ ʌȠȚİ૙ıșĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȩȞ). 32

These examples make clear that in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ refer to the close relationship between the people who are having a cultic meal together: in verse 16, Christians who eat together in remembrance of the death of their Lord Jesus Christ; in verse 18, Israelites or Jews, who have a meal together as worshippers of the God of Israel; and in verse 20, pagans who are together and eat their meals for the glory of their gods. In all three cases the meals are described as apt occasions for social association and as expressions of partnership between the participants. Eating together in remembrance of Jesus Christ, Christians are “partners in his body and his blood”; that is, they are partners in their belief in Jesus Christ and the beneficial effects of his violent death. Likewise, Israelites or Jews who have a cultic meal are “partners in the altar”; that is, they are united as participants in the worship of the God of Israel, and pagans who eat together 31

Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 7.6.2 (Mor. 707C) (Minar, Sandbach, and Helmbold, LCL). 32 Plutarch, Luc. 16.3 (Vit. par. 501E) (Stewart and Long, Plutarch’s Lives). Cf. further Philo, Spec. 4.119, “because a man ought not to be table mate with savage brutes (੪Ȣ Ƞ੝ įȑȠȞ țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙Ȟ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ ਕIJȚșȐıȠȚȢ șȘȡȓȠȚȢ)” (Colson, LCL), Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. 4 (Mor. 149F), “to share the same table with Ardalus (ૃǹȡįȐȜ૳ țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙Ȟ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ)” (Babbitt, LCL), Ps.-Clem. Hom. 8.20.1, 8.23.2. For Philo, Spec. 1.221 (țȠȚȞȦȞȩȞ … IJȠ૨ ȕȦȝȠ૨ țĮ੿ ੒ȝȠIJȡȐʌİȗȠȞ), see above.

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

35

are “partners in demons”; that is, they are associates with other people in a cult devoted to idols. 33 Since Paul considers the cultic meals of the local Christian communities to be expressions of partnership between people who share a common belief in their Lord Jesus Christ, he cannot imagine that on other occasions there are Christians in Corinth who share a sacrifice and a common meal with pagans and are “partners (with one another and with [their] heathen fellow-worshippers) in demons.” 34 In his view, such behaviour is identical to idolatry and is, consequently, to be condemned. For “the Christian and pagan meals represent differing communities of allegiance.” 35 Fully to convince his readers in Corinth Paul feels obliged to add a few phrases about the “unity” and “solidarity” of the Christian community in verse 17. 36 A detailed analysis of this verse seems appropriate in order fully to understand Paul’s argument in this passage. A new interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:17 Having said that the Christian meals imply a partnership between the Christian believers, Paul adds another two phrases 33

Cf. Willis, Idol Meat, 184-212. Willis’ assumption that in vv. 18 and 20 țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮțȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ refers to “partnership” or a “communal relationship” (among Israelites or Jews in v. 18, and among pagans in v. 20) but that in v. 16 it means “the relationship established among members of a covenant and the obligations ensuing from it” (209) seems to lack any conclusive evidence. Also in the case of the Christian cultic community described in v. 16 țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ stands for “partnership.” Of course, in Paul’s view Christians are also members of a (new) covenant, but that idea is not implied by the word țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ itself. 34 So Campbell, “ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ,” 378. 35 So Willis, Idol Meat, 207. 36 Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 469.

36

Chapter Two

meant to underline the close and solid relationship of the Christians to one another. He starts by saying that “since there is one bread, we who are many are one body (੖IJȚ İੈȢ ਙȡIJȠȢ, ਨȞ ı૵ȝĮ Ƞੂ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ ਥıȝİȞ).” Elsewhere in his letters the apostle also compares the Christian community to a (human) “body” in order to make clear to his readers that the Christians are (or should be) a community tightly bound together by social and religious beliefs and activities and whose members feel (or should feel) solidarity with one another. In chapter 12 he will refer to this image of the “body” in much more detail; there we find once again the idea that all Christians are members of only “one body,” the “body of Christ” (see 12:12-31, esp. vv. 12-13, 27). 37 The reason that all the Christians together are “one body,” one close-knit community, is–according to Paul in 10:17–that “there is one bread.” Of course, the apostle does not mean that there is only one piece of bread which is broken and divided among the participants at all the Christian meals, but that all Christians eat some bread and thus take part in eating the same sort of food. 38 For him as for all people of his time, having a meal together at one table and eating the same food implied the unity and solidarity of the participants. Some passages from Jewish, early-Christian, and pagan literature are very illustrative in this context: We have certainly heard of banquets where sudden destruction has fallen upon a great assemblage of guests drawn by comradeship to eat of the same salt and sit at the same board (IJȠઃȢ Į੝IJȠઃȢ ਚȜĮȢ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ IJȡȐʌİȗĮȞ). 39

37

See further 6:15, and Rom 12:5; cf. also Eph 1:23, 2:16, 4:4, 12, 16, 5:23, 30, Col 1:18, and 3:15. 38 Cf. 10:3-4. 39 Philo, Spec. 3.96 (Colson, LCL).

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

37

I would have given money to share the same table with Ardalus (ૃǹȡįȐȜ૳ țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙Ȟ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ). 40 when he brought together in one golden-canopied tent an hundred Persian brides and an hundred Macedonian and Greek bridegrooms, united at a common hearth and board (ਥijૃ ਦıIJȓĮȢ țȠȚȞોȢ țĮ੿ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ). 41 For once friends used to meet over one loaf (੖IJȚ ਥʌ੿ ਪȞĮ [ਙȡIJȠȞ] Ƞੂ ʌȐȜĮȚ IJ૵Ȟ ijȓȜȦȞ ਥijȠȓIJȦȞ). 42

Since Christians share the food at their joint meals, in particular the bread which they break in remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ (v. 16), they are to be considered “one body,” though they are “many” (v. 17a). Paul seems to be afraid that his readers in Corinth will not understand the metaphor of the (human) body and therefore adds an explanation in verse 17b (Ƞੂ Ȗ੹ȡ ʌȐȞIJİȢ ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ ȝİIJȑȤȠȝİȞ) which is usually translated as “for we all partake of the one bread” (NRSV) or “for it is one loaf of which we all partake” (REB). In other words, “Ǻy common ‘participation’ in the single loaf, the ‘body of Christ’, they affirm that they together make up the ‘body of Christ.’ ” 43 This translation and interpretation is, however, somewhat problematic. First: understood this way verse 17b does not turn out to be an explanation of verse 17a but a rather futile statement telling the Corinthians what they already knew. The word “for” (ȖȐȡ), however, makes clear that verse 17b is indeed meant to clarify the preceding sentence in verse 17a. 40

Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. 4 (Mor. 149F) (Babbitt, LCL); see also n. 32 above. 41 Plutarch, Alex. fort. 1.7 (Mor. 329E) (Babbitt, LCL). 42 Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 8.35 (Hicks, LCL). See further Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 9.1.1 (Mor. 736DE), Philo, Spec. 1.221 (see above), Ign. Eph. 20:2; and see already Dan 11:27, “The two kings … shall eat at one table (LXX, ਥʌ੿ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ ijȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ).” 43 So Fee, Corinthians, 470.

38

Chapter Two

Second: the grammatical construction seems to pose an obstacle to this interpretation and translation. Translators and interpreters are keen on connecting the verb “to partake” (ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ) with the words “of the one bread (ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ).” 44 They are surely aware of the fact that ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ is usually preceded or followed by a noun in the genitive or in the accusative indicating the thing which is shared. 45 Following Nȉ grammars and dictionaries they seem to feel justified in interpreting the prepositional phrase (ਥț …) as another example of a Hellenistic substitute for the (Classical) partitive genitive. 46 But nobody mentions a parallel passage from Greek 44

So, among many others, Weiss, Korintherbrief, 259; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 214 (“For we all have our share from the one bread”); Bachmann, Korinther, 338 (“insgesamt ja haben wir Anteil an dem Einen Brote”); Barrett, First Corinthians, 229 (“for we all partake of the one loaf”); Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 46 (“denn alle haben wir an dem einen Brote teil”); Conzelmann, Korinther, 208 (“denn wir alle haben an dem einen Brot teil”); Fee, Corinthians, 462 (“for we all partake of the one loaf”); Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 6,12-11,16), 430 (“denn wir alle haben teil an dem einen Brot”); Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 216 (“denn wir haben alle teil an dem einen Brot”); Thiselton, Corinthians, 750 (“for it is the one bread that we all share”). 45 So also Paul in 1 Cor 9:12 and 10:21. 46 See, among others, Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf, Grammatik, § 169; Moulton, Howard, and Turner, Grammar 3.231; Bauer, Aland and Aland, Wörterbuch, s.v. ȝİIJȑȤȦ, “Statt d. Gen. ȝ. ਥț IJȚȞȠȢ: ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ ȝ. von ein und demselben Brot genießen”; between brackets they add a reference to “Thieme 29f.,” that is Thieme, Inschriften, 29-30, but in his book Thieme does not mention any other example of ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ ਥț but only states that the verbs ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ and țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙Ȟ are for the greater part synonymous (“Beide Verba sind Synonyma,” p. 30). Cf. Bachmann, Korinther, 338, who assumes that “ਥț ist vielmehr als pleonastische Bezeichnung des schon durch den Genitiv ausgedrückten Partitivverhältnisses zu

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

39

literature where we find the verb ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ connected with a prepositional phrase with ਥț and I am afraid there is none.47 What Paul wants to explain to his readers in Corinth in verse 17b seems to be the meaning of the metaphor of “one body.” As ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ in verse 17b corresponds with ੖IJȚ İੈȢ ਙȡIJȠȢ in verse 17a, and Ƞੂ ʌȐȞIJİȢ in verse 17b corresponds with Ƞੂ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ in verse 17a, so the verb ȝİIJȑȤȠȝİȞ in verse 17b is meant to correspond with ਨȞ ı૵ȝĮ … ਥıȝİȞ in verse 17a. In other words: the verb ȝİIJȑȤȠȝİȞ is not to be connected with the prepositional phrase ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ but is used in an absolute sense, and is meant to elucidate the metaphor in the preceding clause. In some passages in Greek literature where the verb ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ is used in an absolute sense, the noun indicating the thing which is shared can and must be supplied from the context. 48 In other instances, however, there is no such verstehen”; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 6,12-11,16), 440 n. 350, agrees with Bachmann but thinks that it is also possible that it is “einfach Indiz der vordringenden präpositionalen Wendungen anstelle des gen. part.” 47 Cf. Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 214, who notice that “Nowhere else have we ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ with ਥț,” but they refer to 1 Cor 11:28 (there, however, ਥıșȓİȚȞ ਥț and ʌȓȞİȚȞ ਥț), and Fee, Corinthians, 470, who characterizes the use of ਥț with ਙȡIJȠȢ as “unusual,” but tries to reassure his readers by telling that “Nothing is to be made of the unusual use of ਥț with ਙȡIJȠȢ; it is a Hebraism: all eat from the one loaf.” (470 n. 35). 48 So also in Paul: see 1 Cor 9:10, “and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop (țĮ੿ ੒ ਕȜȠ૵Ȟ ਥʌૃ ਥȜʌȓįȚ IJȠ૨ ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ)” (NRSV), and 10:30, “If I partake [sc. of food and drink] with thankfulness (İੁ ਥȖઅ ȤȐȡȚIJȚ ȝİIJȑȤȦ), why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks?” (NRSV). See also, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.143.3, “nor indeed did any save the men of Smyrna ask to be admitted (sc. into the temple) (Ƞ੝įૃ ਥįİȒșȘıĮȞ į੻ Ƞ੝įĮȝȠ੿ ȝİIJĮıȤİ૙Ȟ ੖IJȚ ȝ੽ ȈȝȣȡȞĮ૙ȠȚ)” (Godley, LCL); cf. 1.144.1

40

Chapter Two

need, particularly not in those clauses where the verb is used in an absolute sense with the meaning “to be partners.” 49 See, for instance, chief tax-farmers and associates may be partners, [IJĮȚȢ IJȦȞ ĮȡȤ]ȦȞȦȞ țĮȚ [IJȦȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȦ]Ȟ ȝİ[IJȠȤ]ĮȚȢ İȟİı[IJȦ] ȝİIJİȤ[İ]ȚȞ. 50 These, who at first were seven, made a faction and conspired to slay Strattis, the despot of Chios; but when their conspiracy became known, one of the accomplices (lit.: “one of those who were partners,” ਦȞઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȝİIJİȤȩȞIJȦȞ) having revealed their enterprise, the six that remained got them privily out of Chios. 51 so a friend, if need befall for his services that involves expense, danger, or labour, is foremost in insisting, without excuse or hesitation, that he be called upon and that he do his share (or: “that he be called upon and that he be his partner,” țĮȜİ૙ıșĮȚ țĮ੿ ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ). 52

and 3 (ਥȟİțȜȒȚıĮȞ IJોȢ ȝİIJȠȤોȢ), and P.Oxy. 12.1408, l. 26, “there are many methods of giving them (viz. robbers) shelter: some do so because they are partners in their misdeeds, others without sharing in these yet (Ƞੂ į੻ Ƞ੝ ȝİIJȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ȝ੻Ȟ țĮ[…)” (cited in Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. ȝİIJȑȤȦ). The very formulation (ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ ȝİIJȑȤȠȝİȞ) makes it unlikely that 1 Cor 10:17b also has the object implied (e.g., bread or food); a phrase like “For because of the one bread we all partake of bread (or: food)” does not make sense. 49 See Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Lexicon, s.v. ȝİIJȑȤȦ 7, who refer to a text in the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus (col. 14, ll. 911) and to a passage in Herodotus, Hist. 8.132 (see below). 50 Grenfell and Mahaffy, Revenue Laws, col. 14, ll. 9-11. Translation mine. 51 Herodotus, Hist. 8.132.2 (Godley, LCL). 52 Plutarch, Adul. amic. 23 (Mor. 64D) (Babbitt, LCL).

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

41

After she (= Poppaea) became his (= Otho’s) wife, he did not like to share her favours (lit.: “he did not like to be his [= Nero’s] associate [with respect to her],” Ƞ੝ț ਱ȖȐʌĮ ȝİIJȑȤȦȞ). 53

From these examples54 it may be concluded that the verb ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ can be used in an absolute sense meaning “to participate,” “to share,” or “to be associates” or “partners.” As such the verb is indeed more or less synonymous with țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙Ȟ 55 and seems to have been quite appropriate for Paul to explain the metaphor of the “one body” in verse 17: together, the Corinthian Christians eat the same food, they share the same cult and the same belief in their Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, they “are partners” (ȝİIJȑȤȠȝİȞ); they are, in other words, “one body” (ਨȞ ı૵ȝĮ), the body of Christ. As said before, the prepositional phrase ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ in verse 17b is not to be connected with the verb ȝİIJȑȤȠȝİȞ but refers back to ੖IJȚ İੈȢ ਙȡIJȠȢ in verse 17a, and is meant to form the basis for Paul’s view that the Corinthian Christians are “partners” in their belief in Jesus Christ. The preposition ਥț is used more than once in a causal sense to be interpreted and translated as “in consequence of,” “because of,” “by reason of,” or “on the basis of.” 56 This means that ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ can 53

Plutarch, Galba 19.7 (Vit. par. 1061E) (Stewart and Long, Plutarch’s Lives). 54 Cf. also an inscription from Magnesia in Kern, Inschriften, no. 116, l. 16 (IJȠ૙Ȣ ȝİIJȑȤȠȣıȚȞ). 55 Cf., among others, Thieme, Inschriften, 29-30 (see n. 46 above); Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, s.v. ȝİIJȑȤȦ; Willis, Idol Meat, 196-97. 56 See Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Lexicon, s.v. ਥț III.6; Bauer, Aland and Aland, Wörterbuch, s.v. ਥț 3f. Examples of such a use of ਥț are found in, e.g., Homer, Od. 15.197, “Friends from old we declare ourselves to be by reason of our father’s friendship (ਥț ʌĮIJȑȡȦȞ

42

Chapter Two

be translated as “in consequence of the one bread” or “since there is one bread” (synonymous with ੖IJȚ İੈȢ ਙȡIJȠȢ in v. 17a), that is “on the basis of the fact that we Christians share the same bread.” The whole phrase verse 17b should then be translated as “on the basis of the fact that there is one bread we all are partners (in our belief in Jesus Christ).” Interpreted this way verse 17b offers a lucid explanation for the meaning of the metaphor of the one “body” in verse 17a. As a consequence, verse 17 once more underlines the unity and solidarity of the Christian community, a theme so prominent in this passage (esp. vv. 16, 18, and 20-21). Conclusion In 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 the apostle Paul warns his readers to refrain from idolatry. That means, according to Paul, in concreto that they should not participate in cultic meals for the glory of a pagan deity. Since Christian believers share together in the worship of God, they should not share with pagans at their symposia. Taking part in a pagan cultic meal is idolatry and is absolutely incompatible with a true Christian life. In order to convince his addressees in Corinth Paul stresses the unity and solidarity which exist between worshippers of the same religious community. Sharing with pagans at their cultic meals would break the Christian community and would provoke God, for a joint meal is the expression of the unity and solidarity of the participants. In this context Paul uses the terms țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and țȠȚȞȦȞȩȢ, favourite terms in his time to describe all sorts of associations. When the terms are used with a ijȚȜȩIJȘIJȠȢ)” (Murray and Dimock, LCL), Herodotus, Hist. 3.29.3, “When he was dead of the wound (IJઁȞ ȝ੻Ȟ IJİȜİȣIJȒıĮȞIJĮ ਥț IJȠ૨ IJȡȫȝĮIJȠȢ) the priests buried him” (Godley, LCL), Xenophon, Anab. 2.5.5, Philo, Ios. 184, Luke 12:15, Acts 19:25, Rom 4:2, Gal 2:16, and Rev 16:10.

The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

43

genitive, as in verses 16, 18, and 20, the noun in the genitive usually refers to the thing (or, occasionally, the person) in which (or in whom) people have a common interest. Thus, in Paul’s view, Israelites or Jews are people who are united as participants in the worship of the God of Israel (“partners in the altar,” v. 18), pagans are associates in a cult devoted to idols (“partners in demons,” v. 20), and Christians are partners in their belief in Jesus Christ and the beneficial effects of his violent death (“partners in his [= Jesus Christ’s] blood and body,” v. 18). After having said in verse 16 that Christians are a close-knit community, a group of associates who are bound together by their belief in Jesus Christ, Paul continues in verse 17 by telling his readers that at their meals in remembrance of the death of their Lord Jesus Christ they are together eating the same food, viz. “one bread,” which implies that they are “one body”; a community whose members feel or should feel solidarity with one another. For they are “partners,” this time expressed by the term ȝİIJȑȤİȚȞ, which is not to be connected, as all interpreters and translators seem to do, with the prepositional phrase ਥț IJȠ૨ ਦȞઁȢ ਙȡIJȠȣ, but is used in an absolute sense. Thus, there is no shift between verses 16 and 18-21 on the one hand and verse 17 on the other; neither is verse 17 to be interpreted as a digression. 57 Both the references to țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ in verse 16 (cf. vv. 18 and 20) and the phrases in verse 17 should be understood ecclesiologically, denoting “partnership” rather than “participation.” 58 The entire passage 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 57

Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 469. As De Jonge seems to do; see his “Lord’s Supper,” 209, “ ‘The Lord’s Supper’ … established the unity of the congregation” (cf. 210-11, but see p. 213, where De Jonge speaks of the țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ “with Christ and with one another”). However, the unity of the Christian congregation is not “established” by a Christian meal, neither did it 58

44

Chapter Two

centres on the idea of the unity and solidarity of the Christian community, a topic Paul discussed so extensively in the rest of his letter.

“come about through the participants’ drinking from the cup and eating the bread,” as De Jonge assumes (209), but just the other way round: by eating and drinking together the Christians express their solidarity and their unity, a unity brought about by their common belief in the beneficial effects of the death of their Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER THREE SEEING GOD “IN A RIDDLE” OR “FACE TO FACE”: AN ANALYSIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 13:12 HARM W. HOLLANDER

In chapter 13 of his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul includes a passage about charity or the love of one’s neighbour. Its purpose is to dampen the enthusiasm of some Corinthians for spiritual gifts or “gifts of grace,” among which the gift of speaking in tongues seems to have been regarded as the most enviable gift of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor 12 and 14). Paul’s praise for the attitude of loving one another as a characteristic of the true believer in Christ in 1 Corinthians 13 is divided into three paragraphs. First, he argues for the necessity of love in one’s life as a Christian believer (vv. 1-3). Next, Paul describes the attitude of love (vv. 4-7). In the third paragraph (vv. 8-13), the apostle introduces the element of time: the gifts of the Spirit are only for the present–for as long as this world exists–whereas love is eternal. As a consequence, in Paul’s view, spiritual gifts such as the gifts of knowledge and prophecy are to be considered “partial” or “incomplete” (ਥț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ vv. 9, 10 and 12b) and “when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end” (v. 10; NRSV). In order to illustrate this point, Paul gives an example from everyday life: someone who has reached adulthood stops speaking, thinking and reasoning like a child (v. 11). He continues in the next verse by

46

Chapter Three

making another analogy, telling his readers that at present “we see” ȕȜȑʌȠȝİȞ “in a mirror” įȚૃ ਥıȩʌIJȡȠȣ and “in a riddle” (ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ  but that at the eschaton we will see “face to face” ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ (v. 12a). 1 At first sight Paul’s argument in verse 12a is unclear and raises a number of questions. For instance, what is the implied object of our “seeing”? Did Paul take the expressions “in a riddle” and “face to face,” which undoubtedly reflect OT usage, from particular OT passages or not? And, finally, what is the exact meaning of the expression “in a mirror,” and what might be the metaphorical background of the motif “seeing in a mirror”? Although some of these questions seem to have been solved quite satisfactorily, there still remain some to be answered, especially with regard to the traditio-historical background of some of the phrases used by Paul to make his point. The present imperfect and indirect human knowledge of God Earlier in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul has dealt rather extensively with the gift of “knowledge” ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ  a spiritual gift which was held in great regard among a number of the Christians in Corinth (see 1:5, 8:1, 7, 10, 11, 12:8, and 13:2, 8; see further 14:6). Although all Christians are said to possess “knowledge” (8:1), some people believed that they were endowed by the Spirit with a kind of special knowledge. Both kinds of knowledge have to do with God and the divine world, but they are as nothing compared to the principle of loving 1

On this verse, see the commentaries, ad loc., and esp. Preuschen, “Rätselwort”; Basset, “1 Cor. 13.12”; Behm, “Bildwort”; Perry, “I Corinthians xiii.12a”; Dupont, Gnosis, 114-48; Hugedé, La métaphore; Mortley, “Mirror”; Seaford, “I Corinthians xiii.12”; Downing, “1 Corinthians 1312” (repr. in Downing, Making Sense, 233-35); Fishbane, “Through the Looking Glass.”

Seeing God “In a Riddle” or “Face to Face”: An Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13:12

47

one’s neighbour. In fact, all knowledge is partial and imperfect, since it belongs to the present. In other words, “knowledge ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ  it will come to an end. For we know ȖȚȞȫıțȠȝİȞ only in part … Now I know (ਙȡIJȚ ȖȚȞȫıțȦ only in part” (13:8, 9, 12b; NRSV). The idea that a true knowledge of God or the divine world cannot be achieved by man on earth was quite common in the Graeco-Roman world, not only in Jewish-Christian circles, but also among those of other faiths.2 In this context, there is also an obvious parallel between knowing God and seeing God. 3 Both expressions appear to be more or less synonymous. This explains why Paul can easily shift from “knowing” in verses 8 and 9 to “seeing” in verse 12a, and again from “seeing” in verse 12a to “knowing” in verse 12b. Both verbs have God or the divine as their implicit object. What the apostle tries to underline here is that true knowledge of God cannot be attained by men in this world. 4 In order to stress the present, imperfect and partial character of man’s knowledge or vision of God, Paul uses the metaphor of a mirror: “For now we see [God] in a mirror įȚૃ ਥıȩʌIJȡȠȣ ” (v. 12a). Most modern interpreters of 1 Corinthians 13 correctly assume that the mirror imagery does not allude to the quality of seeing, in the sense that in Paul’s view the image of God that we have is obscure or distorted. It rather refers to the indirect nature of looking into a mirror, in the sense that the apostle wanted to underline that man’s vision and knowledge of God and the divine world is indirect: we see no more than the image 2

See, e.g., Cicero, Tusc. 1.47, Philo, Somn. 1.66, Mut. 15, Post. 1516, 169, Spec. 1.46-47, Praem. 40, Leg. 3.100-101, Det. 89, Josephus, C. Ap. 2.167, and Seneca, Ep. 102.28. 3 See, e.g., Philo, Somn. 1.66, Mut. 15, and Post. 15-16. 4 Cf. 2 Cor 5:7 and Rom 8:24-25.

48

Chapter Three

of God. 5 For in Hellenistic times, the mirror metaphor was often used to illustrate how God or the invisible deities show themselves to men by means of “images” or “signs.” 6 Thus, by saying that our present “seeing” is “in a mirror,” the apostle Paul refers to a well-known Hellenistic idea according to which God or the divine can only be known or seen by men indirectly (“in a mirror”), namely through things in nature which, as it were, represent the divine and which are to be regarded as “signs” or “images” of God. 7 Now seeing God “in a riddle,” but then “face to face” The apostle stresses once more that our present knowledge or vision of God is no more than partial and incomplete in 1 Corinthians 13:12a, as he tells his readers in Corinth that in the present we see God “dimly” (NRSV) or, more literally, “in a riddle” (ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ  He contrasts this with our future, 5

So, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 648; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 11,1714,40), 311-12; Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 291; Thiselton, Corinthians, 1068-69. See also Dupont, Gnosis, 129-37, esp. p. 129, and Hugedé, La métaphore, 115-36, esp. p. 115. 6 See, e.g., Wis 7:26, Philo, Decal. 105, Leg. 3.97-103, esp. 101, Fug. 213, Plant. 27, and Plutarch, Is. Os. 76 (Mor. 382AB), and Princ. iner. 5 (Mor. 781F). 7 An interesting parallel is found in the Kebra Nagast (or the Book of the Glory of the Kings) 96, where we find a paraphrase and elaboration of Exod 33:18, 20-21: “And again Moses spake unto God and said, ‘Shew me Thy Face.’ And God said unto Moses, ‘No one can look upon My Face and live, but only as in a mirror. Turn thy face to the west and thou shalt see in the rock the mirroring of My Face.’ And when Moses saw the shadow of the Face of God” (trans. Wallis Budge, The Queen of Sheba, 172). A modern French translation is found in Colin, La Gloire des Rois, 86 (“Personne ne peut voir ma face et rester en vie–seulement comme un reflet; tourne ta face vers l’ouest et tu verras sur le rocher le reflet de ma face”).

Seeing God “In a Riddle” or “Face to Face”: An Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13:12

49

eschatological vision of God which will be “face to face” ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ  Without any doubt, Paul is influenced here by OT usage. Both the expressions “in a riddle” and “face to face” are taken from the five books of Moses. In the case of the words “in a riddle” there is general agreement among scholars that they come from Numbers 12:8 (LXX), When there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses …With him I speak mouth to mouth ıIJȩȝĮ țĮIJ੹ ıIJȩȝĮ clearly, not in riddles Ƞ੝ įȚૃ ĮੁȞȚȖȝȐIJȦȞ  he beholds the glory of the Lord IJ੽Ȟ įȩȟĮȞ țȣȡȓȠȣ İੇįİȞ  (Num 12:6-8)

According to this passage Moses saw God in his glory8 and his communication with him is characterized as “clear, not in riddles,” or better, as “clear, not in images.” 9 God only communicates with the other prophets in visions and dreams, but he makes himself known to Moses in a direct way, speaking “mouth to mouth.” 10 Influenced by the passage in Numbers 12:8, Paul compares our present human knowledge or vision of God with the communication of the Israelite prophets with their

8

See also Exod 33:18-23 (and see the previous note). This OT story about Moses’ seeing God’s “back” but not his “face,” which “no mortal may see and live,” does not play a role in Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 13:12. 9 For the use and sense of the word Į੅ȞȚȖȝĮ which means “illustration” or “image” rather than “riddle” in our sense of the word, see esp. Hugedé, La métaphore, 139-50. 10 Cf. L.A.B. 11:14, “For behold today we know that God speaks to a man (viz., to Moses) mouth to mouth (loquitur Deus homini ore ad os)” and Ques. Ezra A 39, “For if your prayer were such as Moses wept for forty days and spoke with God mouth to mouth” (Stone, OTP). See also Philo, Leg. 3.103 and Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17.18.6.

50

Chapter Three

God: indirect and far from intimate, as opposed to Moses’ direct and confidential communication with the Lord. Whereas there is consensus among NT scholars on the origin of ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ in 1 Corinthians 13:12a, namely that it comes from Numbers 12:8, they do not point to one particular OT passage in the case of the expression ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ It is usually enough for them to observe that “face to face” ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ or the synonymous expression ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ reflects OT idiom. When they do mention one particular OT text, they usually refer to Genesis 32:30 (32:31 LXX) as an illustrative example. 11 Nevertheless, it seems plausible to me that Paul took these words from another OT passage, namely Deuteronomy 34:10, which once again refers to God’s association with Moses. That is, both ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ and ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ are taken by the apostle from the OT description of Moses’ peculiar communication with God, in order to portray men’s present and future vision of God. The expression “face to face” occurs in the OT/LXX five times: 11

See, e.g., Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 299, “The expression LV +HEUDLVWLF *HQ [[[LL  FRPS ʌȡ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡ 'HXW [[[LY 10”; Conzelmann, Korinther, 279, “Zur Formulierung ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ vgl. Gen 32.31”; Fee, Corinthians, 647 n. 44, “A biblical idiom for direct personal communication. See Gen. 32.30; cf. Num. 12.8”; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 11,17-14,40), 314, ³ȆȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ist die LXX-Übersetzung von ʭʩʰʴ ʬʠ ʭʩʰʴ in Gen 32,31 und Ri 6,22 bzw ʭʩʰʴʡ ʭʩʰʴ (Dtn 5,4), was auch mit ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ wiedergegeben wird (Dtn 34,10), dort aber in Aorist auf Zurückliegendes verweist”; Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 292, “Zu ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ vgl. in LXX Dtn 5,4 … und vor allem Gen 32,31”; Thiselton, Corinthians, 1070, “The syntax reflects Heb. ʭʩʰʴ ʬʠ ʭʩʰʴ, e.g., Gen 32.31.” Also Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.) refers only to Gen 32:31 in margine.

Seeing God “In a Riddle” or “Face to Face”: An Analysis 51 of 1 Corinthians 13:12 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face İੇįȠȞ Ȗ੹ȡ șİઁȞ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ), and yet my life is preserved.” (Gen 32:30 [31]; NRSV) The LORD spoke with you (the Israelites) face to face ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ਥȜȐȜȘıİȞ țȪȡȚȠȢ ʌȡઁȢ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ at the mountain. (Deut 5:4; NRSV) Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face (੔Ȟ ਩ȖȞȦ țȪȡȚȠȢ Į੝IJઁȞ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ . (Deut 34:10; NRSV) Then Gideon perceived that it was the angel of the LORD; and Gideon said, “Help me, Lord God! For I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face İੇįȠȞ IJઁȞ ਙȖȖİȜȠȞ țȣȡȓȠȣ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ .” (Judg 6:22; NRSV) And I (God) will bring you (the people of Israel) into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face įȚĮțȡȚșȒıȠȝĮȚ ʌȡઁȢ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ ਥțİ૙ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ . (Ezek 20:35; NRSV)

Since in 1 Corinthians 13:12a Paul took the words “in a riddle” from the Moses story in Numbers 12:8, it is plausible to assume that the words “face to face” are to be regarded as a substitution for the expression “mouth to mouth” in the same OT passage and as an echo of Deuteronomy 34:10, another OT verse that explicitly refers to the unique relationship between God and Moses. 12 In other words, in 1 Corinthians 13:12a we find a kind 12

Cf. also Exod 33:11, “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face (MT, ʭʩʰʴ ʬʠ ʭʩʰʴ; LXX, ਥȞȫʌȚȠȢ ਥȞȦʌȓ૳), as one speaks to a friend,” and Barn. 15:1, “the ten words which he spake on Mount Sinai face to face (țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ to Moses” (Lake, Apostolic Fathers). That in 1 Cor 13:12a Paul writes ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ instead of ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ as found in Deut 34:10 (LXX) is of no importance, since both expressions are used as complete synonyms in the LXX (see also above).

52

Chapter Three

of “conflated” reference to Numbers 12:8 and Deuteronomy 34:10. A final argument for the assumption that Paul mingles phrases from Numbers 12:8 and Deuteronomy 34:10 is that Philo also combines both these passages when he characterizes Moses’ unique prophetic gifts: What of Moses? Is he not everywhere celebrated as a prophet? For it says, “if a prophet of the Lord arise among you, I will be known to him in vision, but to Moses in actual appearance and not through riddles” Ƞ੝ įȚૃ ĮੁȞȚȖȝȐIJȦȞ [Num 12:6.8], and again “there no more rose up a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ [Deut 34:10]. 13

From all this we may conclude that both the expressions ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ and ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ are taken by the apostle Paul from OT stories about Moses’ unique relationship with God (from Num 12:8 and Deut 34:10 respectively). For Paul, our present partial and indirect knowledge of God can be compared with the indirect relationship between God and his Israelite prophets; our future knowledge of God, however, will be wholly in line with the unique and direct character of Moses’ communication with God. Conclusion In his praise of the principle of loving one another as a characteristic of the true believer in Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 13, the apostle Paul tries to dampen the enthusiasm of some Corinthians for spiritual gifts. He emphasizes that the gifts of the Spirit are only for the present, for as long as this 13

Her. 262 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). Interestingly, the expression “face to face” is also quoted by Philo as ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ instead of ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ (see also the previous note).

Seeing God “In a Riddle” or “Face to Face”: An Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13:12

53

world exists, whereas love is eternal, belonging not only to the present but also to the time after the coming of Jesus Christ at the eschaton. Therefore, unlike love, spiritual gifts like the gift of knowledge are to be considered partial and incomplete. In this context Paul makes an analogy to tell his readers in Corinth that for now “we see in a mirror and in a riddle” ȕȜȑʌȠȝİȞ … ਙȡIJȚ įȚૃ ਥıȩʌIJȡȠȣ ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ but that in the future, at the eschaton, we will see “face to face” ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ ʌȡઁȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠȞ (v. 12a). The implied object of “seeing” ȕȜȑʌİȚȞ in verse 12a seems to be the same as the implied object of “knowing” ȖȓȞȦıțİȚȞ and ਥʌȚȖȚȞȫıțİȚȞ 14 in verse 12b (cf. vv. 8-9), namely God or the divine. By saying that our present knowledge or vision of God is imperfect, partial and incomplete, Paul shows familiarity with ideas that were common at the time. The idea that true knowledge of God or the divine world could not be achieved by people on earth was quite popular in the Graeco-Roman world and above all in Jewish-Christian circles. It is evident that Paul sympathized with this idea, which fitted very well into his apocalyptic world-view. In his view, the age in which he lived was part of the old order and was running towards its end. That also means that our present knowledge of God is far from being perfect or complete. Perfect knowledge of God is not to be achieved before the eschaton. In order to illustrate the imperfect and partial character of man’s knowledge and vision of God, Paul refers to a mirror. By introducing the metaphor of a mirror, the apostle uses a wellknown Hellenistic image to describe the indirect nature of man’s knowledge of God or the divine; for it was commonly thought that God or the divine world could only be known or 14

Both verbs ȖȚȞȫıțİȚȞ and ਥʌȚȖȚȞȫıțİȚȞ are synonymous in this context; cf., e.g., Isa 63:16 LXX, Herm. Sim. 9.18.1, and Plato, Euthyd. 301E.

54

Chapter Three

seen by man indirectly (“in a mirror”), namely through things in nature which represent the divine and which are to be considered “signs” or “images” of God. That man’s present vision or knowledge of God is partial and incomplete is expressed once more by the words “(seeing) in a riddle.” The apostle contrasts this with our future, eschatological and perfect vision of God which will be “face to face.” Both expressions are taken from the OT, or more precisely, from OT descriptions of Moses’ unique communication with God (Num 12:8 and Deut 34:10). For Paul, our future knowledge of God will be wholly in line with the unique and direct character of Moses’ communication with God. As once the great prophet and servant of God, Moses, communicated with God in an absolutely unique and direct way, so one day the believers in Jesus Christ will see and know God: not indirectly, not “in a mirror” nor “in a riddle,” but directly, “face to face.”

CHAPTER FOUR PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA AND PAUL’S CONCERN FOR ORDER IN THE CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY (1 COR 14:26-33a) HARM W. HOLLANDER

In chapters 12-14 of his first letter to the Corinthians the apostle Paul deals with the issue of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which were regarded as extremely important among some members of the Christian community in Corinth. From these chapters it may be concluded that according to them, the gift of glossolalia or “speaking in tongues” was the most enviable spiritual gift. Paul, however, tries to dampen the enthusiasm of these believers for the spiritual gifts in general and for glossolalia in particular by telling them that they are important only in so far as they strengthen the Christian community. In chapter 14, the apostle argues that the gift of prophecy is to be preferred to the gift of glossolalia; whereas “those who prophesy speak to other people for their edification, encouragement and consolation,” people “who speak in a tongue” only “edify themselves” (14:3-4). 1 In fact, glossolalia does not benefit anyone else unless somebody is able to interpret these “tongues” (see vv. 5 and 13). Nevertheless, since both prophecy and glossolalia are gifts of the Spirit, the 1

Bible quotations are taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated.

56

Chapter Four

believers in Corinth are exhorted by Paul to “strive” for them (v. 1), and to “be eager to prophesy” and not to “forbid speaking in tongues” (v. 39). But Paul hastens to add that “all things should be done decently and in order” to this call (v. 40), a warning which is quite appropriate in the case of people speaking in tongues. The exhortation to have everything done “decently and in order” (v. 40) also refers back to verses 26-33a, where Paul includes a few statements about the ordering of tongues and prophecy in his argument about spiritual gifts in general and the gifts of prophecy and glossolalia in particular. In this passage, the apostle starts by saying that in the Christian assembly “all things [should] be done for edification” (v. 26) 2 and he finishes with a reference to the order required in the assembly, “for God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (v. 33a). 3 In between are some statements about people who speak 2

ʌȐȞIJĮ ʌȡઁȢ ȠੁțȠįȠȝ੽Ȟ ȖȚȞȑıșȦ. Cf. vv. 3, 4, 5, 12, and 17, and see also 8:1. 3 In Jewish and early-Christian literature God is often called “God of peace” (੒ șİઁȢ IJોȢ İੁȡȒȞȘȢ): see, e.g., Philo, Ebr. 76, Rom 15:33, 16:20, 2 Cor 13:11, Phil 4:9, 1 Thess 5:23, 2 Thess 3:16, Heb 13:20, and T. Dan 5:2. It is rather often used in passages in which people are exhorted to behave properly: see, apart from Philo, Ebr. 76, 2 Cor 13:11, Phil 4:9, and T. Dan 5:2, texts just mentioned, also Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. 22, “For the God of peace (੒ IJોȢ İੁȡȒȞȘȢ șİȩȢ), who exhorts us to love even our enemies, does not propose that we should hate and part from our dearest ones” (Butterworth, LCL). Since God is a “God of peace,” he is, in Paul’s view, not a “God of disorder (ਕțĮIJĮıIJĮıȓĮȢ)”; for “disorder” is more or less synonymous with “war” (see, e.g., Luke 21:9, 1 Clem. 3:2, Sib. Or. 12:113-14, 13:107, and 14:231-33), which is, of course, the opposite of “peace.” It is not clear whether the phrase “as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor 14:33b) concludes the instructions on order in vv. 26-33, or should be taken with the following section (vv. 34-35)

Prophecy and Glossolalia and Paul’s Concern for Order in the Christian Assembly (1 Cor 14:26-33a)

57

in tongues in the Christian assembly (vv. 27-28) and about people who prophesy (vv. 29-32). Usually, translators and interpreters take the instructions regarding glossolalia and prophecy in this paragraph as more or less similar guidelines for order in the Christian assembly. 4 Though it cannot be denied that there are a number of similarities between them, above all with regard to the structure of both regulatory sections, the differences in formulation should not be overlooked. One of the most striking differences is found right at the beginning of both sections (vv. 27 and 29). It looks as if the Greek wording is almost the same in both cases, but scholars and translators seem to have failed to notice the use of the preposition țĮIJȐ in verse 27 over against verse 29 where such a preposition is missing: İ੅IJİ ȖȜȫııૉ IJȚȢ ȜĮȜİ૙, țĮIJ੹ įȪȠ ਲ਼ IJઁ ʌȜİ૙ıIJȠȞ IJȡİ૙Ȣ … ʌȡȠijોIJĮȚ į੻ įȪȠ ਲ਼ IJȡİ૙Ȣ ȜĮȜİȓIJȦıĮȞ. Without any doubt, Paul’s use of țĮIJȐ (distributive) in the regulatory section about speaking in tongues once more demonstrates his somewhat negative feelings about the role of glossolalia in the Christian assembly. Whereas “all” may prophesy in order that “all” people present may receive instruction and encouragement (v. 31), Paul’s use of distributive țĮIJȐ makes clear that, during the meeting, speaking in tongues should take place in small and separate groups and certainly not in front of the whole assembly (see below). Certainly, Paul does about the role of women in the Christian assembly (see the commentaries, ad loc.). If it is to be connected with the preceding phrases, it functions as another justification for the rule for order in the assembly: God is not only a “God of peace,” but in all the churches throughout the Roman empire Christians behave like orderly people when they join in worship together. 4 See, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 689, “The two regulatory sections are quite similar, both in structure and in content” (cf. 693, “similar guidelines”).

58

Chapter Four

not aim to suppress any manifestation of tongues which may occur, but to regulate them for the sake of order in the Christian assembly. 5 In order to understand Paul’s different approaches to glossolalia and prophecy as spiritual phenomena in the context of the Christian gatherings, a detailed analysis of the text is appropriate. In the following sections his statements about speaking in tongues (vv. 27-28) and about prophesying (vv. 29-32) will be examined, respectively. Guidelines for the exercise of the gift of speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:27-28) After saying that all spiritual gifts should serve to “build up” the Christian community (v. 26), the apostle Paul continues with some regulations for speaking in tongues (vv. 27-28). 6 He starts saying that “If anyone speaks in a tongue, [let it happen] țĮIJ੹ įȪȠ ਲ਼ IJઁ ʌȜİ૙ıIJȠȞ IJȡİ૙Ȣ.” From the context (esp. vv. 23, 33a, and 40) it is obvious that with this last clause Paul tries to bring some order into the Christian gathering; for “if … all speak in tongues,” other people will say that they “are out of their minds” (v. 23).

5

So also Richardson, “Liturgical order,” 146, “Paul’s burden in chapter 14 is not suppression but regulation.” 6 To what phenomenon the gift of glossolalia actually refers, remains obscure. The most we can say is that it was a sort of ecstatic and unintelligible speech. There is a huge amount of literature on the topic of speaking in tongues; for a selective representation of it, see, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 597 n. 80, and Thiselton, Corinthians, 903-7 (and see 970-88 for a rather comprehensive review of some modern views on the topic of glossolalia). For one of the most recent studies on the topic of glossolalia, see Sung Bok Choi, Geist.

Prophecy and Glossolalia and Paul’s Concern for Order in the Christian Assembly (1 Cor 14:26-33a)

59

The phrase țĮIJ੹ įȪȠ ਲ਼ IJઁ ʌȜİ૙ıIJȠȞ IJȡİ૙Ȣ is usually interpreted and translated as if Paul intended to limit the number of speakers in tongues. 7 Some scholars try to make some sense of the use of the word țĮIJȐ in this clause; they sometimes argue explicitly for a distributive use of țĮIJȐ, 8 but even then they fail to interpret the word properly when they opt for a translation like “(let there be only two or at most three) each time.” 9 But as grammars and dictionaries tell us, distributive țĮIJȐ accompanied by a numeral expresses the parts or groups into 7

See, e.g., NRSV, “let there be only two or at most three”; REB, “only two should speak, or at most three”; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 321, “but the number was to be limited down to … two, or at most three”; Fee, Corinthians, 689, “two–or at the most three– should speak”; Schrage, Korinther (1 Kor 11,17-14,40), 440, “zwei oder höchstens drei” (cf. 447); Thiselton, Corinthians, 1131, “let only two or at the most three speak.” 8 So also Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 321, but they do not make any effort to translate it. 9 Or “at a time,” as if it has to do with sequence. However, in view of Paul’s plea for order in the Christian assembly, it is unlikely that he wants to tell his readers that speaking in tongues should be done by two or three of them at a time, while at the same time he argues that one should prophesy one by one (see v. 31). For the “traditional” interpretation and translation, see, e.g., Barrett, First Corinthians, 314, 328, “(let it be by two or at most three) on each occasion.” Cf. in German, “je,” “jeweils” or “jedesmal.” See, e.g., Weiss, Korintherbrief, 339-40, “In jeder Versammlung sollen >>je zwei oder–im höchsten Fall–dreiĮ੝IJ੽Ȟ@ IJઅȚ (read IJઁ) ȕȡȑijȠȢ ȞİțȡȩȞ . (P.Mich. 5, ll. 20-22)16

In summary: in Classical and Hellenistic non-Jewish and nonChristian literature, 17 the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ and cognates refer to the miscarriage of an embryo, usually due to immaturity. Fundamental is the idea that miscarriage implies death. 18 Moreover, ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ and cognates are exclusively used in a literal sense. This makes it unlikely that the apostle’s metaphorical use of the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ was derived from his non-Jewish or non-Christian environment. Thus, there must have been another background for this particular use of the term in 1 Corinthians 15:8.

15

Trumpf (ed.), Vita Alexandri. Horsley (ed.), New Documents, 2.82; cf. also P.Oxy. 38, col. 2, l. 22, and l. 5 of the inscription from Smyrna (?) quoted on the same page. 17 See further esp. Herodotus, Hist. 3.32.4, Aristotle, Probl. 1.9 (860a), Hist. an. 9(7).3 (583b), Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 3.64.4, 4.2.3, Pedanius Dioscorides, Mat. med. 4.185, Claudius Ptolemaeus, Tetr. 3.4.116, Vettius Valens, Anth. 1.24 (1.22.1), P.Goodspeed Cairo 15 (Goodspeed [ed.], Greek Papyri, 21), and an inscription from Ptolemais (Preisigke [ed.], Sammelbuch, 1.231-32, no. 3451). 18 This is true even in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 3.64.4 and 4.2.3, where it is told that “Semele, who was pregnant and unable to endure the majesty of the divine presence, brought forth the babe untimely and was herself slain by the fire” (Oldfather, LCL). For without the divine intervention of Zeus the miscarriage of the babe would certainly have implied the child’s death. 16

The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 77 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10

b. The Old Testament, the Septuagint, and early-Jewish literature In the Septuagint, 19 there are three passages where the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ is used: Numbers 12:12, Job 3:16, and Ecclesiastes 6:3. It is also found in Psalm 58:8 (57:9 LXX) in the old Greek versions of Aquila (A), Theodotion (T), and Symmachus (S). The last-mentioned source uses it another time in his translation of Isaiah 14:19. The cognates ਩țIJȡȦıȚȢ and ਥțIJȡȦıȝȩȢ do not occur in LXX, nor in the versions of A, T, and S, whereas the verb ਥțIJȚIJȡȫıțİȚȞ is found in Symmachus’ version of Job 21:10. In Numbers 12:12 Aaron asks Moses for forgiveness on behalf of his sister Miriam, who had sinned against the Lord and was punished with leprosy. In this situation Aaron compares Miriam with an ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ The passage runs as follows: Do not let her be like one stillborn (੪ıİ੿ ੅ıȠȞ șĮȞȐIJ૳, ੪ıİ੿ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ  20 whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb. 21

In Job 3 the principal figure of the book curses the day of his birth on account of all the troubles that have come upon him. He wishes he would have been born as an ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ as a miscarriage, a non-being, so that he would have escaped all these sufferings (v. 16):

19

For a brief survey of the use of ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in LXX, see esp. Munck, “Paulus,” 183-84. 20 The Greek words quoted are the (double) translation of the Hebrew ʺʮʫ, “like a dead one.” For the LXX translator, miscarriage obviously implied death. 21 The OT translations are taken from NRSV; the LXX renderings of the Hebrew words in question are added within brackets.

78

Chapter Five Or why was I not buried like a stillborn child (ਲ਼ ੮ıʌİȡ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ ਥțʌȠȡİȣȩȝİȞȠȞ ਥț ȝȒIJȡĮȢ ȝȘIJȡȩȢ  22 like an infant that never sees the light?

In Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 the author compares someone who “does not enjoy life’s good things, or has no burial” with a stillborn child IJઁ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ  23 The latter “is better off than he,” for it comes into vanity and goes into darkness, and in darkness its name is covered; moreover it has not seen the sun or known anything; yet it finds rest rather than he.

In Psalm 58(57) the psalmist prays that God will stand up for the righteous and destroy the wicked. In verse 8(9) the latter are compared with “the untimely birth,” 24 words that are translated as ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ by A, as ਲ਼ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ by S, and as ੪Ȣ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ by T: Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun.

In Isaiah 14:19 the prophet mocks the fallen king of Babylon and compares him with a “loathsome carrion.” The Hebrew word ʸʶʰʫ, “like a shoot,” has been rendered by LXX as ੪Ȣ ȞİțȡȩȢ but by S as ੪Ȣ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ S translated it this way either because he read the Hebrew word as ʬʴʰʫ, “like a miscarriage,” or because he was influenced by some traditional interpretation of the verse. 25 In any case, the use of ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in the rendering

22

The words ੮ıʌİȡ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ are the Greek translation of ʯʥʮʨ ʬʴʰʫ, “like a hidden (or: buried) miscarriage.” 23 The Greek IJઁ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ is the translation of the Hebrew ʬʴʰʤ, “the miscarriage.” 24 In Hebrew: ʺʹʠ ʬʴʰ, “a miscarriage of a woman.” The LXX reads here ਥʌȑʌİıİ ʌ૨ȡ “fire fell upon (them).” 25 See also Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 2.104-5.

The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 79 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10

of this verse in S makes it clear that the translator found the term quite appropriate to the context. Lastly, the verb ਥțIJȚIJȡȫıțİȚȞ is found in Symmachus’ version of Job 21:10, where it is said that the bull of the wicked “breeds without fail” and their cow “calves and never miscarries.” This survey of the use of the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in the LXX and the Greek translations of A, S, and T shows that the word is almost always used figuratively. The only passage where it is used in a literal sense is Ecclesiastes 6:3 LXX. But here, too, the term has been introduced not for its own sake but as an example, as a contrast to the man who “does not enjoy life’s good things.” In the other passages (Num 12:12 LXX, Job 3:16 LXX, Ps 57:9 A, S, and T, and Isa 14:19 S) the figures are similes, since the figurative nature of the expressions is made explicit by the use of words showing comparison, viz. ੪ıİȓ ੮ıʌİȡ and ੪Ȣ 26 People who are called or compared with “a miscarriage” are, without any exception, persons who are in a most desolate position, whose lives are miserable and worthless. When someone is compared with a stillborn child, the author wants to stress that the person in question cannot sink lower. In early-Jewish literature the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ and cognates are rather rare. We find them a few times in a literal sense, viz. in a papyrus from Samareia (?) in the Fayûm dated to the second

26

According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a simile is “an expression making a comparison in the imagination between 2 things, using the words like or as.”

80

Chapter Five

century B.C.E., 27 and in some Jewish apocalyptic writings. 28 It is in Philo that the term is used in a figurative sense, namely, in a passage where the author argues that “the soul of the worthless man has not by nature the power to bring forth any offspring,” but what “it seems to produce turn out to be wretched abortions and miscarriages (ਕȝȕȜȦșȡȓįȚĮ … țĮ੿ ਥțIJȡȫȝĮIJĮ  devouring half of its flesh, an evil tantamount to the death of the soul” (Leg. 1.76). 29 The formulation of these phrases and the introduction and use of the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ are taken from Numbers 12:12 LXX, a verse explicitly referred to and quoted by the author in the same paragraph. 30 Thus, the 27

P.Tebt. 800 (Tcherikover and Fuks [eds.], CPJ 1.246). This papyrus contains a complaint sent to a village scribe by a Jew whose pregnant wife has been injured by a certain Johanna, with the result that the child “is in danger of miscarriage (਩țIJȡȦȝĮ and death.” 28 See 1 En. 99:5, “At that time women bearing children will miscarry, and they will expose and abandon their infant babes; and pregnant women will abort (Įੂ ਥȞ ȖĮıIJȡ੿ ਩ȤȠȣ[ıĮȚ ਥțIJȡȫıȠ]ȣıȚȞ) and those who are giving suck will cast away their children” (Black, Enoch), and Sib. Or. 2:254-82, “the impious will then be destroyed … as many as undid the girdle of virginity by secret intercourse, as many as aborted (ਥțIJȡȫıțȠȣıȚȞ) what they carried in the womb, as many as cast forth their offspring unlawfully” (Collins, OTP); cf. also 4 Ezra 6:21, “(As signs of the end of the age) infants a year old shall speak with their voices, and women with child shall give birth to premature children at three or four months (praegnantes immaturos parient infantes trium et quattuor mensium), and these shall live and dance” (Metzger, OTP). The latter passage makes clear once again that a miscarriage normally implies the child’s death. 29 Colson and Whitaker, LCL. 30 Cf. Migr. 33, where Philo characterizes “the offspring of the soul’s own travail” as “poor abortions (ਕȝȕȜȦșȡȓįȚĮ ´ Obviously, Philo himself prefers the term ਕȝȕȜȦșȡȓįȚĮ to ਥțIJȡȫȝĮIJĮ and he introduces the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in Leg. 1.76 only because of the quotation of Num 12:12 LXX.

The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 81 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10

only time Philo uses the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ and that in a figurative sense, he is dependent on a passage from the OT/LXX. In summary: in the LXX and in the versions of A, S, and T, the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ is used almost exclusively in a figurative sense. The figures are always similes. Both these features are also characteristic of the apostle Paul’s use of the term in 1 Corinthians 15:8. It seems therefore justified to suppose that Paul (like Philo) knew the image of “a miscarriage” from Hellenistic Jewish tradition, reflected in the Greek OT. In the LXX and the A, S, and T passages, where the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ is used, it refers to people who are in a deplorable position and whose lives are miserable and worthless. If the apostle adopted the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ from Jewish tradition, and we think he did, he used it in the same sense. From his standpoint his life before his conversion, when he persecuted the church of God, showed that he was a miserable and worthless person; someone who could be compared with “a stillborn child.” 31 For Paul, this was “the strongest expression for human wretchedness.” 32 Before we attempt to answer the question why Paul employed this particular term in this context, or why he found it appropriate to refer to his past as a situation of extreme wretchedness, it may be useful to analyse the use of the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in earlyChristian and Patristic literature. c. Early-Christian and Patristic literature An examination of the use of the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ and its cognates in early-Christian and Patristic literature shows, first of all, that 31

The article IJ૶ before ਥțIJȡȫȝĮIJȚ does not indicate that Paul saw himself as the only miscarriage on earth nor as a particular miscarriage. The article is used here in a generic sense; it indicates that the apostle is to be regarded, as it were, as one of the species of “miscarriage.” 32 Munck, “Paulus,” 184.

82

Chapter Five

when Christian writers utilize the term, they are dependent on Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians 15:8. This fact makes these sources of limited value as far as Paul’s use and understanding of the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ is concerned. It only reveals to us how they understood the word and how they used it. When early-Christian and Patristic writers use the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ they almost always refer explicitly to 1 Corinthians 15:8 or they make an allusion to this verse. Consequently, they use the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ almost exclusively in a figurative sense. 33 Commenting upon the Corinthian passage, Christian authors usually underline Paul’s humility and complete lack of any trace of arrogance: the apostle realized well that he once was a persecutor of the church of God, and as such, “like a miscarriage,” he felt unworthy of becoming an apostle of the Lord. 34 Other Christian writers, wishing to demonstrate their unpretentiousness or to humiliate themselves for one reason or another, imitate Paul by using the same formulation as he did in 1 Corinthians 15:8. See, for instance, But for myself I am ashamed to be called one of them, for I am not worthy; for I am the least of them, and “born out of 33

An exception is Apoc. Pet. 26, where it is told that in “a place of punishment,” somewhere “outside this world,” Peter sees something that looks like a pool of blood. And “there sat women up to their necks in that liquor, and over against them many children which were born out of due time sat crying; and from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes; and these were they that conceived out of wedlock (?) and caused abortion țĮ੿ ਥțIJȡȫıĮıĮȚ ´ (James, Apocryphal New Testament, 509; see also Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 605). 34 See, e.g., Didymus Alexandrinus, Fr. 1 Cor. (Staab [ed.], Pauluskommentare, 6-7), John Chrysostom, Cat. Ep. Cor. (Cramer [ed.], Catenae, 5.286-87), Cath. (PG 63:492 [355]), and Hom. 1 Cor. (PG 61:326-29).

The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 83 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10 time” (੫Ȟ ਩ıȤĮIJȠȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ  but I have obtained mercy to be someone, if I may attain to God. (Ign. Rom. 9:2) 35 Again, Scripture says: God created man, He created him in the image of God … Now in this text, the exegetes discovered many different meanings … But last of all, as to a miscarriage, it appeared to me, wishing to make some remarks on this text (਩ıȤĮIJȠȞ į੻ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ ੪ıʌİȡİ੿ IJ૶ ਥțIJȡȫȝĮIJȚ ੭ijșȘ țਕȝȠ੿ ਩ȞȚĮ ʌİȡ੿ IJȠȪIJȠȣ İੁʌİ૙Ȟ . (Gregory of Nyssa, Imag. Dei) 36

There were also, however, some early-Christian writers who understood ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in 1 Corinthians 15:8 primarily as a metaphor for something or someone not yet wholly formed, as being not yet ripe or mature. According to them the apostle Paul used the term in 1 Corinthians 15:8 in order to demonstrate to his readers that, by persecuting the church of God, he was someone who had not yet reached full maturity through the Law, who had not yet reached true godliness through baptism. 37 Or, more in general, ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ is used as a metaphor for someone who is not really born again, “who does not bear the true or mature image of Christ”; it describes someone who shrank from fulfilling “the confession of martyrdom with all readiness” and “failed in training and in strength, unable to endure the strain of a great conflict.” 38 Finally, the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ also occurs in a gnostic context. In this sense it refers to (human) beings who are spiritually formless and helpless, 35

Lake, Apostolic Fathers. PG 44:1328-29. 37 See, e.g., Severian of Gabala, Fragm. ep. (Cramer [ed.], Catenae, 5.286-87, and Staab [ed.], Pauluskommentare, 272), Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpr. 1 Cor. 15:8 (PG 82:352). 38 Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 40.11, Hist. eccl. 5.1.11, and 5.1.45 (Lake, LCL). 36

84

Chapter Five

who are not yet “formed” or redeemed by the Saviour (Christ), who are not yet “enfants de l’Homme et de la Chambre nuptiale (= du Plérôme).” 39 In summary: early-Christian and Patristic writers who use the word ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ or its cognates are almost without exception dependent on 1 Corinthians 15:8. Consequently, they use the term primarily in a figurative sense, either as an expression for human wretchedness and utmost humility or as a metaphor for someone who is immature and not yet wholly formed in one way or another. The fact that they are dependent on 1 Corinthians 15:8 greatly reduces their value as a source for grasping the exact meaning and use of the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in the Pauline passage. Thus, the conclusion which was reached at the end of the last section still remains valid. Namely: Paul adopted the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ from Hellenistic Jewish tradition, reflected in the Greek OT; he used the term in order to describe himself during the time before his conversion, when he persecuted the Christians, as a miserable man, unworthy of becoming an apostle of the Lord. Prophetic traditions behind 1 Corinthians 15:8-10 Finally, we have to answer the question why Paul used this particular term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:810 or, in other words, why he depicted his past as a situation of extreme wretchedness. An analysis of 1 Corinthians 15:9-10, a passage which seems to explain verse 8 and especially Paul’s

39

Clement of Alexandria, Exc. D 68 (Sagnard, Clément d’Alexandrie); see also Irenaeus, Haer. 1.4.1, 1.8.2, and Hippolytus, Haer. 5.17.6, 6.31.2, 6.31.4, 6.36.3.

The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 85 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10

use of the self-depreciating term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ 40 may help us to find the answer to this question. In verse 9 the apostle Paul calls himself “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle,” because he “persecuted the church of God.” It was, as he continues in verse 10, only “the grace of God” that made him what he is, viz. an apostle of the Lord. The formulation and the argumentation in these verses give us the clue for understanding Paul’s selfdepreciating words in verse 8. The idea and even the wording of being “the least” and “unfit” for a certain godly task are traditional. They are often found in the OT, in Jewish texts, and in early-Christian texts dependent on Jewish tradition in which a person receives a divine appointment and is astonished or even voices a protest against his commission. The person reacts by pointing to his insufficiency, by arguing that he is unworthy, insignificant, or inapt for the task; an obstacle which would have to be overcome by God before he would be able to deliver his message. This idea is a recurrent element of the prophetic call. 41 See, for instance, But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the Israelites out of Egypt? … O my Lord, I have never been eloquent (LXX, Ƞ੝Ȥ ੂțĮȞȩȢ İੁȝȚ  neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your 40

This seems to be implied by the conjunction ȖȐȡ at the beginning of v. 9. Cf., e.g., Conzelmann, Korinther, 316; Fee, Corinthians, 734; Lang, Korinther, 214; Senft, Corinthiens, 189; Strobel, Korinther, 237; Weiss, Korintherbrief, 352. It should be noted that, since 1 Cor 15:9-10 is meant to be an explanation of the preceding verse, the long blank space between vv. 8 and 9 in Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.) is confusing. 41 On this pattern of a “sufficiency in spite of insufficiency” underlying 1 Cor 15:9 and 2 Cor 2:16, 3:4-5, see esp. Hafemann, Suffering, 89-101, and Hafemann, Paul, 39-106.

86

Chapter Five servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue … O my Lord, please send someone else.” (Exod 3:11, 4:10, 13) He (= Gideon) responded, “But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least (LXX, ਥȖȫ İੁȝȚ ȝȚțȡȩȢ in my family.” (Judg 6:15) Saul answered, “I am only a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel, and my family is the humblest of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin (LXX, IJȠ૨ ȝȚțȡȠ૨ ıțȒʌIJȡȠȣ ijȣȜોȢ ૃǿıȡĮ੽Ȝ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ijȣȜોȢ IJોȢ ਥȜĮȤȓıIJȘȢ ਥȟ ੖ȜȠȣ ıțȒʌIJȡȠȣ ǺİȞȚĮȝȓȞ  Why then have you spoken to me in this way?” (1 Sam 9:21) Then I (= Jeremiah) said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Truly I do not know how to speak, for I am only a boy.” (Jer 1:6) The Lord has appointed me (= Moses) for them and for their sins, that I should pray and supplicate for them; yet not on account of my virtue or strength, but out of long-suffering his mercy and his patience have befallen me. (As. Mos. 12:67) 42 Although I (= Paul) am the very least of all the saints (ૃǼȝȠ੿ IJ૶ ਥȜĮȤȚıIJȠIJȑȡ૳ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ ਖȖȓȦȞ  this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ. (Eph 3:8)

All the passages quoted 43 reveal the same pattern: when someone is called by God to do a work or to deliver a message, he tries to dismiss the divine call by referring to his insignificance and insufficiency. The obstacle, however, is not removed: Moses’ lack of eloquence, for instance, remains, and Jeremiah’s age does not change. But the obstacle does not 42

Tromp, Assumption of Moses. See further 2 Bar. 54:9, 1 Tim 1:15-16, Ign. Rom. 9:2, and also Isa 6:5. 43

The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Corinthians 87 15:8 within the Context of 1 Corinthians 15:8-10

count any more, since it is overcome by an act of God’s grace or the promise of his assistance. This means that it is God who is responsible for the message, and not the messenger. Thus, the purpose of the vocation narrative is first of all apologetic. Or, in the words of S. J. Hafemann: “The negative emphasis in the obstacle motif on the insufficiency of the prophet implies and underscores a positive emphasis on the sufficiency of the prophet as a result of God’s grace.” 44 From the context and the vocabulary45 used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:9-10, it seems obvious that the apostle introduced the pattern of “sufficiency in spite of insufficiency” in order to depict his role as a messenger and an apostle of the Lord. 46 He found himself unworthy of his godly commission, since he “persecuted the church of God.” This made him “the least of the apostles,” and it was only by an act of God’s overwhelming grace that he became an apostle. Thus, in this passage, Paul is defending his apostolate: his readers in Corinth should know that, like so many prophets before him, he felt wholly insufficient to become God’s messenger when he was called by God, but that it was God who nevertheless commissioned him to preach the Gospel. It was in this context that Paul found it appropriate to introduce the term ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ “miscarriage,” as a traditional, Jewish, figurative expression, which was also used in the Greek OT. He employed the term 44

Hafemann, Paul, 60. The use of the expression of “being the least” is, of course, not confined to the context of a divine call. It is found in all sorts of contexts in which a person’s humility is mentioned. See, e.g., T. Jos. 17:8, “I (= Joseph) was among them (= my brothers) as one of the least (੪Ȣ İੈȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȜĮȤȓıIJȦȞ ´ (Hollander and De Jonge, Testaments); and cf. also Jdt 9:11, John 3:30, and 1 Clem. 57:2. 46 Elsewhere in Paul’s letters, we find evidence that he truly conceived of his apostolate and his commission to preach the Gospel in prophetic terms. See esp. Sandnes, Paul. 45

88

Chapter Five

to depict himself as one who is in a most deplorable situation, who is the most miserable and worthless man on earth. As a former persecutor of the church Paul felt that he was the most worthless man on earth, but in spite of his insufficiency he was appointed by God to be his apostle. Paul wanted his readers to know that his apostolate had its origin in an act of God’s grace: he did not deserve it, nor did he ask for it, for in his own eyes he was no more than “a miscarriage.”

CHAPTER SIX THE RELATIONSHIP OF DEATH, SIN, AND LAW IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15:56 HARM W. HOLLANDER AND JOOST HOLLEMAN

One of the most problematic verses in the epistles of Paul is perhaps 1 Corinthians 15:56. This verse stands almost at the end of the long and well-known passage in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians dealing with the issue of the resurrection of believers at the end of time. After two quotations of OT passages, introduced to describe the future destiny of death at the end of time (vv. 54-55), and before a doxology expressing gratitude to God for the victory over death through Jesus Christ (v. 57), the apostle makes a statement about the relation between death, sin, and law: “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” (v. 56) This verse has given rise to a variety of interpretations in the history of exegesis. The most radical solution with regard to the seeming dissonance of these words in the whole of Paul’s argumentation is the assumption of a gloss or interpolation, either by the apostle himself at a later time or by a redactor or editor of (some of) the Pauline letters. The critical apparatus of Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.) refers to the Dutch scholar J. W. Straatman as the one who was the first to conjecture verse 56 to be an interpolation. In his book

90

Chapter Six

on the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians Straatman underlines on the one hand the Pauline character of the verse but stresses on the other hand its dissonance in the context, which does not deal with sin or law at all. Consequently, he argues that the verse is an interpolation, a dogmatic note, inserted by someone who knew the corpus paulinum quite well. 1 Many scholars agreed with his conjecture of a gloss, among whom Von Soden, Weiss, Bousset, and Moffatt. 2 In the course of time, however, NT students have become more sceptical towards the results of the Konjekturalkritik of the nineteenth century. And nowadays there is an almost general agreement about the authenticity of verse 56. 3 But that does not mean that the problems with regard to this statement and its position in chapter 15 have been solved. Quite the contrary. The verse remains a puzzler 4 and can be classified among “the things that are hard to understand” in Paul’s letters (2 Pet 3:16). 5 One problem is, for instance, the question of how the statement about death, sin, and law functions in the whole of Paul’s argumentation in chapter 15. Interpreters usually leave this question open and confine themselves to the interpretation of the statement itself. They often refer to Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans, especially to Romans 5-8, where the triad death–sin–law recurs, and attempt to

1

See Straatman, Korintiërs, 2.284. See Horn, “Stachel,” 89-90. 3 Horn himself is still in favour of the idea that verse 56 is a gloss, inserted by “a pupil of Paul” (Stachel, 104-5). 4 Or, in the words of Wilckens, “Im dortigen Kontext ist dieser Satz in seiner gedrängten, sentenzhaften Kürze rätselhaft” (“Entwicklung,” 161). 5 So, e.g., Winger, Law, 1. 2

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 91

interpret 1 Corinthians 15:56 from what is said in those letters about the relation between death, sin, and law. This procedure is followed in almost all modern commentaries on 1 Corinthians6 and in a number of monographs on Paul’s attitude towards the (Jewish) law. 7 His attitude towards the Torah is generally regarded as the clue to his understanding of the relation between death, sin, and law. Even when exegetes bring the context of 1 Corinthians explicitly into the discussion,8 they seemingly cannot interpret 1 Corinthians 15:56 without referring to other Pauline letters. Their conclusion seems inevitable: as early as 1 Corinthians Paul’s attitude towards the law was two-sided. Besides a positive assessment of the law, the apostle was fully aware of other aspects of the law, viz. those which were obsolete and poor, which belonged to the old order and the sphere of death and sin. 9 Consequently, Paul’s statement about death, sin, and law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 looks like “a brief compendium of his own theology as to the relationship of sin and the law to death,” 10 which he, in a more polemical situation when Judaizing had become a problem, had to work out in more detail.

6

So, e.g., Conzelmann, Korinther, 361-62; Fee, Corinthians, 805-7; Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 88; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 378-79. 7 For some recent studies on Paul’s attitude to the law, see, e.g., Van Dülmen, Theologie; Dunn, Law; Hübner, Gesetz; Martin, Law; Räisänen, Law; Sanders, Law and the Jewish People; Tomson, Law; Wilckens, “Entwicklung”; Winger, Law. 8 Like, e.g., Söding, “Die Kraft der Sünde,” and Thielman, “Coherence.” 9 On the tension between Paul’s positive and negative statements about the law, see esp. Räisänen, Law, 140-54; Martin, Law, 19-20, 37-68; Thielman, Law. 10 Fee, Corinthians, 805.

92

Chapter Six

Though this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:56 may seem attractive, it is not without problems. The position and function of this brief statement on the connection between death, sin, and law in the context of chapter 15 is not yet explained. Why did Paul insert these words in an argument on the resurrection of believers in which sin has hardly figured and law not at all? And if we need other Pauline letters to explain the statement on death, sin, and law in 1 Corinthians, may we expect the Corinthians to have understood these words without any further comment? Or must we conclude that the communication between Paul and his addressees might have failed in this respect? And, even more important, does 1 Corinthians 15:56 really show an aspect of Paul’s attitude towards the Jewish law, an issue so prominent in his polemics against Judaizing Christians, but which seems totally absent in the Corinthian situation? As far as we know, all interpreters of this verse start from the interpretation of ȞȩȝȠȢ as the Torah, the Jewish law. But is this interpretation correct? In the following, we will make a new attempt to analyse Paul’s statement on the connection between death, sin, and law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 and to understand it in the context of Paul’s communication with the Christian believers in the community of Corinth and not primarily from what is said in other Pauline letters. We will argue that both the connection between death and sin and the connection between sin and law are to be understood against the background of Hellenistic popular philosophy. Paul uses Hellenistic concepts current in popular philosophy to describe the deplorable state of humanity as one which is governed by death, sin, and law. He does so in order to contrast the present state of humanity with the eternal glory which will not to be received by the believers until Christ’s parousia.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 93

The role of death in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:56 In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul discusses the resurrection of believers at the parousia of Christ. As an important item in his argumentation he stresses a few times the role of death in the life of mankind. He calls it “the last enemy to be destroyed” at Christ’s parousia (v. 26). Just before verse 56 the apostle returns to the issue of death. In verses 54-55 he refers to the end of time when death will be “swallowed up in victory” (v. 54), a paraphrase of Isaiah 25:8, which he combines with another quotation from the OT, viz. Hosea 13:14, “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?” Both citations vary from LXX (and MT), in vocabulary as well as–partly–in function. The passage of Isaiah 25:8 seems to be the key verse. Its function in 1 Corinthians 15 is in line with the OT context, where it is proclaimed that God will conquer death on the day of salvation. Paul introduces, or takes over, 11 the formula İੁȢ Ȟ૙țȠȢ not used in Isaiah 25:8 LXX, but a more or less common LXX idiom for the translation of the Hebrew ʧʶʰʬ, “for ever,” which is found in Isaiah 25:8 MT. By taking İੁȢ Ȟ૙țȠȢ literally, meaning “to victory,” he can interpret “the victory over death through Jesus Christ” (v. 57) as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s proclamation in Isaiah 25:8. Next, Paul introduces a second OT passage, viz. Hosea 13:14, which he–over against MT but perhaps in line with LXX– understood as another reference to the future destiny of death. He obviously saw in the two phrases both beginning with the interrogative adverb ʌȠ૨ rhetorical questions, meant to ridicule

11

On a possible Vorlage of Paul’s quotation, see Koch, Zeuge, 6063; Stanley, Paul, 209-11. See further Horn, “Stachel,” 97-99; Thielman, Coherence, 248.

94

Chapter Six

death and to show that the end of its power has come. 12 The most important differences from LXX (and MT) are the double vocative șȐȞĮIJİ instead of șȐȞĮIJİ … ઌįȘ in the LXX (or ʺʥʮ … ʬʥʠʹ in MT) and the introduction of IJઁ Ȟ૙țȠȢ for the LXX word įȓțȘ (or ʸʡʣ in MT). Through these changes, which seem Pauline adaptations of the OT text, 13 the Hosea text is brought to a high degree into verbal agreement with the Isaiah quotation. Both OT texts are now supplementary and strengthen each other in their function of showing the end of the power of death. In spite of the victory over death “through our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 57), in spite of the fact that at the end of time, at Christ’s parousia, death will definitely be destroyed as “the last enemy” (v. 26), Paul emphasizes that death still is an active power in the life of mankind. For man still is perishable, mortal. In this context, Paul introduces the Adam–Christ analogy, for the first time in his surviving letters: as Adam stood at the beginning of the old order, Jesus Christ stands at the beginning of a new one. Consequently, “since death came through a human being,” viz. the first man, Adam, “the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being” (v. 21; NRSV). Or, in the words of verse 22, “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ” (NRSV). Further on, in verses 45-49, Paul refers to the physical, earthly character of man conforming to the first man Adam over against the image of the spiritual man of heaven which the believers will bear in the future. All men have shared the existence of the first Adam, the believers, 12

On the rhetorical use of ʌȠ૨, see further, e.g., 1 Cor 1:20, Rom 3:27, Gal 4:15, Ps 42:3, 10 (41:4, 11 LXX), Isa 19:12, 33:18, 36:19, 37:13, 51:13, 63:11, 15, and Jer 2:28; in (Jewish) Hellenistic literature, see, e.g., Sib. Or. 5:67, 8:43-45, 79, Epictetus, Diss. 3.10.17, Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 15 (Mor. 110D), Marcus Aurelius, Med. 10.31, 12.27. See also Berger, Exegese, 48. 13 See Stanley, Paul, 211-15.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 95

however, will receive a heavenly body, spiritual and imperishable, at the end of time, due to their relationship with the risen Jesus Christ. 14 By presenting mortality as something going back to the first man Adam, Paul shows familiarity with Jewish traditions. 15 Jewish apocalyptic authors, for instance, like those of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, attributed death to the transgression of Adam, who broke God’s command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17, 3:1-24). Thus, Adam was regarded as the one by whose transgression physical death and an age of disaster and pain was brought to mankind; see 4 Ezra 3:7, “And you laid upon him one commandment of yours; but he transgressed it, and immediately you appointed death for him and for his descendants,” 16 and 2 Baruch 17:2-3, “For what did it profit Adam that he lived nine hundred and thirty years and transgressed that which he was commanded? Therefore, the multitude of time that he lived did not profit him, but it brought death and cut off the years of those who were born from him.” 17 It was not only apocalyptic authors who found the explanation for the origin of death in Adam’s transgression; other Jewish writers, like Philo, also did so. Philo’s description of the first man reflects above all Greek philosophical concepts. According to him, Adam lived as a human being on the borderline of two 14

On the Adam–Christ analogy, see in particular Brandenburger, Adam; Wedderburn, Adam; Schade, Apokalyptische Christologie, 69-87; and the literature mentioned in the commentaries, ad 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49. On the future victory over death, see also De Boer, Defeat. 15 See esp. Brandenburger, Adam, 15-64; Levison, Portraits, and the literature mentioned in this monograph. 16 Metzger, OTP. 17 Klijn, OTP.

96

Chapter Six

worlds. While his body and sense-perception were shared with the animals, by virtue of his reason, his rational soul or mind, he could contemplate the heavens. At the very first beginning Adam was a world citizen, living according to nature, which was the ideal of Cynicism and Stoicism. The first man was certainly more excellent in body and soul than all his descendants. But after the creation of woman the nature of the first man changed considerably. Mutual desire and bodily pleasure made man and woman sin, “pleasure which is the beginning of wrongs and violation of law, the pleasure for the sake of which men bring on themselves the life of mortality and wretchedness in lieu of that of immortality and bliss (ਫ਼ʌĮȜȜȐIJIJȠȞIJĮȚ IJઁȞ șȞȘIJઁȞ țĮ੿ țĮțȠįĮȓȝȠȞĮ ȕȓȠȞ ਕȞIJૃ ਕșĮȞȐIJȠȣ țĮ੿ İ੝įĮȓȝȠȞȠȢ ´ (Opif. 134-69, esp. 152). 18 Physical death came as the result of the first man’s transgression of God’s commands (QG 1.51). All this implies that the traditional Jewish concept of Adam’s transgression of God’s command as the origin of mortality was employed by Paul in his argumentation on the future resurrection of believers and the power of death in the present situation of mankind. In Paul’s view, death will remain a mighty power to which all mankind is subjected until the end of time. Paul stresses the power of death in the present age, because some of his Corinthian addressees seemed to neglect it in their enthousiastic experiences of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They felt wise, free, superior, and powerful, 19 and they taunted death 18

Colson and Whitaker, LCL. On the concepts of ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ and ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ in the Corinthian community, see esp. Jones, Freiheit, 27-69; Vollenweider, Freiheit, 199-246; Malherbe, “Determinism,” to appear in a volume edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen and dedicated to the subject of Paul’s Hellenistic milieu [see now Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, 231-55].

19

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 97

as something irrelevant. Such behaviour was common in Stoic and Cynic circles, 20 and their slogans and ideas were obviously attractive to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:54-55, Paul, too, derides death, but underlines that the triumph over death will be achieved not until the parousia. For the time being, death is still a power to be taken quite seriously. The relationship between death and sin in 1 Corinthians 15:56 At the end of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul goes into the subject of death and the present age. Quoting Hosea 13:14 in addition to the Isaiah 25:8 phrase, he could add a few more words about the connection between the power of death and man. Through Hosea 13:14 Paul introduces the notion of “the sting IJઁ țȑȞIJȡȠȞ of death,” representing death as a scorpion or some kind of insect, able to “sting.” 21 In the context, and applied to the connection between death and man, it means that death “stings” men, making them perishable, mortal. Death injects mortality in man, and the means by which it does so is sin. This is what verse 56a means. The mentioning of “the sting of death” in Hosea 13:14 enabled Paul to speak about the way in which death has the whole human race in its power. In his view, the “sting” through which death brings mortality to all men, is “sin,” ਲ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ 22 According to Paul, there is a clear connection between death

20

Cynics and Stoics despised death and taunted it. Feeling free, they did not fear death. See Dalfen, Untersuchungen, 175-203; NiehuesPröbsting, Kynismus, 140-49; Vollenweider, Freiheit, 72-74. 21 On the use of țȑȞIJȡȠȞ, see the commentaries, ad loc., and Horn, “Stachel,” 94 n. 16. 22 The genitive of IJȠ૨ șĮȞȐIJȠȣ is possessive.

98

Chapter Six

and sin, between the power of death and the power of sin,23 both being active in the life of mankind. This connection was not Paul’s own invention. Again, he took over a Jewish-Hellenistic concept. As argued above, in many early Jewish writings we find the notion that Adam’s transgression was the origin of mortality. But that did not necessarily imply that through Adam’s transgression of God’s law sin too appeared as a power in the present age. Death was transmitted to the human race, but sin was not. Of course, Jewish authors were aware of the fact that many of Adam’s descendants sinned. Especially in apocalyptic writings the present time was regarded as an age of evil in which sin was omnipresent. On the other hand, however, they did not consider sin something absolutely unavoidable. Adam was a paradigm of man’s possibility to choose: all men have free will and are able to choose, and are responsible for their own deeds. The law of God, the Torah, is given to them in order to make the right choice. Each one determines his (or her) destiny, whether salvation or damnation. The notion of hereditary sinfulness was strange to these Jewish authors. 24 Philo, however, explicitly connects the Jewish concept of Adam’s transgression as the origin of mortality to the present state of sinfulness of all mankind. As said before, Philo depicts the first man Adam as “the bloom of our entire race” (Opif. 140), more excellent in body and soul than all his descendants and living as a world citizen, acting according to the law of nature. After the “fall” man’s life of “immortality and bliss” was changed into one of “mortality and wretchedness” (Opif. 152). Philo employs here the Greek philosophical concept of 23

Death and sin are represented here as some kind of powers. Cf. Brandenburger, Adam, 158-68 (on Rom 5:12). 24 Cf. esp. Brandenburger, Adam, 15-45, 165; Levison, Portraits.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56 99

gradual degeneration, i.e. the notion that after the golden age of the beginning humanity degenerated to the present deplorable state, 25 and he applies this concept to Adam and his descendants. Adam’s descendants are inferior to the first man, Adam, who “surpassed all the men that now are, and all that have been before us” (Opif. 140). And “as generation follows generation, the powers and qualities of body and soul which men receive are feebler” (Opif. 141, and cf. 148). 26 Far from being world citizens living in harmony with nature, men have preserved only faint marks of the first man. Men’s souls “are filled with many sins” over against the souls of the first creatures, which were “pure of evil” (QG 1.32). When Adam and Eve transgressed God’s command, “they needed that which is made by hand and corruptible” in order to cover their nakedness; for their knowledge of being naked was “opinion and the beginning of evil,” which introduced “a strangeness … conceived by the mind toward the whole world.” (QG 1.40) 27 Most probably, it was this Greek concept of degeneration linked up with the Jewish notion of mortality and an age of evil and pain as a consequence of Adam’s transgression, as found in a Jewish-Hellenistic author like Philo, that was used by Paul to describe the connection between death and sin, as he does in 1 Corinthians 15:56. 28 After Adam’s transgression of God’s command, his violation of the law of God, mankind is characterized by mortality and sinfulness. Whether Paul thinks of a gradual degeneration or a sudden change to an age of wretchedness is not clear. In any case, in Paul’s view, the Urzeit has passed, the age of the powers of death and sin has come, and it is not until the parousia of Jesus Christ that death will 25

See also below. Colson and Whitaker, LCL. 27 Marcus, LCL. 28 In Romans, Paul will return to this theme, see Rom 5:12-21. 26

100

Chapter Six

once and for all be overcome. By connecting death with sin Paul emphasizes the fallen nature of mankind from which Christians will be saved through resurrection at the end of time. The victory over death and the absence of sin at the end of time, are contrasted with the everyday reality of the Corinthians. The relationship between sin and law Paul goes even further in his depiction of the deplorable state of humanity: law too is part of man’s state of wretchedness, for “law is the power of sin.” Since Paul is talking about death and sin in general terms, as universal powers, albeit in a JewishChristian context, we may argue that Paul uses the word “law” ȞȩȝȠȢ  too, as a general term and not as referring specifically to the Jewish law (Torah). 29 In the context of 1 Corinthians 15 the issue of the Jewish law, or Judaism in general, is not at stake at all. “The law” in verse 56, or rather: law, that is, all laws, including the Jewish law, is looked upon as the power of sin. The parallelism between verses 56a and 56b invites us to interpret įȪȞĮȝȚȢ as the “power” through which sin is brought 29

From a thorough analysis of the different components of meaning in ȞȩȝȠȢ as used by Paul, Winger comes to the conclusion that in Paul’s undisputed letters ³ȞȩȝȠȢ most often refers definitely to Jewish ȞȩȝȠȢ´ but not always: “despite the preponderance of references to Jewish ȞȩȝȠȢ Paul understands and uses the term ȞȩȝȠȢ in a broader sense, to refer to things other than Jewish ȞȩȝȠȢ´ (Law, 86). According to Winger there are, for instance, two references to ȞȩȝȠȢ generically, viz. Rom 4:15b and 5:13b (Law, 83-84), verses that reflect a similar argumentation to that in 1 Cor 15:56. However, with regard to the latter passage, he remarks that he cannot see anything “that is useful for establishing its meaning” (Law, 36 n. 87). Nevertheless, Winger finds in 1 Corinthians at least one passage ZKHUHȞȩȝȠȢGRHVQRWH[FOXVLYHO\UHIHUWRWKH-HZLVKODZ+HFRUUHFWO\ interprets ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢLQ&RUDVUHIHUULQJWR³DODUJHUFODVVRIȞȩȝȠȚ´ of which “the law of Moses” in 9:9 is a “member” (Law, 71).

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56101

about. 30 The law is the stimulus of sin; it empowers men to sin. That is the meaning of verse 56b. In Paul’s opinion, sin, being the sting of death, is incited by the law. The connection between sin and law seems at first sight not very understandable, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:54-57 and without Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans. Yet Paul’s little aside about sin and law can be compared with certain views expressed by a number of popular Hellenistic philosophers. These philosophers too regard law(s) as part of the deplorable state of humanity, i.e. of its wretchedness and wickedness țĮțȓĮ  or to use a more Jewish-Christian word, sin (ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ  Especially among the Cynics we find a sharp criticism of the laws as part of their attack on man’s disturbed sense of morality. In their criticism we can discern two concepts about laws and their place in life, which are found in many layers of Classical and Hellenistic philosophy. The first concept (a) is the antithesis of ijȪıȚȢ versus ȞȩȝȠȢ the second concept (b), which is closely related to the physis– nomos antithesis, is that of the “origin and degeneration” (Ursprung und Entartung) of human culture. We will first examine these two concepts and then turn to some hard core Cynic criticisms on laws (c). a. The antithesis ijȪıȚȢ versus ȞȩȝȠȢ The antithesis of physis versus nomos (“nature” versus “law”) originated among the Sophists in the fifth century B.C.E. 31 30

For this use of įȪȞĮȝȚȢ see, e.g., T. Dan 4:1, ıȪȞİIJİ IJ੽Ȟ įȪȞĮȝȚȞ IJȠ૨ șȣȝȠ૨, “understand the power of anger,” i.e. understand how anger works in man. 31 The first occurrence of the antithesis is found in Hippocrates (5th4th century B.C.E.), who applied it to describe the differences between cultures in his De aere, aquis, locis. See Heinimann, Nomos; Pohlenz, “Nomos,” 418-38 (repr. in his Kleine Schriften, 2.341-60);

102

Chapter Six

Before the antithesis came into being the words physis and nomos were used in a complementary manner. The law was seen as a god-given way to establish an order in agreement with the natural order of the cosmos ijȪıȚȢ  According to Heraclitus for instance, there was one eternal cosmic order, which was the basis of truth and in accordance with which one should act ʌȠȚİ૙Ȟ țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ  The human laws were in accordance with this god-given order. 32 The antithesis arose partially as a result of the troubled circumstances at the end of the fifth century which led to a questioning of the validity of the moral canons. 33 The Sophists focused their attention on human matters like ethics and politics rather than on nature. Protagoras’ principle that man is the measure of all things, 34 was also applied to the laws, which resulted in the opinion that laws were not god-given, but man-made. Laws were regarded as the products of common human opinion, passed in order to regulate society, whereas physis was seen as the underlying eternal truth on which the laws should be based. Fully developed and applied as a critique on human laws and conventions the antithesis is found in Hippias and Antiphon. 35 In Plato’s Protagoras, Hippias addresses his fellow-debaters as follows: “I regard you all as kinsmen and intimates and fellowcitizens by nature, not by law: for like is akin to like by nature, whereas law, despot IJȪȡĮȞȞȠȢ of mankind, often constrains for a brief introduction to this topic, see also Guthrie, Sophists, 55134; Nam, Problem, 7-90, and Vollenweider, Freiheit, 87-96. 32 Heraclitus, frgs. 112 and 114 (Diels and Kranz, Vorsokratiker, 1.176). 33 Guthrie, Sophists, 94; Nam, Problem, 43. 34 Plato, Theaet. 152A, and Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 1.216. 35 The nature–law antithesis is not exclusively used to criticize laws, but also vice versa, to criticize nature. In the latter case, nature is seen as a savage state of being (not divinely ordained) and law as the regulating order of cultivation. See Guthrie, Sophists, 60-84.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56103

us against nature.” 36 Nature and law are directly opposed to each other: law, being the product of human opinion and convention, prevents man from knowing the truth ijȪıȚȢ  which all philosophers are akin to. Xenophon, too, records Hippias’ critical attitude towards the law. In discussion with Hippias, Socrates holds the opinion that “he who acts lawfully ȞȩȝȚȝȠȢ is just, and he who acts unlawfully (ਙȞȠȝȠȢ is unjust.” But Hippias objects, “laws can hardly be thought of much account, Socrates, or observance of them, seeing that the very men who passed them often reject and amend them.” 37 Hippias’ point is that righteousness is not found in the laws because they are mere human convention. Only nature ijȪıȚȢ  also called the law of nature, is the basis of real righteousness. Antiphon, a contemporary of Hippias, 38 voices the same opinion as Hippias: “those [regulations] of the laws are adventitious, those of nature necessary” (frg. 44A, col. 1). Even more, “most of what is righteous according to law is hostile to nature” IJ੹ ʌȠȜȜ੹ IJ૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ ȞȩȝȠȞ įȚțĮȓȦȞ ʌȠȜİȝȓȦȢ IJોȚ ijȪıİȚ țİ૙IJĮȚ frg. 44A, col. 2). Righteousness and truth can only be found by following the “laws of nature” (frg. 44A, col. 1). Human laws are insufficient for they cannot prevent unrighteous deeds nor take away the suffering of victims; the law lets it all happen. And when it comes to a trial it appears that the law favours the guilty as much as the innocent (frg. 44A, col. 6). The Sophists’ criticism of human laws was inspired by their search for eternal and universal righteousness and truth. Laws 36

Prot. 337CD (Lamb, LCL). Mem. 4.4.13-14 (Marchant, LCL). 38 Antiphon (480-411 B.C.E.) is known to us through various fragments to be found in Diels and Kranz, Vorsokratiker, 2.337-70. 37

104

Chapter Six

did not belong to the eternal order of nature; however, that did not mean that all laws were useless. Laws did establish a certain order, yet an order based on fear. Critias, another Sophist, writes that laws were instituted by people in order to chastise, and because people then transgressed the laws secretly the people invented gods who were said to see even the hidden trespasses of the law.39 The order established by the law has its ground in fear and not in righteousness or truth. Only by relating the laws to ijȪıȚȢ could real righteousness be established. So on the one hand laws were seen as necessary because of the wickedness of mankind, but on the other hand the Sophists realized that laws themselves could not establish any righteousness. 40 Furthermore, laws were an obstacle to real righteousness. 41 After the fifth century B.C.E. the nature–law antithesis was adopted in various ways by numerous philosophers. Especially the Cynics picked up the antithesis42 and applied it rigorously to their ideas on ethics. Diogenes Laertius says about Diogenes of Sinope (404-323 B.C.E.), who may be considered the first real Cynic, that “he did not give such authority to the things according to law țĮIJ੹ ȞȩȝȠȞ as to the things according to nature țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ .” 43 The law belonged to a city ʌȩȜȚȢ and

39

Critias (460-403 B.C.E.), frg. 25 (Diels and Kranz, Vorsokratiker, 2.386-88). 40 Bill, Morale, 54. 41 Cf. also the saying attributed to Democritus in Epiphanius, Pan. (Haer.) 3.2.9, “Laws are a bad invention, and it befits the wise not to obey the laws, but to live freely” (Diels and Kranz, Vorsokratiker, 2.129). 42 Dudley, Cynicism, 14, 31; Bill, Morale, 159. 43 Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.71 (Hicks, LCL). This attitude is also expressed in the metaphor ʌĮȡĮȤĮȡȐIJIJİȚȞ IJ੹ ȞȩȝȚıȝĮ, attributed to Diogenes of Sinope (see Niehues-Pröbsting, Kynismus, 43-77).

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56105

therefore it was something only cultural (ਕıIJİ૙ȠȞ 44 which meant that more obedience had to be given to nature than to laws. In practice this meant that the Cynics did not feel obliged to obey the laws of any city. They considered themselves world citizens țȠıȝȠʌȠȜȓIJȘȢ Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.63), and thus they had to follow the law of the universe, i.e. the law of nature. 45 The rejection of human laws remained part of the Cynic philosophy through the ages. The Cynics were notorious in this respect. According to Strabo, Mandanis, a pupil of Diogenes, said that the Greeks were wrong in one respect, “they preferred law to nature.” 46 Maximus of Tyre, who sympathized greatly with Cynicism, discusses in his 36th discourse the question of to what extent Cynicism and Stoicism agree. He writes about Diogenes of Sinope that he “went about the earth entirely free, … not constrained by any law.” 47 Maximus concludes that Diogenes was more free than Socrates, for Socrates obeyed human laws, the laws of Solon, which led to his death, whereas he should have obeyed the law of Zeus, the godly law or the law of nature (Diss. 36.6). To follow the law of nature, which included a negation of existing laws, 48 it was necessary to become free, independent.49 Like pleasures and desires, human laws were seen as unnecessary obstacles in the process of becoming a good, wise man.

44

Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.72; cf. Dudley, Cynicism, 35-36. Schulz-Falkenthal, “ȀĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ,” 57, “Die Kyniker stellten sich außerhalb der Gesellschaft und lebten als Außenseiter nach ‘Naturgesetzen’ die sie sich selber gaben.” 46 Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.65. 47 Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 36.5 (Sayre, Diogenes, 9). 48 Sayre, Diogenes, 12. 49 Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 6.5, and Epictetus, Diss. 4.1.158, 4.7.17. 45

106

Chapter Six

Also according to other Hellenistic authors, laws were mere human convention, by definition associated with all the negative aspects of human life of which only nature could liberate. Dio Chrysostom’s attitude towards the law, for instance, seems ambiguous. He is ambiguous because he is playing the sophistical game, taking more or less opposite views. 50 On the one hand Dio glorifies the law, on the other hand he sharply criticizes it. His 75th discourse (On law) is a eulogy on the law. The law is more serviceable to a city than a wall (75.1), it is called “king of men and gods” (75.2). However, in his 76th discourse (On custom) the law is contrasted with custom (਩șȠȢ  also called the “unwritten law” (76.1), which is written within the hearts instead of on tablets of wood or stone (76.3). The written law creates a “polity of slaves,” but the unwritten law a “polity of free men” (76.4). In his 80th discourse, titled On freedom, he goes even further, stating that Solon, one of the earliest lawgivers ȞȠȝȠșȑIJȘȢ  had framed such laws as he assumed the Greeks would accept, instead of making laws in accordance with the law of nature: “He composed bad laws … laws which would satisfy bad men” (80.4). These laws suppress people and prevent people from being free; they are the bonds of slavery. Despite the positive function which Dio Chrysostom attributes to the law, he recognizes at the same time its negative side. The law itself does not provide any justice, nor any guidance for virtuous living. The law can chastise, but it cannot prevent people from doing evil. Therefore, in accordance with the Sophists, Dio maintains that the human laws should not be abandoned altogether, but should not be taken as a guiding principle either.

50

Cf. Bill, Morale, 194-96.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56107

Whereas Dio Chrysostom identified nature with custom, or unwritten law, 51 Epictetus the Stoic identified nature with the “law of God” (Diss. 1.29.4 and 1.29.13), also called the “law of nature” ȞȩȝȠȢ ijȣıȚțȩȢ 3.17.6). The laws of God should be valued more highly than human laws, or, as Epictetus calls them, “the laws of Masurius and Cassius” 52 (4.3.12). Even more, the human laws are “wretched” IJĮȜĮȓʌȦȡȠȢ  they are “laws of the dead” (1.13.5). Instead, one must follow the laws of God (1.13.5) which will lead to freedom. 53 b. The origin and degeneration of culture Widely current in the Hellenistic world was the idea that over the centuries humanity has declined since the glorious times of its beginning. The beginning of human culture was seen as a golden age; owing to man’s wickedness, however, society slowly degenerated. According to many philosophers, the times had changed for the worse, and man’s goal was to return to the wonderful time of his ancestors. This so-called idea of Ursprung und Entartung 54 appears in many authors, Greek and Latin, and in different forms. 55 They differed as to when and

51

Also called “law of nature” (ȞȩȝȠȢ ijȪıİȦȢ, Orat. 80.5) or “ordinance of Zeus” (ǻȚઁȢ șİıȝȩȞ, Orat. 80.6). 52 Two distinguished jurists of the first half of the first century C.E. 53 Also Cicero speaks of a law of nature in contradistinction to written laws. Justice is more than “conformity to written laws and national customs”; justice only exists by nature (Leg. 2.17.42), to which all laws and customs should be conformed (2.5.13 and 2.16.43). Only through the divine reason which is derived from nature one can distinguish between right and wrong. Therefore reason itself is a law (2.4.10). 54 The phrase is taken from Reinhardt, Poseidonios. 55 Lovejoy and Boas, Primitivism, 23-53; Dodds, “Progress,” 13.

108

Chapter Six

how the degeneration actually started and how man was able to regain the primeval bliss of the golden age. Posidonius is one of the philosophers who developed this view of history56 with special attention to the position of the law(s). In his discussion of Judaism, 57 for instance, he glorifies the beginning of the Hebrew people under the guidance of Moses, a good and pious leader who governed his people very well (Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.36). Moses was a good leader because, being a priest, he received his ordinances directly from his God. However, after Moses “superstitious” priests were appointed and “tyrannical people.” These leaders ordered all kinds of strange observances like circumcisions, excisions, and abstinence of flesh (16.2.37). Posidonius concludes, in the words of Strabo, “their beginning was not bad, but they turned out for the worse” IJ੹Ȣ ਕȡȤ੹Ȣ ȜĮȕȩȞIJİȢ Ƞ੝ ijĮȪȜĮȢ ਥțIJȡĮʌȩȝİȞȠȚ įૃ ਥʌ੿ IJઁ Ȥİ૙ȡȠȞ 16.2.39). In this view the downfall from the golden times was a twofold process: from piety to superstition and from righteousness to tyranny. 58 The decadence of humanity also concerned the laws. Posidonius makes a distinction between the good and righteous laws (ordinances) of the golden age, those of Moses, and the tyrannical laws passed in the time after Moses. For Posidonius the earliest laws, composed by the ancient lawgivers like Moses and Solon, belong to the golden age. Yet not all authors who have written on the concept of the origin 56

The works of Posidonius (c. 135-51 B.C.E.) are all lost; we only have fragments and excerpts of them in the works of Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Athenaeus. See for a detailed analysis of the problem of reconstructing Posidonius’ works, Malitz, Poseidonios, 34-59. 57 Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.34-40. 58 See particularly 16.2.37; furthermore, Reinhardt, Poseidonios, 22; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 50-52.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56109

and degeneration of culture agree on this point. Seneca, for instance, sees the degeneration start before the time of the (first) laws and regarded the laws as a reaction to the degeneration of mankind. 59 Laws were made to control the wickedness of men and thus they are not bad in themselves. Philo agrees with Seneca on this point. According to Philo the degeneration started before the time of the law, already with Adam, and the law itself (the law of Moses) was made to control and order the disordered and sinful society. 60 The Cynics, who of all philosophers held the strongest views about the degeneration of mankind,61 went even further: because laws were the result of men’s wickedness, the laws themselves were not good either. Men should return to the time when there were no laws, the golden time of their ancestors when people lived according to nature țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ  In this way the Cynics combined both the antithesis of nature versus law and the concept of the degeneration of humanity into one sharp criticism of human culture and into a plea to return to a life in accordance with nature.

59

Seneca, Ep. 90.4-6; cf. also Tacitus, Ann. 3.26. In Philo’s view the law of Moses is in agreement with the law of nature and the ordinances of Moses are “nothing else than memorials of the life of the ancients” (Abr. 5). In general, laws are meant to fill “the souls of free men with comfortable hopes; but he who gains this virtue of hopefulness without being led to it by exhortation or command has been educated into it by a law which nature has laid down, a law unwritten yet intuitively learnt” (Abr. 16 [Colson, LCL]). See for Philo’s concepts of unwritten law and law of nature, Horsley, “Law,” 35-59; Martens, “Unwritten Law,” 38-45; for the concept of unwritten law in general, see also Hirzel, ߹ǹȖȡĮijȠȢ ȞȩȝȠȢ. 61 Lovejoy and Boas, Primitivism, 117-23; Dodds, Progress, 13. 60

110

Chapter Six

c. Cynics and their valuation of laws The Cynics considered themselves to be “called to the healing of a sick culture.” 62 Therefore they criticized and rejected all human convention and lived what they considered to be a life in harmony with nature ijȪıȚȢ  This way of living came down to austerity in morals, self-sufficiency, and independence. 63 Human laws and convention were seen as bonds which hindered their freedom, a freedom which was present in the golden age. 64 The Cynic criticism of human conventions and laws is recorded by Plutarch who writes about Anacharsis65 that he laughed at Solon “for thinking that he could check the injustice and rapacity of the citizens by written laws.” Laws are just like spiders’ webs, they hold the weak, but will be torn by the rich and the powerful. 66 Solon replies that he had made the laws “in such a manner that the practice of justice was more advantageous than the transgression of laws.” But, the author concludes, “the results justified the conjecture of Anacharsis rather than the hopes of Solon” (5.3 [Vit. par. 80F]). The laws were introduced because of man’s wickedness, and were of no 62

Dodds, Progress, 17; Zeller, Philosophie, 2.1, 332. Zeller, Philosophie, 2.1, 316, “Sittenstrenge, Bedürfnislosigkeit, Unabhängigkeit.” Dudley (Cynicism, 31) describes the Cynic life țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ as a stripping away of all “accretions of conventions, tradition and social existence.” 64 See Jones, Freiheit, 93, and the references to primary sources and secondary literature mentioned there. 65 Anacharsis, a 6th century B.C.E. sage, is often displayed with Cynic characteristics. See Kindstrand, Anacharsis. 66 Sol. 5.2 (Vit. par. 80F) (Perrin, LCL). Cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 1.64-65, where Solon himself notices the same weakness of his laws: good leaders will benefit from his laws, tyrant leaders will not be restrained by them. 63

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56111

help in repelling this wickedness. Similarly, Plutarch comments on the laws of Lycurgus, that they were regarded as “efficacious in producing valour, but defective in producing righteousness.” 67 In a pseudepigraphic letter attributed to Heraclitus (Ep. 7), the Cynic criticism of society, and particularly its immorality, is the dominant theme. In the letter68 the author criticizes the Ephesians for their fraud, dishonesty, sexual aberration, lack of piety, and luxurious living. Their immorality is conspicuously apparent in the decree by which they banish Heraclitus from the city. The decree stipulates that everyone who does not laugh has to leave the city and Heraclitus is the only one who does not (want to) laugh because he rejects the immoral behaviour of the Ephesians. It is rather he, Heraclitus, who should be the judge of the Ephesians than vice versa. He concludes, IJȠઃȢ ȞȩȝȠȣȢ ʌĮȡĮȕĮȓȞİIJİ ʌĮȡĮȞȠȝȓĮȢ ȞȠȝȠșİIJİ૙IJİ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȕȚȐȗİıșİ ਘ ȝ੽ ʌİijȪțĮIJİ IJ੹ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ įȠțȠ૨ȞIJĮ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞȘȢ İੇȞĮȚ ıȪȝȕȠȜĮ Ƞੂ ȞȩȝȠȚ ਕįȚțȓĮȢ İੁı੿ IJİțȝȒȡȚȠȞ İੁ Ȗ੹ȡ ȝ੽ ਷ıĮȞ ਕȞȑįȘȞ ਗȞ ਕİ੿ ਥʌȠȞȘȡİȪİıșİǜ Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ İ੅ IJȚ țĮ੿ ȝȚțȡઁȞ ਥʌȚıIJȠȝȓȗİıșİ ijȩȕ૳ țȠȜȐıİȦȢ țĮIJȑȤİıșİ IJȠ૨ ਕįȚțİ૙Ȟ You transgress the laws; you enact illegalities; you perform by force everything which you cannot do by nature. The things which seem to be preeminently the symbols of justice among you, the laws, are evidence of vice. For if they did not exist, you would commit vice freely all the time, but now you are curbed, even if just a little; by fear of punishment you are kept from committing injustice. 69

67

Lyc. 28.1 (Vit. par. 56F) (Perrin, LCL). The letter dates from the first century C.E.; see Attridge, Heraclitus, 6. 69 Attridge, Heraclitus, 74-75. 68

112

Chapter Six

We recognize the antithesis of physis versus nomos: ʌĮȡĮȞȠȝȓĮȢ ȞȠȝȠșİIJİ૙IJİ literally “you make unlawful laws,” in other words, laws against the law of nature.70 Furthermore, the laws bring to light man’s wickedness, they are evidence of vice. Nevertheless, they do impose some order on society, for if they were absent man would commit vice unceasingly, but they only do so by inspiring fear of punishment. The laws do not teach any righteousness; at the most, they repel some wickedness. A criticism similar to that of Heraclitus is found in a pseudepigraphic letter attributed to Diogenes of Sinope (Ep. 28). This letter, probably stemming from the period from the first century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., 71 is a criticism of life in general as lived by the “so-called Greeks.” The author criticizes their lust for war, their lack of reason, their educational system which lacks education in righteousness, their uninhibited lustful behaviour, in other words their “unnatural” way of living. Implied is a criticism of the laws: ੕ȞIJİȢ Ȗ੹ȡ IJĮ૙Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ ੕ȥİıȚȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ IJĮ૙Ȣ į੻ ȥȣȤĮ૙Ȣ ʌȓșȘțȠȚ ʌȡȠıʌȠȚİ૙ıșİ ȝ੻Ȟ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȖȚȖȞȫıțİIJİ į੻ Ƞ੝įȑȞǜ IJȠȚȖȐȡIJȠȚ IJȚȝȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ ਲ ijȪıȚȢǜ ȞȩȝȠȣȢ Ȗ੹ȡ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ ȝȘȤĮȞȘıȐȝİȞȠȚ ȝȑȖȚıIJȠȞ țĮ੿ ʌȜİ૙ıIJȠȞ IJ૨ijȠȞ ਥȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ įȚİțȜȘȡȫıĮıșİ ȝȐȡIJȣȡĮȢ IJોȢ ਥȝʌİijȣıȚȦȝȑȞȘȢ țĮțȓĮȢ ȜĮȕȩȞIJİȢ For although to all appearances you are men, you are apes at heart. You pretend to everything, but know nothing. Therefore, nature takes vengeance on you, for in contriving laws for yourselves you have allotted to yourselves the

70

For the expression “law of nature” in the same epistle, see Attridge, Heraclitus, 72, 5 and 74, 18. 71 See the introduction to the collection of Diogenes’ letters in Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 14-21.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56113 greatest and most pervasive delusion that issues from them, and you admit them as witnesses to your ingrained evil. 72

The antithesis physis versus nomos is brought to a climax: by making laws, men have created a delusion which will eventually come upon themselves. The laws do not provide order, but will turn against society, a vengeance of nature, according to the author. Furthermore, laws are evidence of men’s inborn wickedness. Laws and wickedness are connected in a double way: laws are evidence of, and in the end, will produce wickedness. The Cynic criticism of laws can be summarized in three points. First of all, laws do not belong to the realm of nature and are therefore by definition insufficient and unrighteous. Secondly, laws are composed because of the degeneration of humanity, they are the proof of man’s wickedness. Thirdly, in the course of time laws are made by wicked people, a further result of the degeneration of humanity. We can conclude that a relationship between laws and wickedness is often made in Classical and Hellenistic philosophy, especially to describe the immorality of humanity. 73 Against this criticism of laws and the negative view of humanity stands the belief in philosophy through which one can become truly moral and righteous. The wise do not need laws, because they will do good anyway. 74 Demonax sums it 72

Fiore, in Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 120-21. Cf. Strabo who, supposedly referring to Resp. 404E-405A, reports that Plato had said that “where there are very many laws, there are also very many lawsuits and corrupt practices, just as where there are many physicians, there are also likely to be many diseases” (Geogr. 6.1.8 [Jones, LCL]). 74 Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 5.20, “When asked what the advantage he [Aristotle] had ever gained from philosophy, he replied, ‘This, that 73

114

Chapter Six

all up when he says, “that in all likelihood the laws were of no use, whether framed for the bad or the good; for the latter had no need of laws, and the former were not improved by them.” 75 1 Corinthians 15:56 and its context In his short aside on the role and power of death in human life in 1 Corinthians 15:56 Paul describes the miserable state of humanity with the help of Hellenistic ideas. The Hellenistic notion of the degeneration of humanity seems to have enabled Paul to connect death with sin. With Philo he agrees that the degeneration of mankind, characterized by death and sin, started with the fall of Adam. However, whereas for Philo the Jewish law is a way to overcome this fallen state, Paul rejects any law, subscribing to the negative view of law that was current among the Cynics who regarded laws as part of the degeneration of humanity. 76 In Paul’s opinion, death operates in the present age, and its “sting,” through which it brings mortality to all men, is sin. Law is the stimulus, the catalyst of men’s wickedness. Paul sympathized with this negative attitude towards law because it fitted quite well in his apocalyptic world-view. 77 According to him, the present age was a time of evil but he was convinced that since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I do without being ordered what some are constrained to do by their fear of the law’ ”; Cicero, Resp. 1.3, says the same about Xenocrates; see also Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 2.68-69; 6.11. 75 Lucian, Demon. 59 (Harmon, LCL). According to Lucian, Demonax was a pupil of Demetrius and Epictetus (Demon. 3) who had Diogenes of Sinope and Socrates as his examples (Demon. 5). 76 In Josephus, too, we find such a negative view of law in general; the Jewish Torah, however, is an exception: it is a code which by far surpasses all other laws (see C. Ap. 2.145-295). 77 See also Lovejoy and Boas, Primitivism, 85.

The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Corinthians 15:56115

the present order or aeon was running towards its end. Not only death and sin, but also law as part of human culture and convention, are characteristics of the old order and will pass away. At the end of time, when Christ returns, death will decisively be destroyed, which implies the end of the old order in all its aspects. There is reason enough to believe that most Corinthians understood Paul’s short digression on the deplorable state of mankind in 1 Corinthians 15:56 very well. From other data in 1 Corinthians we may conclude that many Christians in Corinth were deeply influenced by a Graeco-Roman world-view. Their emphasis on wisdom, spiritual gifts, freedom, and the power to live as one wants to, together with a denial of the bodily resurrection of the dead, are clear proofs of their thoroughly Hellenistic way of thinking. They experienced the gifts of the Holy Spirit, they felt free, they even felt “kings” (1 Cor 4:8). Through his letter Paul tried to correct this attitude. He pointed out to them where they were wrong. He drew their attention, for instance, to the virtue of love as a restriction of their ecstatic utterances and their freedom, but a necessity for the building up of the Christian community. In his argumentation about the future resurrection of believers (1 Cor 15), Paul found it necessary to underline the power of death. He referred to the future eternal bliss to be received through resurrection at the end of time, but at the same time he emphasized the role of death in the present age. By connecting death with sin and sin with law Paul described humanity with the help of concepts which he shared with many of his Hellenistic contemporaries and which we may suppose were well-known to his addressees in Corinth too. Paul’s understanding of the Jewish law in his polemics with Judaizing Christians in his letters to the Galatians and the

116

Chapter Six

Romans is shaped by this negative attitude towards law in general, as something belonging to the present aeon which will pass away at the end of time when death will decisively be destroyed. 78

78

Even in such a theological discussion on the law as Rom 7, Paul refers to law in a way that approximates this way of looking at it. It seems clear that in the discussions on law in Galatians and Romans also Greek philosophical elements are present. See also Bornkamm, “Gesetz,” 93-118.

CHAPTER SEVEN THE MEANING OF THE TERM “LAW” ȃȅȂȅȈ) IN 1 CORINTHIANS HARM W. HOLLANDER

When one reads Paul’s most influential letters, his correspondence with the Galatians and with the Romans, one must come to the conclusion that for the apostle the Jewish law did not possess any authority for the gentile believers within the Christian communities. Not only was it worthless as a means for salvation, but even as a code of conduct with commandments concerning such matters as circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws, the law was not valid for gentile Christians, nor perhaps even for Jewish Christians. This fact notwithstanding, Paul frequently exhorted all Christians to live according to “the will of God” or to live in obedience to “the commandments of God.” 1 One of the factors which may have influenced Paul to take such a remarkable or radical stand on the issue of the role of the Jewish law might have been the Graeco-Roman concept of the meaning and function of laws in general. Laws were considered 1

Searching for a new, Christian identity, different from that of the Jews or the gentiles, Paul “found the broad middle. He forged a Christianity that was Jewish to the degree that it forbade idolatry and extra-marital sex and was gentile to the degree that it forbade circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws” (Sanders, “Between Jews and Gentiles,” 83). See also Wolter, “Ethos,” 430-44.

118

Chapter Seven

to be “some kind of codes which guide and control people and according to which they are judged.” 2 Laws were related to peoples or nations. In other words, each people or nation had its own specific laws, which were not particularly valid among other peoples or nations. It is possible that this common Hellenistic concept smoothed the way for Paul to declare that the Jewish law, as the code of the Jewish people, was not applicable to Christians, or at least to gentile Christians. In order to confirm this hypothesis or, more in general, to learn what the apostle’s ideas about laws actually were, it may be wise to analyse Paul’s use of the term “law” ȞȩȝȠȢ  The best strategy to do this is to examine those letters where the Jewish law as such is no issue and where there is no trace of a discussion between Paul and his readers on the role of the Jewish law and its meaning for the Christian communities in the Graeco-Roman world. The Corinthian correspondence fulfils these conditions very well. It is a well-known fact that the theme of righteousness or salvation by faith and not by works of the law–an idea so prominent in Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans–is absent in the letters to the Corinthians. Even in 2 Corinthians, where Paul has to defend himself against some “superapostles” who boasted of their Jewish origin and impressed so many of the Corinthian Christians, 3 the Jewish law is not an issue. Not only do Paul’s ideas about the law over against faith in Jesus Christ not play a part in his letters to the Corinthians, but the very word for “law,” ȞȩȝȠȢ occurs no more than nine times in 1 Corinthians and never in 2 Corinthians. 4 Moreover, 2

Cf. Winger, Law, 104. See 2 Cor 10-12, esp. 11:5, 13, and 12:11. 4 1 Cor 9:8-9, 20, 14:21, 34, and 15:56. In addition, the word ȞȩȝȠȢ appears as a varia lectio in 1 Cor 7:39, where it is undoubtedly 3

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

119

the Greek word for “commandment,” ਥȞIJȠȜȒ occurs even less: no more than twice in the Corinthian letters, both times in 1 Corinthians. 5 It is quite customary, however, to regard all the occurrences of the word ȞȩȝȠȢ in 1 Corinthians as references to the Jewish law. In fact, many scholars are inclined to interpret Paul’s use of the term ȞȩȝȠȢ in his entire oeuvre as referring to the Jewish law, unless the context makes it absolutely clear that he is referring to something else. 6 Certainly it is true that Paul himself was a (Christian) Jew. It is also true that the early-Christian communities were groups of Jews and gentiles, and that some of these groups debated with each other concerning the role of the Jewish law. But it seems as if these facts have made scholars 7 think that for Paul and his readers the Greek word ȞȩȝȠȢ automatically required the Jewish law to be its referent;

introduced by a scribe (or scribes) under the influence of the parallel phrase in Rom 7:2. Finally, for comparison, the word ȞȩȝȠȢ is used 74 times in Romans and 32 times in Galatians. 5 1 Cor 7:19 and 14:37. 6 A good example is Bauer, Aland and Aland, Wörterbuch. They argue that ȞȩȝȠȢ in Rom 3:27, 4:15b, and 5:13b (and perhaps Rom 7:1-2) refers to the law in general or to the Roman law; that ȞȩȝȠȢ in Rom 7:21, 23abc, 25b, and 8:2b is to be interpreted and translated as “rule”; that ȞȩȝȠȢ in Rom 3:27b, 8:2a, and Gal 6:2 is a reference to the “new,” Christian law; and that, finally, in all other instances in the corpus paulinum the word ȞȩȝȠȢ refers to the Jewish law, the law of Moses, or (a part of) the holy Scriptures. 7 One of the exceptions is Winger, Law. But even Winger takes some instances of ȞȩȝȠȢ in the Pauline letters as references to the Jewish law, where, as he must admit, it cannot be shown from the immediate context (see, e.g., his interpretations of 1 Cor 14:34 and 15:56 on pp. 71-72).

120

Chapter Seven

only in the second place might ȞȩȝȠȢ refer to something other than Jewish law. But is the assumption that in the Pauline letters the Greek word ȞȩȝȠȢ first of all refers to the Jewish law and only in the second place to anything else really plausible? Paul and his readers in Corinth and in other Pauline communities were Greekspeaking people, men and women who lived in a world that was imbued with the Graeco-Roman (Hellenistic) culture. For such people, the word ȞȩȝȠȢ could have different referents. 8 From the situation, the context in which the word was used, people understood which referent was meant. That is, of course, nothing new: all words receive their meaning from the context in which they are used. The same is true in the case of the Greek word for “law.” It could refer to different things: for instance, to the law in general, to a particular national legal code, to the law of nature or the law of God, or to some kind of universal law or custom. 9 This should make us cautious about assuming a priori that the Jewish law is the primary referent of the word ȞȩȝȠȢ in the Pauline letters; especially in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where there is no discussion at all about the 8

Even (non-Christian) Jewish authors not always use ȞȩȝȠȢ with the Jewish law as its referent: see, e.g., Josephus, A.J. 4.322, 16.277, C. Ap. 2.172, Philo, Abr. 135, Mos. 1.300, and Ebr. 47, 141-43, 193, 195, and 198. 9 In the Greek and Graeco-Roman world customs (਩șȘ, ਵșȘ, mores) and laws (ȞȩȝȠȚ, leges) were regarded as more or less analogous phenomena: they both directed men’s life. See, e.g., Lysias, Orat. 2.81, Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 40.3.5, Philo, Virt. 65, Ebr. 193, 195, 198, Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 2.93, 9.61, 9.95, Cicero, Fin. 4.61, 5.11; Resp. 1.2-3, 2.64, and Leg. 2.23. In NT, it is the writer of Luke– Acts, for whom the terms ਩șȠȢ and ȞȩȝȠȢ are occasionally interchangeable (see Wilson, Law, 1-11). For a different view on (written) laws and (unwritten) customs, see Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 76.

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

121

role of the Jewish law in the Christian community. A detailed analysis of the passages in 1 Corinthians where the Greek word for “law” is used will demonstrate that Paul understood and used the term ȞȩȝȠȢ in a rather broad, unspecific sense, and that he more than once referred to legal codes other than Jewish law. 1 Corinthians 9:8-9 The first passage in which the word ȞȩȝȠȢ occurs is 1 Corinthians 9:8-9. In chapters 8 and 10 of his first letter to the Corinthians Paul gives a description of the limits of Christian freedom. 10 For Christian freedom certainly has its limits: it is care for others–above all care for one’s fellow Christians, the members of the Christian community–that determines Christian ethical life, not freedom or the power to live as one desires. In 9:1-23 Paul gives an example from his own life and conduct in order to illustrate the Christian ethical behaviour he is advocating. 11 He, too, is “a free man,” even an apostle, but in some circumstances he prefers to give up his freedom in order to reach a higher goal. In this passage Paul speaks about his apostolic right (ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ to material support from the Christian communities. After a brief introduction (vv. 1-5) and the mentioning of the theme of the whole passage (v. 6), he gives several arguments for this right to support (vv. 7-23). But at the same time Paul declares that he has voluntarily abstained from this right (v. 12b and v. 15a) in order to be free and

10

For the notions of “freedom” (ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ and “the power to live as one wants to” (ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ in Paul’s letters and in the Graeco-Roman world of his days, see esp. Jones, Freiheit, and Vollenweider, Freiheit. 11 For some recent studies on the structure and coherence of 1 Cor 810, see Delobel, “Coherence,” and Smit, “1 Cor. 8, 1-6,” both in R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, 177-90 and 577-91.

122

Chapter Seven

independent. 12 It was this attitude which made it possible for Paul “to win” so many people for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 13 In verse 7 the apostle mentions, first of all, three examples of people who may expect to be sustained by their own labours: “Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk?”14 Paul’s argument is clear: just like soldiers, farmers, and shepherds, apostles should expect to be sustained, namely, by the people who have become Christians due to their efforts. The three examples are obviously taken from everyday life, “drawn from commonplace realities.” 15 Or, in the words of the apostle himself in verse 8a, they are instances “on a human level țĮIJ੹ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ ´; 16 that is, things that just happen within a human society, things that are customary and accepted among men and in keeping with human standards or manners. 17 In verses 8-10 Paul goes on with more arguments for his apostolic right to material support. This time, however, he does not refer to commonplace realities that take place in human societies, to unwritten customs, but to “the law”: “Does not the law also say the same?” (v. 8b). Then he continues by referring to a passage from “the law of Moses,” namely, Deuteronomy 25:4, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the

12

Cf. also 2 Cor 11:9-10, 12:13, and 1 Thess 2:6-9. For a more detailed analysis of the structure of the whole passage, see esp. Jones, Freiheit, 38-44. 14 Bible quotations are taken from NRSV. 15 So, among others, Fee, Corinthians, 405. 16 NRSV renders here “on human authority,” but that elicits only one aspect of the original wording. 17 For such a use of the expression țĮIJ੹ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ cf. 1 Cor 3:3, 15:32, and esp. Gal 3:15. 13

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

123

grain” (v. 9). 18 Since God is not concerned for oxen but speaks for the sake of humanity (vv. 9c-10a), Paul concludes that the OT commandment is meant to tell us that “whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop” (v. 10). 19 This means that ploughers and threshers, too, may expect to be sustained by their labours, which is another argument for Paul to show the Christians in Corinth that apostles, including Paul himself, have the right of material support from the Christian communities. Thus, the two sets of examples in verse 7 and verses 8-10 are wholly in line with each other, both being illustrations of the same argument. But whereas the first example is an illustration “on a human level,” the second is taken from “the law,” or, more specifically, from “the law of Moses.” The formulation in verse 8 suggests that Paul is thinking of a contrast between the different levels from which the instances are drawn, or rather of a climax: after the illustrations “on a human level” he introduces another illustration on a higher level in order to 18

On the wording of this quotation, which differs slightly from the LXX version of Deut 25:4, see esp. Stanley, Paul, 195-96. 19 These words, printed in italics in Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), are certainly not a quotation from the OT or another source, but form Paul’s own conclusion from Deut 25:4, quoted by the apostle in v. 9. Nowhere in Paul’s letters is ਥȖȡȐijȘ (“it was written”) used to introduce an OT quotation; instead, it follows upon a quotation and introduces its applications for “us” now (cf. 1 Cor 10:11 and Rom 15:4; Rom 4:23-24 is no exception, since the verb in v. 23 refers back to the cited passage in v. 3 and the words “it was reckoned to him” are just a repetition of a part of the quotation [cf. Wilckens, Römer I, 276, “So kehrt die Argumentation zu ihrem Ausgangspunkt (V 3) zurück”]). Besides, ਲȝ઼Ȣ in v. 10 does not refer to Paul (and his colleagues) or to the Christians, but to all men in general over against beasts, in particular the oxen mentioned in v. 9. So also, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 408-9.

124

Chapter Seven

convince his readers. This higher level turns out to be “the law.” 20 It is only after the rather general reference to “the law” that Paul quotes a specific passage from “the law of Moses,” the law once given to the people of Israel by Moses, their famous forefather. 21 Most scholars think that “the law” in verse 8 refers to the OT Scriptures in general and that “the law of Moses” in verse 9 has the Pentateuch as its referent; or they are of the opinion that both clauses refer to the Pentateuch. All of these scholars consider the fuller formula in verse 9 to be an indication for the correctness of their interpretation. But in the first place, Paul “does not usually appeal to the OT by this designation”; 22 that is, he does not normally refer to the OT in general as “the law” (v. 8). And in the second place, it is rather awkward to mention first “the law” and to refer next to “the law of Moses” when you have exactly the same thing in mind. Is it, then, not more plausible that Paul refers in verse 8 to the written 20

The Greek sentence is without any doubt somewhat awkward: v. 8a expects a negative answer (see the particle ȝȒ at the beginning of the clause), whereas v. 8b expects a positive answer, and the ਲ਼ țĮȓ (“or also”), which joins the two clauses, recommends the latter (cf. Rom 4:9). Its general sense, however, is clear: “Are there only arguments on a human level for the things I am saying? Or does not the law say the same?” Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 405 n. 46. 21 The expression “the law of Moses” (੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ [IJȠ૨] ȂȦȨıȑȦȢ) is unique in Paul’s oeuvre. It is found seven times elsewhere in NT (Luke 2:22, 24:44, John 7:23, Acts 13:39, 15:5, 28:23, and Heb 10:28) and is taken over from Jewish tradition in which Moses was regarded as the great “lawgiver” of the Israelites (see, e.g., 1 Esd 8:3, Tob 6:13, 7:13, and already Josh 8:31-32 [9:2 LXX], 2 Chron 23:18, Mal 4:4 [3:24 LXX], etc.). 22 So rightly Fee, Corinthians, 406, who mentions as (possible) exceptions 1 Cor 9:8 and 14:21, 34. He seems to forget Rom 3:19, which is another (possible) exception. See also below.

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

125

legal codes that were in vogue in so many regions of the Roman empire, and that in verse 9 he gives a quotation from “the law of Moses” as a specimen of these laws? 23 If this is true, Paul refers in this passage first to some commonplace realities and next to the law in general (੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ  that is, to the (written) codes (= Ƞੂ ȞȩȝȠȚ that are found in all sorts of cultures and among all kinds of nations.24 Finally, in order to prove his statement that “the law also says the same” (v. 8), 25 he quotes a passage from a particular law, viz. “the law of Moses,” which he, as a Jew, knows best. 26 According to verses 9c-10a, it is God who is speaking in or through the law of Moses. For Paul as a Jew, this was self23

So also Winger, Law, 71. For the use of ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ as referring to “the law” or “the laws” in general, see, e.g., Aelius Aristides, Orat. 2.1.227 and 2.1.271, “[The law, ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ@ acts in a wholly opposite fashion, always honouring justice and reproving those who dare to commit crimes … The laws [sc. Ƞੂ ȞȩȝȠȚ@ have no other purpose than this: principally that nobody be mistreated by anyone; but if not, that the sufferers receive justice from the doers or those responsible” (Behr, LCL); see further, e.g., Plato, Gorg. 482C-484B, Min., Aristotle, Rhet. 1.15 (1375ab), Libanius, Ep. 245.6. 25 The expression ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ ȜȑȖİȚ, often referring to a particular (passage of a) written code, is quite common. It is found particularly in passages where the author (or orator) wants to make out a case for something or someone. See, e.g., Plato, Resp. 451B, 604 B, Leg. 959B, Aristotle, Rhet. 1.15.12 (1375b), Demosthenes, Macart. 55, Leoch. 67, Hyperides, Athen. 13, Plotinus, Enn. 3.2.9, Libanius, Orat. 33.15, and Philo, Det. 159 (referring to Gen 12:7), Deus 99 (referring to Deut 1:43-44); and cf. Rom 3:19 and 7:7. On 1 Cor 14:34, see below. 26 One may compare this with a modern sentence such as the following: “Life in the city is quite noisy; in the city of Amsterdam, for instance, there live almost a million people, and the cars, buses, trains, and trams are running day and night.” 24

126

Chapter Seven

evident. But even in pagan literature we find the view that Moses, as the lawgiver of the Jews, wrote down his laws in obedience to what his god told him. 27 For Moses was one of the famous lawgivers of old who were thought to have been inspired by God when they wrote down their laws. 28 All this makes it wholly understandable that Paul, as a Hellenistic Jew and Christian living in the Graeco-Roman culture, could refer first to “the law” in general, and next to “the law of Moses” as a specimen of a larger class of national laws, given by a God-inspired man, Moses, to the people of Israel (or the Jews). 29 This means that in 1 Corinthians 9:7-10 Paul wants to make clear to his readers that it was not only in keeping with human standards or (unwritten) manners that people might expect to be sustained by their labours, but that on a higher, a 27

See, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 1.94.2, “and among the Jews Moyses referred his laws to the god who is invoked as Iao” (Oldfather, LCL), 40.3.3-8, and Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.35-39. Most of their ideas on the role of Moses as the lawgiver of the Jews were taken from the writings of Hecataeus of Abdera and, above all, from the works and ideas of the Stoic philosopher Posidonius. Cf. Malitz, Poseidonios, 302-23. 28 Cf. Plutarch, Num. 4.7 (Vit. par. 62D), “Is it worthwhile, then, if we concede these instances of divine favour, to disbelieve that Zaleucus, Minos, Zoroaster, Numa, and Lycurgus, who piloted kingdoms and formulated constitutions (ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ țȣȕİȡȞ૵ıȚ țĮ੿ ʌȠȜȚIJİȓĮȢ įȚĮțȠıȝȠ૨ıȚȞ), had frequent audience of the Deity?” (Perrin, LCL), Lyc. 5.3 (Vit. par. 42B), Princ. iner. 3 (Mor. 780E), Strabo, Geogr. 10.4.19, 16.2.38, Aelius Aristides, Orat. 2.1.38-39, Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 1.94.1-2, and Cicero, Tusc. 2.34. 29 In Gal 3, where Paul compares the Jewish law with the promise made by God to Abraham and his offspring, the apostle seems to overlook the fact that it was God who gave his instructions to Moses at Sinai; instead, he underlines the role of the angels and of Moses as the (human) lawgiver of the Jews (v. 19).

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

127

divine level, “the (written) law” in general and “the law of Moses” in particular ordained the same thing. From this he concludes that apostles as well have the right of material support, but that he himself voluntarily abstained from this right. 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 Paul’s main objective in abstaining from the apostolic right of material support–the central theme of 1 Corinthians 9–and in proclaiming the Gospel “free of charge” (v. 18) is to become and to remain free and independent (v. 19; cf. v. 1). This freedom and independence made it possible for Paul to adjust himself to all sorts of circumstances and to be God’s missionary among all kinds of people. Thus, “he made himself a slave to all,” “he became all things to all people,” in an attempt to “win more of them” or to “save some” (vv. 19 and 22). 30 In verses 20-22a the apostle Paul gives three instances of the chameleon-like conduct he showed in his missionary activities. The first kind of social setting, in which he proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in which he adapts himself to local conditions, is encountered when he finds himself among Jews: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews” (v. 20a). In the entire context there is not the slightest trace of a discussion on the role of Jews and gentiles in the mixed Christian communities. Paul mentions the Jews Ƞੂ ૃǿȠȣįĮ૙ȠȚ here as one of the (two) groups from which the early-Christians were recruited. The other group, of course, was the gentiles. In the next verse Paul turns to them, referring to the gentiles as “those outside the law.” 31 Since chapters 8-10 deal with the 30

Cf. also Jones, Freiheit, 46. On these verses, see esp. Barton, “All Things.” 31 Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians Paul uses the term “the Jews” (Ƞੂ ૃǿȠȣįĮ૙ȠȚ in combination with its counterpart “the gentiles” or “the

128

Chapter Seven

limits of Christian freedom, it seems evident that Paul mentions the Jews here because they were submitted to dietary laws and other laws which might be regarded as commands that restrict one’s freedom. Like many Corinthians, the apostle is a supporter of “the freedom in Jesus Christ,” but he wants to show his readers that among Jews he “behaves like a Jew,” voluntarily giving up his freedom and submitting to the (food) laws of the Jewish people. That is, he does this as long as he is among Jews and only for the sake of something more important than Christian freedom, viz. the salvation of some of them. What Paul meant in verse 20a, he explicates in verse 20b, where he speaks of people “under the law”: “To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.” The people “under the law” are, in view of the immediate context, without any doubt the Jews; 32 in this case “the law” ȞȩȝȠȢ refers here to the Jewish law, the law of Moses. 33 Paul’s readers

Greeks” IJ੹ ਩șȞȘ Ƞੂ ૠǼȜȜȘȞİȢ  see 1:22-24, 10:32, and 12:13. For him, as for all Jews, the world was divided in Jews and non-Jews (or: gentiles, or: Greeks), and consequently, the members of the church belonged to either of these groups. Cf. Heckel, “Bild,” 269-96. 32 The formulation “(those) under the law” ([Ƞੂ] ਫ਼ʌઁ ȞȩȝȠȞ) is not used in a negative sense but quite neutrally, referring to people, i.e. the Jews, who live in accordance with their national laws, i.e. the law of Moses (cf. Rom 6:14-15 and Gal 4:21). 33 That the word ȞȩȝȠȢ is used here without the definite article is not an argument against the interpretation of “law” as the law of Moses. In the letters of Paul, but also elsewhere, ȞȩȝȠȢ is used with or without the article with no apparent difference in meaning (so also, e.g., Martin, Law, 21-22). Moreover, in prepositional phrases, the article can appear or be omitted without any apparent difference in meaning (see Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf, Grammatik, §§ 255, 258).

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

129

most probably understood it this way also, but only because verse 20b was preceded by verse 20a. Thus, as Paul argues in verse 20, when he is among fellow Jews, he adapts himself to their customs and laws, although as a Christian he is a free man who does not fall under the law of Moses. For Paul, Christianity means “a new way,” which implies that the law of Moses has no authority over him. Nevertheless, due to particular circumstances, the apostle gives up his freedom and accepts the authority of the Jewish law, but only in order to “win” or “save” some of his Jewish companions. In verse 21 the apostle describes his conduct among gentiles: “To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law.” The context makes clear that “those outside the law” refers to the gentiles, people who are not under the law of Moses.34 This means that, when Paul is among gentiles, he does not accept the authority of the Jewish law and is, for instance, “non-kosher.” 35 Since the Greek term for “outside the (Jewish) law,” ਙȞȠȝȠȢ is ambiguous–it usually means “outside any law,” “lawless”–Paul hastens to say that he is not “outside the law” in the latter sense of the word. 36 Like every Christian, he is “under the law of Christ,” ਩ȞȞȠȝȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨. The governing principle in his life or in that of Christians in general is not a law pertaining to a particular people or nation, for instance, the Jewish law, but “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) or the obedience to “the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). Christians should live 34

Cf. Rom 2:12, “All who have sinned apart from the law (= the gentiles) will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law (= the Jews) will be judged by the law.” 35 Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 427. 36 Or, as NRSV translates, he is “not free from God’s law.”

130

Chapter Seven

according to the will of God and should “abound in love for one another and for all” (1 Thess 3:12). 37 Finally, in verse 22a, Paul mentions another social setting in which he proclaims the Gospel and adapts himself to local conditions: “To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak.” Again, the apostle emphasizes that concern for the salvation of other people is of more importance than one’s freedom. Paul voluntarily abstains from this freedom and prefers to be weak in order to save the weak. 38 1 Corinthians 14:21 In 1 Corinthians 12-14 Paul deals rather extensively with the spiritual gifts IJ੹ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ  which were held in high esteem by a number of Corinthian Christians. In a reaction to their feelings about these gifts and in an attempt to correct them, Paul points to the virtue of love as “a still more excellent way” (12:31-13:13). Finally, in chapter 14, he contrasts two particular spiritual gifts, viz. glossolalia and prophecy. In 14:20-25 Paul describes the impressions of both glossolalia and prophecy on outsiders and unbelievers. When they see people speaking in tongues, they will think that they have gone mad; but when they are faced with people who are prophesying, they will realize that they find themselves in a community of believers. 39 In order to persuade his readers, the apostle quotes

37

Cf. Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:14, 6:2, and also 1 Cor 13. This rather general command which forms the content of the law that governs Christian life may be compared with the (equally vague and general) content of “the law of nature” presented by the sage. Cf. Martens, “Romans 2.14-16,” 67 n. 49. 38 Cf. 1:25, 27, 4:10, 8:7, 9-10, and 12:22. 39 For a detailed discussion on vv. 20-25, see esp. Smit, “Tongues.”

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

131

a passage from the OT, viz. Isaiah 28:11-12. 40 From this text he concludes that “strange tongues” and glossolalia are things that are proper for unbelievers and, consequently, that prophecy is proper for real Christians. 41 For our subject it is important that Paul introduces the OT quotation with the phrase “In the law it is written.” The term “law” refers, of course, to the Jewish law, or better: to the Scriptures. The formula “it is written ȖȑȖȡĮʌIJĮȚ ´ 42 certainly facilitated the Corinthians’ interpretation of the word ȞȩȝȠȢ in this sense. As in 9:9 the reference to a passage found in “the law” is meant to add force to the argumentation. Even though in Paul’s opinion the Jewish law or the law of Moses as the written code of commandments and customs that constituted the Jewish way of life did not need to be imposed on gentile believers, 43 the Scriptures remained for him and other Christians a holy book and “an oracular witness to Jesus Christ.” 44

40

V. 21, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me.” On the wording of this verse and the text of Isa 28:11-12 LXX, see esp. Stanley, Paul, 197-205. 41 Cf. v. 22. In vv. 23-25 Paul does not refer to the effects of glossolalia and prophecy on the inner life of the outsider or unbeliever, in the sense of abhorance or conversion. He simply mentions the outsider’s or unbeliever’s different reactions to people who are speaking in tongues (“you are out of your mind”) and to those who are prophesying (“God is really among you”): the outsider or unbeliever will consider glossolalia to be something insane and prophecy to be something divine. 42 Cf. 1:19, 31, (2:9), 3:19, 10:7, and 15:45. 43 See, e.g., Gal 3:19, 23, 25, and Rom 10:4. 44 Cf. Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles,” 163, “One function of the Law, then–perhaps its most important function for Paul–is to point forward to the coming of Christ and to God’s intent to call Jews and Gentiles

132

Chapter Seven

1 Corinthians 14:34 The comparison between prophecy and glossolalia in the first half of chapter 14 is followed by a passage in which Paul argues for order in the assembly (vv. 26-40). Any disorderly behaviour should be avoided. In this context the apostle urges women to “be silent in the churches,” not “to speak” or to ask questions, but to “be subordinate” and to “ask their husbands at home” (vv. 33b-36). Because these verses seem to contradict earlier statements about the role of women in the Christian community, especially 11:2-16, many scholars resort to interpolation theories and only a few attempt to interpret the text as it stands. 45 When the text in its present form is analysed, however, several observations become apparent. First, the passage about the silence of women fits quite well into the immediate context, where the order in the assembly is at stake. Moreover, it fits equally well into the larger unit of discourse. 46 Secondly, the situation described in our passage is different than the one described in 11:2-16. In the latter passage Paul forbids women together into a community that simultaneously confirms the fidelity of God and glorifies God for his mercy.” 45 See the commentaries, ad loc., and esp. Niccum, “Voice.” Niccum comes to the conclusion that “no extant MS offers evidence of an original omission of 1 Cor. 14.34-5” and that the transposition of these verses after v. 40 in a couple of manuscripts is secondary. Thus, “No other reading has claim to being ‘original’ other than that preserving the traditional sequence of verses” (254). This means that interpolation theories cannot rely on the external evidence. But, on the other hand, the textual evidence cannot be taken as an argument for the Pauline authorship of these verses either: it is still possible that someone else included them before the manuscripts which are known to us now were written. 46 So also, e.g., Osburn, “1 Cor. 14:34-35.”

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

133

“to pray” or “to prophesy” with their heads unveiled. The situation is quite different in 14:34-35. Here, the apostle forbids women “to speak” in the assembly, that is, to interfere with what is going on there. 47 “Chattering” by women in the midst of the assembly should be avoided. 48 Consequently, there do not seem to be decisive arguments against Pauline authorship of verses 33b-35. The author (Paul) gives four arguments why women should be silent. First, it is customary in all other churches that women do not talk in the Christian assembly. Secondly, women should be subordinate. Thirdly, in the event that they want clarification about something, women should ask their husbands at home. And fourthly, it is shameful for women to speak in church. The third argument is in fact an admonition to women to speak about divine matters with their own husbands at home, which is, of course, quite easy to put into practice. The first argument is a reference to what is habitual in other local churches. Its intention is to help the Corinthians realize that they are a part of the world-wide church of Jesus Christ. 49 The other two arguments are references to the nature of things or the natural feeling (“it is shameful”)50 and to what is customary in human society (“they … should be subordinate”). Thus, according to Paul, nature as well as society provide us with arguments for a prohibition of women’s speech in the Christian assembly. One of the reasons why women should be silent is that, as was mentioned above, they “should be 47

So also, e.g., Berger in Preuß and Berger, Bibelkunde, 376. This prohibition of women’s speech in the assembly is wholly in agreement with the Hellenistic depreciation of women speaking in public: see, e.g., Plutarch, Num. 25.9-10 (Vit. par. 77AB), and Conj. praec. 31-32 (Mor. 142CD). 49 Cf. v. 36, and 1 Cor 1:2, 4:17, 7:17, and 11:16. 50 Cf. 11:6, 14-15. 48

134

Chapter Seven

subordinate,” viz. to their husbands. This attitude of subordination reflects quite well the Hellenistic ideas about the role of women in household and society. The notion that the wife had to be submissive to her husband was (almost) generally taken for granted. 51 In order to convince his readers, the apostle Paul refers to this general feeling, adding at the same time that “the law also says so țĮ੿ ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ ȜȑȖİȚ .” His argument here seems to follow more or less the same line as his argument in 9:7-8. There, too, he tried to persuade his readers by mentioning some unwritten customs and the law. The examples from both custom and law were introduced as illustrations of the same argument. Something similar seems to be the case in 14:34. As one of the reasons why women should be silent in the Christian assembly in Corinth, the apostle refers to what is customary in the Graeco-Roman society, viz. that women are subordinate to their husbands. He goes on to say that “the law” directs the same. This time, however, he does not quote a passage from a specimen of “the law,” for instance, the Jewish law (or Scriptures), to illustrate his argument as he did in 9:9. 52 He only appeals to “the law,” suggesting that “the law,” too, mentions women’s subordination to their husbands.

51

See, e.g., Plutarch, Conj. praec. 33 (Mor. 142E), “If they (= women) subordinate themselves (ਫ਼ʌȠIJȐIJIJȠȣıĮȚ to their husbands, they are commended … control ought to be exercised by the man over the woman” (Babbitt, LCL); cf. further, of course, Eph 5:24, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, Tit 2:5, and 1 Pet 3:1, 5. See also Vatin, Recherches, 200201; and Standhartinger, Frauenbild, 59-76. 52 The fact that Paul appeals to “the law” without quoting a particular text is used by Fee as one of the arguments against Pauline authorship of vv. 34-35 (see Fee, Corinthians, 707). He identifies, however, “the law” with the Jewish law or the Jewish Scriptures and overlooks the possibility that “the law” may refer to something other than the Jewish law.

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

135

But to what law does the term “the law” refer in 14:34? Most scholars think that the author is appealing to the Jewish law, or more precisely, the Jewish Scriptures. The difficulty, of course, is the fact that the OT does not say a word about the subordination of women. Even Genesis 3:16, a passage which is the closest parallel to our verse, has a completely different wording 53 and can hardly have been the text Paul had in mind when he wrote his words about women in 1 Corinthians 14:3435. Of course, Paul could have been thinking of “the spirit” of the Jewish law. According to its (Jewish) interpreters, the law of Moses teaches the inferiority of women to men. 54 But if this explanation of Paul’s thinking is true, it is the only place where Paul appeals to the intentions of the Jewish law by such a general designation. It is very doubtful that his (gentile) readers in Corinth would have understood the Pauline phrase this way. The deadlock may be solved when we assume that “the law” in verse 34 does not (exclusively) refer to the Jewish law, but to the law in general or to the laws that are found in so many cultures and among so many nations in the Graeco-Roman world–more or less comparable with its use in 9:8. Thus, Paul does not refer to one particular law, but to the laws that one may find in each country, nation, or city. For all laws of that time reflected the (Hellenistic) ideas about the (inferior) role of women in household and society. 55 And though these laws did not usually mention explicitly that “women should be

53

“To the woman he said, ‘… your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Į੝IJȩȢ ıȠȣ țȣȡȚİȪıİȚ).’ ” 54 See, e.g., Josephus, C. Ap. 2.201, “The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive (ਫ਼ʌĮțȠȪİIJȦ)” (Thackeray, LCL; however, the passage is suspected by some scholars on the basis of the NT parallels), and Philo, Opif. 167. 55 See also above (and n. 51).

136

Chapter Seven

subordinate,” 56 they contained all kinds of rules concerning, for example, marriage, divorce, household, and business which were the results of the general feeling of the inferiority of women. This general feeling in the Graeco-Roman world, which found expression in many “customs” and other human (unwritten) manners, provided a basis for many of these commandments. 57 In an attempt to persuade his readers to prohibit women from speaking in the Christian assembly, Paul was surely correct in referring to “the law” in general. Of course, he might have thought of the Jewish law in particular, but only because he was a Jew and was most acquainted with that particular code. But the reference itself is to the law in general. And it was most probably understood this way by Paul’s readers in Corinth. 1 Corinthians 15:56 The last occurrence of ȞȩȝȠȢ in 1 Corinthians is found in 15:56. This verse is certainly one of the most problematic verses in the letters of Paul. It stands almost at the end of Paul’s long treatise on the resurrection of believers at the end of time. It is undoubtedly meant to underline the role and power of death in 56

That is, of course, the reason why Paul does not quote a particular passage from a specimen of “the law,” as he did in 9:8-9. 57 For such a use of ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ, referring to socially accepted practices or feelings reflected in laws and commandments, cf., e.g., Plato, Resp. 604B, “The law, I suppose, declares (ȜȑȖİȚ ʌȠȣ ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ) that it is best to keep quiet as far as possible in calamity and not to chafe and repine” (Shorey, LCL), Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 6, “Indeed, the law does command (੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ … țİȜİȪİȚ) that children be raised by their parents until adulthood” (Stowers, in Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 23637), Lucian, Patr. laud. 4, “If one pays his father proper honour, as law and nature direct (੮ıʌİȡ țĮ੿ ੒ ȞȩȝȠȢ țĮ੿ ਲ ijȪıȚȢ țİȜİȪİȚ), then one should honour his fatherland still more” (Harmon, LCL).

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

137

human life and to show the people in Corinth that the triumph over death will not be achieved until the parousia of Jesus Christ. In a recent article,58 J. Holleman and the present author have made an attempt to understand the verse “in the context of Paul’s communication with the Christian believers in the community of Corinth and not primarily from what is said in other Pauline letters.” This means that we do not regard 1 Corinthians 15:56 as “a brief compendium of Paul’s theology as to the relationship of sin and the law to death,” 59 which he worked out in more detail in his letters to the Galatians and to the Romans; neither do we start from the rather common interpretation of ȞȩȝȠȢ as the Torah or the Jewish law. Instead, we argued “that both the connection between death and sin and the connection between sin and law are to be understood against the background of Hellenistic popular philosophy.” 60 As to the first connection, the relationship between death and sin as it is expressed by the phrase “the sting of death is sin” (v. 56a), Paul introduced a well-known Jewish-Hellenistic idea, which he linked up with the Greek concept of the degeneration of mankind. 61 The notion that death “came through a human being,” viz. the first man Adam (1 Cor 15:21-22), was a common JewishHellenistic conception. Since the times of Adam, death has been an active power in the life of mankind, and, as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15, it will remain so until the end of time (v. 26). In our verse Paul speaks about “sin” (ਲ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ as “the sting of death” IJઁ țȑȞIJȡȠȞ IJȠ૨ șĮȞȐIJȠȣ  62 In other words, sin is the 58

Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship” [see Chapter Six of this volume], and the literature mentioned there. 59 So Fee, Corinthians, 805. 60 Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship,” 273 [= p. 92 above]. 61 See Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship,” 277-79. 62 The expression “the sting of death” comes from Hos 13:14 (LXX) quoted by Paul in the preceding verse (v. 55).

138

Chapter Seven

means by which the power of death injects, as it were, mortality in man. Although Adam’s transgression of God’s command was the origin of mortality, Paul recognized as well that whenever a human being sins, he incurs the same punishment Adam once received, viz. mortality. That is: all humans are mortal because all humans sin. Humans do not sin as a result of hereditary sinfulness–this conception was strange to Paul and other Jewish or early-Christian writers–but because of the fallen nature of mankind due to the degeneration of human culture or society. This concept of a degeneration of human society was widely current in the Hellenistic world.63 Jewish authors like Philo were acquainted with it, and there is nothing against assuming that Paul, too, was familiar with this concept. From Paul’s view, the present was (still) an age of sin and death, only to be overcome by the parousia of Jesus Christ. Paul’s rather pessimistic view on the miserable state of humanity, which he shared with many of his contemporaries, 64 is underlined once more by the last words of 1 Corinthians 15:56b, “and the power of sin is the law.” In 1 Corinthians 15 63

On this so-called idea of Ursprung und Entartung, see Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship,” 284-86 [= pp. 107-9 above]. 64 See, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 13.13, “And the opinion I had was that pretty well all men are fools, and that no one does any of the things he should do, or considers how to rid himself of the evils that beset him and of his great ignorance and confusion of mind, so as to live a more virtuous and a better life; but that they all are being thrown into confusion and are swept round and round in the same place and about practically the same objects, to wit, money and reputation and certain pleasures of the body, while no one is able to rid himself of these and set his own soul free” (Cohoon, LCL), 17.34, 17.6, 74.1, 74.9, Aelius Aristides, Orat. 2.2.340, “The ‘nature’ of the people is such that never does a man arise who is altogether good and faultless (ȤȡȘıIJȩȞ … ਕȞĮȝȐȡIJȘIJȠȞ)” (Behr, LCL), and Philo, Virt. 10. Cf. Martens, “Romans 2.14-16.”

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

139

the Jewish law is not an issue at all, so that we may conclude that the word “law” in verse 56 most probably refers to something other than the Torah. This conclusion is all the more reinforced by the fact that the terms “death” and “sin” in the same verse are used generally and refer to universal powers. This makes it plausible that the reference here, once again, has to do with the law in general, or to the (written) laws that are found in all sorts of cultures and among all kinds of nations. The fact that Paul connected “sin” and “the law” as closely as he does in verse 56b has, first of all, to do with a depreciation of laws in the Graeco-Roman world of his days. 65 According to many Hellenistic authors, especially the Cynics and Stoics, (written) laws–in particular all those laws that were found all over the world since the famous and God-inspired lawgivers of old had died–were associated with negative aspects of human life and were regarded as an imperfect means to regulate society. Most of them turned out to be obstacles to true righteousness, since, as man-made products of common human opinion, they were often in conflict with nature or the unwritten law of nature. In other words, laws were evidence of humanity’s inborn wickedness and were hardly able to correct humanity’s behaviour. Therefore, many (Cynic) philosophers rejected laws and human conventions and tried to live what they considered to be a life in harmony with nature; free, independent, and selfsufficient.66

65

See Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship,” 280-89. Their opinion on laws is expressed fairly well in Lucian, Demon. 59, “that in all likelihood the laws were of no use, whether framed for the bad or the good; for the latter had no need of laws, and the former were not improved by them” (Harmon, LCL). See further, e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.63, 6.71-72, Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 6.5, Epictetus, Diss. 1.13.5, 4.1.158, 4.7.17, Dio Chrysostom, 66

140

Chapter Seven

Paul, however, does not only mention “sin” and “the law” in verse 56b as two symptoms of the miserable state of mankind. In his view “the law” is “the power of sin,” the means by which “sin” operates in the present age. “Sin” obtains its power and dominion over men from the very existence of “the law.” 67 For Paul, this seems to mean that, even though since the first man Adam all human beings are sinners because of the depravity of mankind, the laws have not turned out to be a means to improve men’s behaviour; rather, they have contributed to the reinforcement of sin. Laws do not only make people realize that they act badly, 68 but they stimulate people to sin as well. ** Orat. 76.4, 80.4, Plutarch, Sol. 5.2-3 (Vit. par. 80F-81A), Ps.-Heraclitus, Ep. 7, and Ps.-Diogenes, Ep. 28. 67 This aspect of the relationship between “sin” and “the law” is somewhat underestimated in Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship.” 68 For when there are no laws, there is no instance to show people up as sinners. See, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 806, “The relationship of law to sin is that the former is what gives the latter its power … the law … makes sin observable as sin.” Cf. Rom 4:15b and 5:13b, passages which can be best explained as statements about the role of laws in general and their relationship to men’s sins: ȞȩȝȠȢ in these verses is thus generic. Elsewhere in Romans, Paul applies this idea directly to the Jewish law, namely, in 5:20 (“But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied”) and 7:7 (“if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin”). On this, see esp. Winger, who rightly points to the use of the present tense in 4:15b and 5:13b as a decisive argument in favour of the interpretation of “law” in these verses as referring to the law in general (Law, 83-84); cf. also Poirier, “Romans 5:13-14,” 352-53. For the opposite view, viz. that in Rom 4:15b and 5:13b the word ȞȩȝȠȢ refers to the law of Moses, see esp. Hofius, “Adam–Christus–Antithese,” 193 and 195. ** [See also, e.g., Cicero, Tull. 9, “for he thought that if any one established a law or a tribunal for matters which were not usual, he seemed not so much to forbid them as to put people in mind of them (quod enim usu non veniebat, de eo si quis legem aut iudicium

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

141

All this leads to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 15:56 serves as a short aside on the role and power of death in human life: death will not be overcome until the end of time, until the parousia of Jesus Christ. Intending to point out to his readers the permanent dominion of death over men and to make them realize that they still lived in an “age of anxiety,” Paul referred to both the power of “sin” and “the law,” and their close relationship to “death.” Death as well as sin characterize the present age and the fallen state of mankind. “The law,” viz. the human and written laws that are found in all sorts of cultures and among all kinds of nations, belongs to the old order as well. It is hardly able to improve humanity’s behaviour; on the contrary, it reinforces sin, thus contributing to man’s death. Again, in this verse the reference is to the law in general, not to a particular law, the Jewish law for instance. Conclusion The analysis of the five passages in 1 Corinthians where the word ȞȩȝȠȢ occurs has led us to the conclusion that the Jewish law does not seem to be the primary or the only referent of the word in this particular letter. The Greek word for “law” could have, like so many other words, different referents. From the context in which the word was used, people understood which referent was meant. Nevertheless, there are a few instances in 1 Corinthians where ȞȩȝȠȢ does refer to the Jewish law; namely, in 9:9, 9:20, and 14:21. In 1 Corinthians 9:20b, “those under the law” are without any doubt the Jews, since the phrase is parallel with “the Jews” mentioned in verse 20a. This phrase stands over constitueret, non tam prohibere videretur quam admonere)” (Yonge, Orations), and Cicero, Dom. 49 and 127, passages mentioned by Haacker, “Der ‘Antinomismus’ des Paulus,” 400].

142

Chapter Seven

against “those outside the law” in verse 21, which refers to the gentiles, those who are not under the law of Moses. In 1 Corinthians 14:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 whereby the OT quotation is preceded by the phrase, “In the law it is written.” Here, “the law” obviously refers to the Jewish law or, better yet, to the Jewish Scriptures. These Scriptures remained for Paul, as for other Christians, a holy book and a witness to Jesus Christ. Another reference to the Scriptures as the holy book of Jews and Christians is found in 1 Corinthians 9:9, where the apostle quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. This time, the quotation is introduced as a passage or a command form “the law of Moses.” More interesting, however, is the fact that in 1 Corinthians 9:89 “the law of Moses” is most likely mentioned as a specimen of “the law” in general; that is, as one example of the many (written) laws that are found all over the world in all sorts of cultures and among all kinds of nations. Similar references to “the law” in general are to be found in 14:34 and 15:56. In the former passage, “the law” refers to the collection of laws which was in vogue in the Hellenistic world of Paul’s days and which ordered women to be submissive to their husbands. In the latter passage, “the law” is introduced as a rather weak instrument. Although it was intended to improve humanity’s behaviour, it only contributes to the reinforcement of sin; “the law” belongs together with the power of sin and the power of death to a world that is passing away. As a man living in the Graeco-Roman world, Paul regarded the law of Moses, the Jewish law, as a written legal code that pertained to a particular people or nation, i.e. the Jews. 69 As

69

The Jewish law defined (or defines) the identity of the Jewish people: it “discloses the will of God, and it marks off the elect people

The Meaning of the Term “Law” (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians

143

one belonging to the Christian movement, the apostle rejected the law of Moses as an authority in his life and in the lives of his fellow-Christians, though the holy Scriptures remained for him an important witness to Jesus Christ and to a new society in which there is “no longer Jew or Greek, … slave or free, … male and female.” 70 Instead, Paul viewed himself as being “under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21), a law that centres on the obedience to “the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19) in general, and the love for one another in particular.

from other nations” (Hays, “Three Dramatic Roles,” 151-55, esp. p. 151). 70 Gal 3:28. Cf. 1 Cor 7:19, 12:13, Gal 5:6, 6:15, and Rom 10:12.

CHAPTER EIGHT PAUL’S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HIS ATTACK ON APOLLOS’ ADHERENTS IN CORINTH HARM W. HOLLANDER

The apostle Paul usually informs his readers of the most important issues he plans to address right at the beginning of his letters. So, in the introductory paragraph of his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul thanks God for all the spiritual gifts he has given to the Christian believers in Corinth. Far from being ironical, he is expressing deep and genuine feelings about the wonderful effects of the Holy Spirit among the members of the Christian community in Corinth: I give thanks to my God … for in every way you have been enriched in him (Jesus Christ), in speech and knowledge of every kind (ਥȞ ʌĮȞIJ੿ ȜȩȖ૳ țĮ੿ ʌȐıૉ ȖȞȫıİȚ) … so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift. (1 Cor 1:4-7) 1

One of the most striking words in this thanksgiving is “knowledge” (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ), which is to be reckoned among the numerous gifts of the Holy Spirit. It appears to be a key term in 1 Corinthians, since it is found no less than ten times in this letter. 2 However, it is not equally distributed among Paul’s 1

All Bible quotations are usually taken from NRSV. It is found another six times in 2 Corinthians and only thirteen times in all the other NT writings put together. 2

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 145 Adherents in Corinth

arguments in 1 Corinthians. It is found in the introductory thanksgiving just mentioned; in chapter 8, where the apostle speaks about the eating of food sacrificed to idols (8:1, 7, 10, 11); and in chapters 12-14, which deal extensively with the diversity and the function of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (12:8, 13:2, 8, 14:6). 3 It is generally assumed that Paul wrote his letter as a reaction to some firsthand information he received from “Chloe’s people,” who had come from Corinth to visit him in Ephesus (1:11). However, in the course of writing the letter, he also took the opportunity to respond to a number of issues raised by certain–possibly high-ranking–members of the Corinthian community in a letter written to him some time before (7:1). Paul did not find it appropriate to answer them immediately after he received their letter; instead, he decided to send his fellow-worker Timothy to them in order “to remind them of his ways in Christ Jesus” (4:17). 4 Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the issues brought up in the letter from the Corinthian community had worried the apostle. It seems likely that their letter did not merely contain a couple of questions to which the apostle was asked to respond, but that rather, it was meant to communicate the Corinthian Christians’ opinions about certain ideas that were then current in the Corinthian community and which differed significantly from Paul’s. Several times in his letter, Paul introduces a new topic with the formula ʌİȡ੿ įȑ, “now concerning,” 5 and although we 3

The cognate verb ȖȚȞȫıțİȚȞ is not found throughout the letter either; it occurs only in chs. 1-4, 8, and 13-14 (see 1:21, 2:8, 11, 14, 16, 3:20, 4:19, 8:2-3, 13:9, 12, and 14:7, 9). Cf. also the use of ਥʌȚȖȚȞȫıțİȚȞ in 13:12. 4 From 16:10-11 it can be concluded that Paul expected his letter to the Corinthians to arrive before Timothy. 5 See 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, and 16:1, 12.

146

Chapter Eight

cannot be sure about the source of that topic, whether it does in fact originate from the letter from the Corinthians or not, or about the order of presentation of the topics thus introduced, the formula is surely “a shorthand way of introducing the next topic of discussion, the only requirement of which is that it is readily known to both author and reader.” 6 It seems reasonable to assume that at least most of the themes dealt with by Paul from chapter 7 onwards are a response to issues brought up in the Corinthians’ letter to Paul. The eating of the food sacrificed to idols (chapters 8-10) and the role and function of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (chapters 12-14) are probably two of these burning issues, and it is in these sections that the apostle uses the term ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ. It is generally agreed that this word was taken by Paul from the Corinthians’ letter. 7 Although all Christians are supposed to possess “knowledge” (8:1), some people in Corinth believed that they were imbued with a special kind of knowledge. Both the gift of knowledge given through the Spirit to some Christians, and the knowledge shared by all believers, have to do with God and the divine world. All Christians know (or should know) that there is only one God and one Lord, Jesus Christ, and that salvation for all believers has come through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see esp. 8:4-6). However, some Christians were endowed with a more specific insight into the details of God’s plan of salvation and the divine secrets or mysteries (see esp. 12:8 and 13:2). According to 14:6, Paul himself also possessed this gift of knowledge, a gift that was closely related to the gift

6

See Mitchell, Paul, 190-92, esp. p. 191 (italics Mitchell); and see also Mitchell, “ȆǼȇǿ ǻǼ.” 7 Cf., e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 366, “this (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ) is almost certainly an ‘in’ word in Corinth.”

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 147 Adherents in Corinth

of prophecy. We find examples elsewhere in his letters of Paul’s insight into the “mysteries” of God’s plan of salvation. 8 However, before dealing with the issues brought up by the Corinthians in their letter, Paul responds to the information given to him by the people of Chloe’s household in 1:10-4:21. This first hand information concerned some quarrels among the members of the community in Corinth (1:11-12). 9 After Paul had left Corinth, other missionaries visited the community, and the contrasts in their style and message led the Corinthian Christians to quarrel over these preachers, which included Paul. Above all, the ministry of a certain Apollos seems to have been very attractive to a number of local Christians. It is highly probable that when they described these quarrels or divisions within the Christian community in Corinth, the visitors from Chloe’s household also referred to the appreciation felt by some Corinthian Christians for “knowledge,” and their particular perception as to the nature of the Gospel. It is worth noting that, in this section, Paul avoids the term ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ (“knowledge”), and uses ıȠijȓĮ (“wisdom”) instead. 10 The reason for this is not clear at first sight. Whereas the letter written to Paul by some members of the Christian community in Corinth did not lead to a direct reaction from the apostle by letter–he sent Timothy instead, whom he expected to visit Corinth at some point along the way–what he 8

See, e.g., Rom 11:25-26, “I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved”; 1 Cor 15:5152 and 1 Thess 4:15-17. 9 Chs. 5-6 should probably be regarded as another part of Paul’s response to the reports presented to him by Chloe’s people; cf. Fee, Corinthians, 194-96. 10 ȈȠijȓĮ and ıȠijȩȢ are found in 1:17, 19-22, 24-27, 30, 2:1, 4-7, 13, and 3:10, 18-20; cf. further 6:5 and 12:8.

148

Chapter Eight

learned from Chloe’s people did. This information evidently troubled the apostle far more than the issues raised by the Corinthian Christians in their letter. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the rather different ways in which Paul deals with the issue of “wisdom” or “knowledge” in the two sections of the letter in which this theme occurs, that is, in chapters 1-4 and 7-16 (in particular chs. 8 and 12-14). In the latter section, he tries to offer a well-balanced argument about the gift of knowledge, whereas in chapters 1:10-4:21 he seems to seek to undermine the Corinthians’ appreciation of knowledge or wisdom completely by telling them that wisdom is nothing but foolishness in the eyes of God. It is in this section that the apostle appeals to a number of OT passages to press home this particular point. This shift in opinion probably has to do with what seems to be one of the central themes of the first part of the letter, that is, the rivalry between Paul and his colleague Apollos, who had won great honour among some members of the Christian community in Corinth after Paul had left the city. In the next paragraphs, I will discuss Paul's views of knowledge or wisdom as presented in chapters 1-4 and 7-16, respectively, and his eloquent appeal to OT texts in chapters 1-4 in particular. 11 Paul’s views on “knowledge” presented in response to oral reports (1 Corinthians 1-4) In chapters 1-6, and in chapters 1-4 in particular,12 Paul reacts to the reports he heard from Chloe’s people (1:11). These 11

It is a privilege to present this essay on the occasion of the 65th birthday of Maarten J.J. Menken, an expert in the field of the reception of the Old Testament into the New Testament. [To my great regret I have to report here and now that my friend and colleague Maarten has died on March 21, 2016.] 12 For the rhetorical composition of chs. 1-4, see esp. Bünker, Briefformular, 52-59, and Wanamaker, “Rhetoric of Power.”

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 149 Adherents in Corinth

reports concerned quarrels and divisions in the Corinthian community; above all the existence of an “Apollos faction,” which Paul certainly regarded as a vote of no-confidence against himself, would have been a thorn in his side. From the information provided by Chloe’s people, Paul concluded that the ministry of Apollos, a fellow preacher of the Gospel who had come to the community of Corinth after Paul had left the city, had proved very attractive to a number of local Christians. They had been impressed by Apollos’ knowledge and eloquence and considered him a far more excellent teacher of knowledge than Paul. In their opinion, faith was closely connected with knowledge, and a preacher who displayed wisdom and eloquence was far superior to someone whose “bodily presence is weak” and whose “speech is contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10). From Paul’s response we may conclude that he thought his colleague Apollos represented a real threat to his own authority and saw him as a rival in the proclamation of the Gospel. So, in chapter 3, he underlines that it was he himself who “laid the foundation” of “God’s building,” that is, the Christian community in Corinth, whereas Apollos was no more than “someone” who was “building on it.” In other words, “I (Paul) planted, Apollos watered” (see vv. 4-10). And he ends this chapter by saying that no one should “boast about human leaders,” which implies that boasting about Apollos and admiring him for his knowledge and eloquence is a serious mistake (see vv. 21-23). 13

13

That the competition between Paul and Apollos is a central theme in these chapters is also clear from 4:6, where the apostle emphatically states that he has applied “all this,” that is, all the preceding statements, “to Apollos and himself.”

150

Chapter Eight

Apollos’ reputation among at least some members of the Corinthian community also appears in 1 Corinthians 16:12, where Paul seems to respond to an issue brought up by the Corinthian Christians in their letter to him. Apparently, they had suggested to Paul that he should ask Apollos to return to Corinth–further proof of their admiration for Paul’s colleague. It is not clear whether Apollos was with Paul in Ephesus before, or at the time when, the apostle wrote his letter to the Corinthians, but Paul informs the Corinthians that he “strongly urged (ʌȠȜȜ੹ ʌĮȡİțȐȜİıĮ) 14 him (Apollos) to visit you with the other brothers, but he was not at all willing to come now (ʌȐȞIJȦȢ Ƞ੝ț ਷Ȟ șȑȜȘȝĮ ੆ȞĮ Ȟ૨Ȟ ਩Ȝșૉ). 15 He will come when he has the opportunity.” If Paul is telling the truth about his efforts to convince Apollos to return to Corinth, and indeed wanted Apollos to go to the Corinthian community, he could not prevent Apollos refusing to see them. Unfortunately, we do not know the exact reason why Apollos refused to go to Corinth. In any case, after his refusal the apostle decided to send Timothy to the community in Corinth instead, but he was afraid that the Corinthian Christians would not welcome him, 16 since 14

For the expression ʌȠȜȜ੹ ʌĮȡĮțĮȜİ૙Ȟ in the sense of “to urge strongly,” see, e.g., 4 Macc. 10:1 and Mark 5:10, 23; cf. also 3 Bar. 4:14 and Herm. Vis. 2.2.1, Sim. 5.4.1. 15 Although the subject of the verb ਷Ȟ is not mentioned explicitly, the next clause (“He will come when he has the opportunity”) makes clear that it was Apollos who had determined not to come to Corinth at that particular moment. So also, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 824. 16 “see that he has nothing to fear among you … therefore let no one despise him. Send him on his way in peace, so that he may come to me” (1 Cor 16:10-11). Asking the Corinthians to send Timothy back to him “in peace” (ਥȞ İੁȡȒȞૉ), Paul expresses the hope that the Corinthians and Timothy, and, as a consequence, the Corinthians and Paul, would be on good terms once again; for the expression ਥȞ İੁȡȒȞૉ in the sense of “friendly, without any disagreement or quarrel, in perfect harmony,” see, e.g., 1 Cor 7:15, 14:33, Gen 26:29, Jdt 7:15,

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 151 Adherents in Corinth

he was Paul’s closest associate. 17 The Corinthians hoped and expected to see Apollos, but instead they must welcome Paul’s substitute Timothy! All this makes it clear that not Paul, but Apollos, was the favourite with a significant part of the Christian community in Corinth. In order to take the wind out of the sails of the Apollos “fans,” Paul feels that he must completely eradicate their strong feelings about the value of knowledge if he is to restore his authority as the preeminent preacher of the Gospel. He does this by telling his readers in Corinth that the knowledge on which they pride themselves so much is mere human knowledge; knowledge which belongs to this world which “is passing away” (7:31). What they consider to be knowledge is nothing but foolishness in the eyes of God; likewise, what people consider foolishness or weakness is God’s wisdom and strength (1:18-25). In his attempt to convince his readers, Paul first refers to the Gospel itself. Salvation by a crucified Messiah is a message regarded as complete foolishness by most of the people of this world; but to Christians it is a sign of the wisdom and the power of God. But in that case, Paul continues, the reverse is also true: the people of this world, including the adherents of Apollos in Corinth, value human knowledge very highly, but in the eyes of God it is mere foolishness. Referring to the “foolishness” and “weakness” of the Gospel, Paul tries to get those Corinthians who admired Apollos as an example of eloquence and knowledge, and preferred Apollos to Paul as a teacher, back on his side.

Heb 11:31, 12:14, 1 Clem. 20:10-11, T. Gad 6:3, and History of the Rechabites 18.4. 17 See also 4:17 and Phil 2:19-22.

152

Chapter Eight

However, it was not enough for the apostle to refer to the “foolishness” of the Gospel in his attempt to undermine the Apollos faction in Corinth. He feels obliged to lard his argument in chapters 1-4 with some OT/LXX quotations, which are meant to support the argument, and to silence the adherents of his colleague and rival Apollos once and for all. Now it becomes clear why, in this part of the letter, Paul prefers to use the term ıȠijȓĮ to the word ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ; for there are no OT/LXX texts available where the word ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ is explicitly used in a pejorative sense, but a couple of OT/LXX passages do exist where ıȠijȓĮ, “wisdom,” and ıȠijȠȓ, “wise people,” are denounced. Moreover, to him, as a Jew who was thoroughly acquainted with the OT/LXX, ıȠijȓĮ and ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ were broadly synonymous. 18 A few examples may illustrate this: For the LORD gives wisdom (ıȠijȓĮȞ); from his mouth come knowledge and understanding (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ țĮ੿ ıȪȞİıȚȢ). (Prov 2:6) sometimes one who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge (ਥȞ ıȠijȓ઺ țĮ੿ ਥȞ ȖȞȫıİȚ) and skill must leave all to be enjoyed by another who did not toil for it. (Eccles 2:21) for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ țĮ੿ ıȠijȓĮ) in Sheol. (Eccles 9:10) 19

18

Cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 45-62. This is in contrast to a flood of scholars, who, on different and rather speculative grounds, try to differentiate between these terms; see, e.g., Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, and Pearson, Terminology, 30-43. 19 See further Prov 30:3, Eccles 1:16-18, 2:26, Isa 11:2, Sir 21:18, and 4 Macc. 1:16; also Philo, Fug. 82, Col 2:3, Barn. 2:3, Apos. Con. 8.12.7, and Sacr. Serap. 11.1-2. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ parallel with ıȠijȓĮ without making any clear distinction between the terms: see 12:8, “the utterance of wisdom (ȜȩȖȠȢ

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 153 Adherents in Corinth

Thus, Paul's association of “knowledge” (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ) and “wisdom” (ıȠijȓĮ), based on Jewish tradition and on his acquaintance with OT/LXX passages where both terms are used interchangeably, 20 enabled the apostle to use the term ıȠijȓĮ instead of ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ in this part of the letter (1:10-4:21). At two crucial stages in the argument, he quotes some OT/LXX passages where human “wisdom” is denounced to convince his readers of the complete irrelevance and worthlessness of human “wisdom” or “knowledge.” First, right at the beginning, he quotes Isaiah 29:14 LXX, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart (ਕʌȠȜ૵ IJ੽Ȟ ıȠijȓĮȞ IJ૵Ȟ ıȠij૵Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ıȪȞİıȚȞ IJ૵Ȟ ıȣȞİIJ૵Ȟ ਕșİIJȒıȦ). (1 Cor 1:19)

ıȠijȓĮȢ) … the utterance of knowledge (ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȞȫıİȦȢ)”; so also, e.g., Conzelmann, Korinther, 255; cf. Fee, Corinthians, 591-93. 20 Pace Pate, Reverse, 279, who thinks that Paul's association of “knowledge” and “wisdom” “is probably based on the Corinthians’ prior connection of the two”; cf. also, e.g., Schmithals, Gnosis, 134, “Freilich hat man in Kor. nicht nur ıȠijȓĮ, sondern vor allem ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ als term techn für diese Predigt verwandt”; Fee, Corinthians, 64-65, who assumes that the occurrence of ıȠijȓĮ “reflects the Greek philosophical or sophist tradition” (n. 79); and Lindemann, Korintherbrief, 43, who states that “ıȠijȓĮ ist zur Zeit der Abfassung des 1 Kor ein für die korinthischen Christen wichtiger Begriff.” Conzelmann, Korinther, 56, is right in being much more cautious: “Es ist möglich, aber nicht sicher, dass Paulus mit dem Stichwort ıȠijȓĮ ein Schlagwort aus Korinth aufgreift. Nimmt man das an, so muss man doch die Möglichkeit bedenken, das es von Paulus in Korinth eingeführt (und dann im Sinne der korinthischen Weisheitsschau abgewandelt) wurde.” Since “knowledge” and “wisdom” were closely connected and used as synonyms in Jewish (sapiential) circles, it is far more likely that Paul, and not the pagan-Christian church in Corinth, was responsible for the connection of the two.

154

Chapter Eight

Paul quotes the Isaiah text literally, but he uses ਕșİIJȒıȦ instead of țȡȪȥȦ, which is found in the Septuagint text of Isaiah 29:14; he does so, probably under the influence of Psalm 33:10 (32:10 LXX), “The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples (ਕșİIJİ૙ į੻ ȜȠȖȚıȝȠઃȢ ȜĮ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ਕșİIJİ૙ ȕȠȣȜ੹Ȣ ਕȡȤȩȞIJȦȞ).” In any case, by substituting the stronger ਕșİIJȒıȦ for țȡȪȥȦ, Paul wants to underline that God has not simply “hidden” human wisdom but has “annihilated” it.21 In Isaiah 29:14, the prophetic utterance is directed at the so-called “wise” people of Israel and its blinded religious leaders. In his interpretation and explanation of the Isaiah text, Paul applies it to all “wise” people: he wants to make it clear to his readers that the age of the “wise,” the “scribe,” and the “debater” has come to an end, and that God “has made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1:20). Instead, Jesus Christ, a weak and crucified Messiah, has become “wisdom from God” for his followers (1:30). After a long paragraph, in which Paul argues that all preachers of the Gospel, including Apollos and himself, will be judged by God “according to the labour of each” (1 Cor 3:5-17), he brings his argument that began in 1:10 to a preliminary conclusion in 3:18-23. It is in this section that we find two other OT/LXX quotations, introduced by Paul to strengthen his argument once more. 22 After having reiterated that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (3:19a; cf. 1:20), he continues,

21

So also Stanley, Paul, 185-86. On this Isa quotation in 1 Cor 1:19, see further Wilk, Bedeutung, 101-5, 160-62, 246-48, 274-76, and 357-58; Wilk, “Isaiah,” 135-37; Kammler, Kreuz, 70-73. 22 Cf. Koch, Zeuge, 152-53 and 275, “Die Zitate in 1,19 und 3,19f entsprechen also inhaltlich einander und rahmen eröffnend und abschließend 1 Kor 1,18-3,23 insgesamt.”

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 155 Adherents in Corinth For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness (੒ įȡĮııȩȝİȞȠȢ IJȠઃȢ ıȠijȠઃȢ ਥȞ IJૌ ʌĮȞȠȣȡȖȓ઺ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ),” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile (țȪȡȚȠȢ ȖȚȞȫıțİȚ IJȠઃȢ įȚĮȜȠȖȚıȝȠઃȢ IJ૵Ȟ ıȠij૵Ȟ ੖IJȚ İੁı੿Ȟ ȝȐIJĮȚȠȚ).” (3:19b-20)

The first quotation comes from Job 5:13 (“He takes the wise in their own craftiness”), although the wording in 1 Corinthians 3:19 differs from the LXX version of Job 5:13 (੒ țĮIJĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȦȞ ıȠijȠઃȢ ਥȞ IJૌ ijȡȠȞȒıİȚ). There does not seem to be any good reason for thinking that Paul himself would have been responsible for these changes; more probably, they go back to Paul’s Greek Vorlage, a text which represented an independent translation of the Hebrew text of Job and which, as a consequence, differed slightly from the LXX version. 23 The second OT/LXX text quoted by Paul in this section is an almost literal quotation from Psalm 94:11 (93:11 LXX), “The Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are futile (țȪȡȚȠȢ ȖȚȞȫıțİȚ IJȠઃȢ įȚĮȜȠȖȚıȝȠઃȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ੖IJȚ İੁı੿Ȟ ȝȐIJĮȚȠȚ).” The only difference in wording between 1 Corinthians 3:20 and Psalm 94:11 (93:11 LXX) is that the words “of the wise” (IJ૵Ȟ ıȠij૵Ȟ) have been substituted for “of men” (IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ). Without any doubt, this alteration is the work of the apostle himself, perhaps under the influence of the context of the Psalm text, where “men” and, in particular, the psalmist's adversaries are characterized as “fools”; as people who are unable to understand God’s plan of recompense (see esp. 94:8 [93:8 LXX], “Understand, O dullest of the people; fools, when will you be wise?” >ıȪȞİIJİ įȒ ਙijȡȠȞİȢ ਥȞ IJ૶ ȜĮ૶, țĮȓ ȝȦȡȠȓ ʌȠIJ੻ ijȡȠȞȒıĮIJİ@  24

23

See Stanley, Paul, 189-94. See Stanley, Paul, 194-95, and Drake Williams, III, “Psalms,” 16467. 24

156

Chapter Eight

By quoting these two OT/LXX texts, Paul wants to prove conclusively that human, earthly, wisdom or knowledge is nothing but foolishness in the eyes of God and that, as a consequence, people who admire and boast about preachers like Apollos are quite wrong in doing so (see also 3:21-23). Whether the apostle was successful in convincing his readers in Corinth is an open question. From his second letter to the Christian community in Corinth it is to be concluded that his authority remained, to say the least, far from respected. Paul’s views on “knowledge” presented in response to the letter from the Corinthian community (1 Corinthians 7-16) From chapter 7 onwards, Paul seems to respond to a number of issues brought up in the Corinthians’ letter to him. In all likelihood, this letter contained some passages about the spiritual gift of “knowledge” (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ). It is generally assumed that some of the Christians in Corinth felt that they were endowed with this particular gift, that is, with a specific insight into God’s plan of salvation. Whereas Paul’s criticism of “knowledge” or “wisdom” in chapters 1-4 is unremittingly harsh and severe, it is rather mild in this part of the letter. The apostle is undoubtedly well aware of the threat which the gift of knowledge might represent to the unity of the Christian community. Right at the beginning of his argument about “knowledge” in response to the Corinthians’ letter, he rather emphatically states that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (ਲ ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ ijȣıȚȠ૙, ਲ į੻ ਕȖȐʌȘ ȠੁțȠįȠȝİ૙)” (8:1). In Paul’s view, the problem with knowledge is that it may lead people to be arrogant, “puffed up.” And the apostle is convinced that as soon as some Christians feel superior to others, the Christian community will collapse. “Love,” on the other hand, that is, love of one’s neighbour, will support all the

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 157 Adherents in Corinth

members of the community and further its unity and solidarity. 25 In 13:2, we find the same contrast between love and knowledge: “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge (ʌ઼ıĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȞ૵ıȚȞ) … but do not have love (ਕȖȐʌȘȞ), I am nothing.” In Paul’s view, knowledge is as nothing when compared to loving one’s neighbour, which is, according to the apostle, the characteristic of the true believer. Moreover, whereas love of one’s neighbour is eternal, the gifts of the Spirit, including that of knowledge, are only for the present, for as long as this world exists: “Love (ਲ ਕȖȐʌȘ) never ends … But … as for knowledge (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ), it will come to an end” (13:8-13, esp. v. 8). Paul considers all spiritual gifts “partial” or “incomplete” (ਥț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ, 13:9, 10, and 12b) and “when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end” (v. 10). In 13:8-13, the apostle argues that our present knowledge, that is, our knowledge of God and his divine plan, is imperfect and incomplete; perfect knowledge of God is not to be achieved before the end of time. Then our imperfect knowledge of God will end and will be “replaced” by some kind of true knowledge. In this context, Paul contrasts man’s present knowledge or “vision” of God, which is nothing but “seeing in a riddle” or “seeing in a mirror,” with our future perfect knowledge or vision of God, which will be directly, “face to face.” 26 In other words, even the gift of knowledge, on which some members of the Corinthian community pride themselves, is incomplete and imperfect, since it belongs to the present age. 25

Once and again, Paul summons his readers to do their best for the edification of the Christian community (see, e.g., 10:23 and 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26). Divisions within the community should be avoided: “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (3:17). 26 On these verses, see esp. Hollander, “Seeing God” [see Chapter Three of this volume].

158

Chapter Eight

Finally, for Paul and almost certainly also for some Christians in Corinth, having the spiritual gift of knowledge was related to a feeling of “power,” “liberty” or “freedom” (ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ or ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ), terms that occur rather frequently in 1 Corinthians in this sense, 27 and which are probably taken by Paul from the Corinthians’ letter to him. Both terms refer to a man’s right or freedom to do whatever he wants or to live as he pleases; freedom is potestas vivendi, ut velis.28 Paul and the Corinthians agreed that Christians have been set free by Jesus Christ, and have become “free” people who may live as they wish; they are no longer under any human law, they are “under Christ’s law” (9:20-21). 29 But in Paul’s view, there are limits to the Christians’ freedom, and those Corinthian Christians who feel free and boast of their knowledge and freedom should not disregard these limits; their liberty or freedom should not become a “stumbling block” to others or an “offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,” to the extent that the latter will not share in the blessings of the Gospel or become apostates from the Christian faith (8:9 and 10:32). In conclusion, Paul’s argument about the spiritual gift of knowledge in response to the Corinthians’ letter in chapters 716, is an attempt to convince his readers that this gift it is not always beneficial for the Christian community. Sometimes, it 27

See 7:37, 8:9, 9:1, 4-6, 12, 18, 19, 10:29, and cf. 6:12 and 10:23. Cicero, Parad. 34; see further, e.g., Epictetus, Diss. 4.1.1, “He is free who lives as he wills (ਥȜİȪșİȡȩȢ ਥıIJȚȞ ੒ ȗ૵Ȟ ੪Ȣ ȕȠȪȜİIJĮȚ), who is subject neither to compulsion, nor hindrance, nor force, whose choices are unhampered, whose desires attain their end, whose aversions do not fall into what they would avoid” (Oldfather, LCL), 2.1.23, 2.16.37, Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 14.13-18, Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 7.125, and Philo, Prob. 59. On the theme of freedom in the letters of Paul, see esp. Jones, Freiheit, and Vollenweider, Freiheit. 29 Cf. Gal 6:2. From Gal 5:14 and Rom 13:9-10 it is clear that for Paul the love of one’s neigbour is the heart of the law of Christ. 28

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 159 Adherents in Corinth

may even destroy the community and make other people apostatize and lose salvation. Moreover, like all other spiritual gifts it is incomplete and imperfect, as it belongs to the present, dark ages. Much more important than all the spiritual gifts, including that of knowledge, is love of one’s neighbour, which furthers the unity and solidarity of the Christian community. It is obvious that Paul does not completely reject people who have the gift of knowledge, since he is, after all, aware that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Having so vehemently criticized the notion of knowledge or wisdom in the first chapters of 1 Corinthians as a response to oral reports about the influence of his colleague and rival Apollos in the Christian community of Corinth, this time his criticism of the gift of knowledge can be characterized as rather mild. Conclusion In 1 Corinthians 1:10-6:20, the apostle Paul reacts to the reports he hears from Chloe’s people. From them he learns that an “Apollos faction” exists within the Christian community in Corinth; a group of believers who regard “knowledge” (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ) as one of the greatest spiritual gifts and who are impressed by Apollos’ knowledge and eloquence and consider him a far more excellent teacher of wisdom than Paul. Paul is disturbed by this, and realizes that his colleague Apollos represents a real threat to his authority and is a rival in the proclamation of the Gospel. In order to restore his authority he feels that he should totally repress the feelings of the members of this Apollos faction as regards the values of wisdom and knowledge. So, he tells his readers in Corinth that what they consider knowledge is mere human knowledge, a kind of knowledge that belongs only to this world, and that is nothing but foolishness in the eyes of God. Since in the writings of OT/LXX and in Jewish tradition ıȠijȓĮ is broadly synonymous with ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ and since there were no OT/LXX texts available where the word ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ

160

Chapter Eight

is used in a pejorative sense, Paul prefers to use the term ıȠijȓĮ (“wisdom”) to ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ in this part of the letter. This choice gave him the opportunity to quote a couple of OT/LXX passages (Isa 29:14, Job 5:13, Ps 94:11 [93:11 LXX]), where ıȠijȓĮ is explicitly denounced, at certain crucial stages in the argument, in order to silence Apollos’ adherents once and for all. Later on, in 1 Corinthians 7-16, Paul responds to a letter written to him by certain members of the Christian community in Corinth. In all likelihood, this letter contained some passages about the so-called “spiritual gifts,” above all the gift of “knowledge” (ȖȞ૵ıȚȢ), given to them by the Holy Spirit. Paul is aware of the dangers of this particular gift to the unity of the Christian community, but since he cannot deny that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, he must employ a more careful argument here. So, he stresses that this kind of knowledge is incomplete and imperfect and is, in fact, as nothing compared with love of one’s neighbour, which is much more beneficial to Christian believers. In short, in his response to the letter from the Corinthians, in which the senders raise a number of issues, including their deep appreciation for the spiritual gift of “knowledge,” Paul’s argument is well-balanced and carefully presented. However, the apostle argues much more vehemently in his response to the oral reports of Chloe’s people, describing the deep admiration of some of the Corinthian Christians for Paul’s colleague Apollos on account of his knowledge and eloquence. He considered this to be a frontal attack on him and his authority. In this part of the letter, he tries to establish his authority by telling his readers that “knowledge” or “wisdom” is nothing but foolishness in the eyes of God, and he finds it necessary to strengthen the argument by quoting a couple of OT/LXX passages as conclusive evidence. This has resulted in

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament and his Attack on Apollos’ 161 Adherents in Corinth

the curious situation where both these approaches to the nature of “knowledge” or “wisdom” are found in one and the same apostolic letter.

CHAPTER NINE “A LETTER WRITTEN ON TABLETS OF HUMAN HEARTS”: EZEKIEL’S INFLUENCE ON 2 CORINTHIANS 3:3 HARM W. HOLLANDER

When reading the letters of the apostle Paul one is struck by the fact that this successful early-Christian preacher of the Gospel seems to have met so much opposition. In all or almost all his letters he had to defend himself against bitter attacks from people who questioned his apostleship and the Gospel he preached. One of his most apologetic or polemic letters is without any doubt his second letter to the Corinthians. In at least two long sections in this letter Paul felt obliged to defend his apostolic ministry against people, most probably other preachers of the Gospel, who called his apostleship publicly into question. It is not clear who Paul’s opponents in Corinth were or where they came from. They seem to have arrived in the city some time after Paul wrote his first letter to the Christian community there. From the second letter one may conclude that Paul and the competing missionaries in Corinth did not disagree on matters of faith or ethics. 1 Paul’s negative reaction in 2 1

2 Cor 11:4, in which Paul reproaches his readers in Corinth for their blind acceptance of “another Jesus,” “a different spirit,” or “a different gospel,” is not a description of what actually happened or

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

163

Corinthians to the opposition in Corinth has to do with the apostolic self-consciousness of his opponents and their attitude towards the Christian community in Corinth. 2 It can be concluded with certainty from 2 Corinthians 11:5, 3 11:13, 4 and 11:22-23, 5 that these opponents were Jewish-Christian missionaries who had come to Corinth and in one way or another made a deep impression on the Corinthian Christians. However, the reasons why the Corinthians were so impressed by them remain somewhat obscure. From Paul’s words it may be concluded that they had visions and revelations of God, showed great rhetorical skills, performed all sorts of miracles, and asked fees for their services, all of which made them superior in the eyes of the Corinthians.6 Most importantly, however, they seemed to have taken pride in their Jewish birth7 could happen in the Christian community of Corinth, but rather an example of biting sarcasm (cf. 11:19-20). Otherwise it remains inexplicable why Paul did not say a word about the nature of the “other Gospel,” a subject he treats so extensively in his letters to the Galatians and to the Romans. 2 So also, e.g., Bieringer, “Gegner,” 188. For a survey of the scholarly discussion on the identity of Paul’s opponents in Corinth, see Bieringer, “Gegner,” 192-220, and cf. also Koch, “Abraham,” and the literature mentioned on 305 n. 1. 3 “these super-apostles IJ૵Ȟ ਫ਼ʌİȡȜȓĮȞ ਕʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ´ All Bible quotations in this chapter have been taken from the NRSV. 4 “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ (ȥİȣįĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ, ਥȡȖȐIJĮȚ įȩȜȚȠȚ, ȝİIJĮıȤȘȝĮIJȚȗȩȝİȞȠȚ İੁȢ ਕʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨).” 5 “Are they Hebrews? (૽ǼȕȡĮ૙Ƞȓ İੁıȚȞ)? So am I. Are they Israelites (ૃǿıȡĮȘȜ૙IJĮȓ İੁıȚȞ)? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham (ıʌȑȡȝĮ ૃǹȕȡĮȐȝ İੁıȚȞ)? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ (įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ İੁıȚȞ)? … I am a better one.” 6 See 2 Cor 5:12-13, 10:10, 11:5-6, 7-10, 12:1-5, 11-12, 13-16. Cf. Bieringer, “Gegner,” 190-91. 7 Cf. 11:22 (see n. 5 above).

164

Chapter Nine

and perhaps also in their intimate relationship with the apostles in Jerusalem. That such a connection could have deeply impressed the Corinthian Christians is evident from the fact that, at the time when Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, there was a “Cephas party,” a group of Christians following the apostle Peter (1 Cor 1:12). In any case, the missionaries who had come to Corinth and made such a favourable impression on the Corinthian Christians, did not come of their own accord. They were sent by other Christian communities, or one specific one (Jerusalem?), as is evident from the fact that they were supported by letters of recommendation, 8 as opposed to Paul who lacked any kind of written recommendation. As a consequence, they considered Paul a rather incompetent preacher and persuaded (many of) the Corinthian Christians to think the same. This is the reason why Paul felt called upon to defend himself in some long passages in his second letter to the Christian community in Corinth, and to recommend himself by emphasizing his competence as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The first long section in which Paul defends himself, his “first apologia,” is found in 2 Corinthians 2:14-7:4. 9 Within this section, 2:14-4:6 forms a first major unit, dealing with Paul’s commission as an apostle (in 2:14-3:6 and 4:1-6) and with a 8

See 2 Cor 3:1. Another part of Paul’s self-defence, his “second apologia,” is found in 2 Cor 10-13. Both sections seem to deal with the same kind of opposition and the same opponents, though the sections may have belonged to different letters, that is, letters written by Paul to the Corinthians on different occasions; cf. Bieringer, “Gegner,” 185. Since the subject of this essay is restricted to a few verses in the section 2:14-7:4, it is from a methodological point of view not necessary to deal with the unity or lack of unity of 2 Corinthians as a whole. 9

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

165

comparison of the two dispensations: the old covenant between God and Israel and the new covenant between God and the Christians. 10 Paul begins the passage 2:14-3:6 by giving thanks to God for being an apostle used by Jesus Christ to “spread in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him” (vv. 14-16b). He goes on to say that he is not insincere or corrupt like “so many” who are “peddlers of God’s word” (v. 17). However, just before making this statement Paul brings up the question of “who is sufficient for these things?” (v. 16c), that is, “who is qualified to work as an apostle?” The answer to this question is given in 3:4-6, where Paul argues that only those whose competence is “from God” may be “ministers of a new covenant,” which is followed by the famous statement that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” and a paragraph about the superiority of the “ministry of the Spirit” to the “ministry of death.” It is obvious that Paul counts himself and his coworkers among the competent preachers, questioning at the same time the competence of his rival missionaries in Corinth. In between, i.e. in 3:1-3, he points out to his Corinthian readers that unlike the other missionaries he does not need letters of recommendation, because the Christian community in Corinth itself is his letter of recommendation. The very existence of a Christian community in Corinth is conclusive evidence that Paul and his co-workers are competent ministers of God. In his description of the Christian community of Corinth in verse 3, Paul makes some allusions to OT passages and themes, in particular to the “tablets of stone” in the passages in Exodus (and Deuteronomy) about Moses receiving the law of God on Mount Sinai and to the “human hearts” or “hearts of flesh,” a rather peculiar expression which seems to occur only in Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26. These allusions or “echoes” are worthwhile 10

For a detailed analysis of the structure of 2 Cor 2:14-4:6, see esp. Lambrecht, “Structure.”

166

Chapter Nine

to analyse in detail, in order to get a clearer understanding of Paul’s ideas of the new situation in the history of mankind since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Moreover, such an analysis may throw some light on Paul’s opponents in Corinth and on the way he feels about them. Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 At the beginning of the passage 3:1-3 11 Paul poses two rhetorical questions, which should most probably be taken as a response to his opponents’ accusation that he is not qualified to be an apostle or minister of the Lord: “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation ıȣıIJĮIJȚț૵Ȟ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ૵Ȟ to you or from you, do we?” (v. 1). Paul’s claim that he is a “person sent from God and standing in his presence” (2:17), 12 is not meant as a recommendation of himself, but rather signifies quite the contrary. As somebody called by God to be a missionary he does not need to put in a good word for himself or to be recommended by others. Other missionaries, in particular his rival missionaries in Corinth, may need the usual letters of recommendation in order to settle down somewhere, to be supported by the members of the local church, and to preach the Gospel; Paul, however, does not need such letters to or from 11

For some recent literature on this passage, see besides the commentaries, ad loc., e.g., Baird, “Letters of Recommendation”; Friesen, Glory, 30-37; Barth, “2Kor 2,14-3,6”; Richard, “Polemics,” 344-49; Provence, “Sufficient,” 59-61; Hafemann, Suffering, 177218; Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 33-86; De Oliveira, Diakonie, 53-63, 118-23, 135-46; De Oliveira, “Brief Christi”; Schröter, Versöhner, 48-71; Lindemann, “Biblische Hermeneutik,” 128-31; Gruber, Herrlichkeit, 147-84; Kuschnerus, Brief Christi, 150-72. 12 Such a claim was undoubtedly made by Paul when he came to Corinth for the first time and afterwards on several occasions, in speech and in writing; see also, e.g., Windisch, Korintherbrief, 102.

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

167

any church. Most probably, Paul’s rival missionaries in Corinth got their letters of recommendation from some Christian community by reason of their close relationship with the leaders of the local church and their impressive appearance, accompanied by visionary experiences and performances of miracles. 13 Paul cannot and will not boast of his appearance in public; instead, he prefers to boast of his weaknesses. 14 He has no letters of recommendation, but he does not need them either, since his claim to sufficiency is supported by God himself. In verses 2-3 Paul continues by discussing his relationship with the local church of Corinth. Taking up the “letter of recommendation” motif from verse 1 and alluding to the historical fact that he himself was the founder of the Christian community in Corinth, he calls the Corinthian readers his letter (of recommendation): “You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all (ਲ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ਲȝ૵Ȟ ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ਥıIJİ ਥȖȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȘ ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ țĮȡįȓĮȚȢ ਲȝ૵Ȟ ȖȚȞȦıțȠȝȑȞȘ țĮ੿ ਕȞĮȖȚȞȦıțȠȝȑȞȘ ਫ਼ʌઁ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ´ (v. 2). Although Paul needs no actual letter of recommendation, he nevertheless has a symbolic one, i.e. the local church in Corinth. By their very existence the Corinthian Christians recommend Paul’s authority as an apostle sent by God to preach the Gospel. In his letters, Paul refers more than once to his “functional legitimacy”: his “workmanship” and success in converting people to become Christians conclusively proves his status as an apostle. 15 13

Cf. Bieringer, “Gegner,” 190-91. See 2 Cor 12:9, and cf. 5:12, 10:12-18, 11:30, and 12:1-10. 15 See also, e.g., 1 Cor 9:1-2, “Am I not an apostle? … Are you not my work in the Lord? … for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” On Paul’s “functional legitimation,” see esp. Theißen, “Legitimation,” 214-17 (= Theißen, Soziologie, 223-26/Theißen, Social Setting, 51-54). 14

168

Chapter Nine

Paul goes on to develop the argument that the Corinthian Christians are his letter of recommendation by adding a number of participial phrases. First of all he states that his letter of recommendation, i.e. the Christian community in Corinth, is “written on our hearts.” By means of this phrase Paul wants to stress the close relationship between the Corinthian church and its founder or “father,” and his continuing love and concern for them.16 In 7:3, the apostle tells his readers in Corinth something similar by saying that they are always “in our hearts (ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ țĮȡįȓĮȚȢ ਲȝ૵Ȟ .” 17 However, the church in Corinth is not only a letter written on the heart of the apostle but also a letter “known and read by all.” Apparently, there is a shift in the use 16

See also 1 Cor 3:10, 4:15, and 9:1-2. Cf. Hafemann, Suffering, 18992. The first person plural used from 2:14 onwards may refer to Paul and his fellow-workers, but it seems more likely that Paul here refers only to his own person and work as a missionary. For the use of ਥȖȖȡȐijİȚȞ to refer to something “engraved” or “inscribed” on someone’s heart or soul, see also, e.g., 1 En. 103:3, T. Jud. 20:4, Josephus, A.J. 4.210, and Plutarch, Max. princ. 4 (Mor. 779B). The simplex ȖȡȐijİȚȞ can be used in a similar context: see, e.g., Jer 31(38):33 and Rom 2:15. 17 Cf. Phil 1:7. From the context it is obvious that in 2 Cor 3:2 the reading ਲȝ૵Ȟ is to be preferred to the alternative reading ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ. The latter may be considered a corruption resulting from a scribe’s wish to harmonize v. 2 with v. 3 (“you are a letter of Christ … written … on tablets of human hearts”). Confusion between the two pronouns is frequent in the manuscripts, due to the fact that both were pronounced similarly. See also, e.g., Plummer, Second Corinthians, 79-80; Baird, “Letters of Recommendation,” 166-68; Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 110, 199; Furnish, II Corinthians, 181; Hafemann, Suffering, 186-88; Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 34 n. 3; Wolff, Korinther, 58-59; Gruber, Herrlichkeit, 174-75; Kuschnerus, Gemeinde, 154 n. 236; pace, e.g., Barrett, Second Corinthians, 96 n. 3, 107; Bultmann, Korinther, 74-75 (“Sinnvoll ist nur ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ”); Schröter, Versöhner, 59-61; Thrall, Corinthians, 222-24.

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

169

of the “letter” metaphor: a letter written in somebody’s heart and a letter known and read by all do not tally with each other. What Paul really wants to say by means of these participial phrases is that it is manifest to all people that there is a Christian community in Corinth, and that he himself is the founder. That is, as Paul’s symbolic letter of recommendation the local Christian community in Corinth proves and legitimizes Paul’s competence to everybody all over the world. Another and more drastic shift in the use of figurative language is found in verse 3. Here Paul continues with another participial phrase, this time not in the feminine singular, to be connected with the noun “letter” (ਥʌȚıIJȠȜȒ , as was the case with the other three participial phrases in verse 2, but in the masculine plural dependent upon the previous statement (ਲ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ਲȝ૵Ȟ ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ਥıIJİ “you yourselves are (our letter)” in verse 2. According to Paul, “you,” i.e. the Corinthian Christians, “show that you are a letter of Christ ijĮȞİȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚ ੖IJȚ ਥıIJ੻ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨).” This striking grammatical change is not without meaning, as seems to be the opinion of most scholars dealing with this passage; rather, it is likely to be an indication that in verse 3 some change of subject is intended and that, as a consequence, the verse is meant as a transition to the next section on the old and new covenants. That this is really the case appears from a detailed analysis of Paul’s phrasing in this particular verse. In verse 3 the apostle Paul starts by saying that his readers in Corinth “show” that they are “a letter of Christ.” At first sight the change from “our (ਲȝ૵Ȟ = Paul’s) letter” in verse 2 to “a letter of Christ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨)” in verse 3 seems somewhat peculiar: in what sense can Paul’s letter of recommendation be Christ’s letter of recommendation? In other words, if “our,” ਲȝ૵Ȟ is– rightly–to be understood as a possessive genitive, what is expressed by the genitive ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨? Several explanations have

170

Chapter Nine

been offered. Most scholars prefer either an objective genitive (genitivus objectivus or genitivus respectus), 18 meaning that Christ is the contents or the subject matter of Paul’s letter of recommendation; or a subjective genitive (genitivus subjectivus or genitivus auctoris), 19 meaning that Paul’s letter of recommendation was coming from, or written by, Jesus Christ. Both solutions, however, are not very satisfactory. That Jesus Christ should be considered the subject matter of Paul’s letter of recommendation is not likely, since letters of recommendation are first of all meant to recommend the persons who are carrying them. And to assume that Christ is the author of Paul’s letter of recommendation does not fit in with the context, in which it is God who is said to be responsible for Paul’s task as a missionary (see 2:14, 17). The usual attempts to make sense of the genitive ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ are necessarily far-fetched and forced. Interpreters want to connect Christ’s “letter” in verse 3 with Paul’s “letter” (of recommendation) in verse 2, assuming that in both verses we have to do with the same image, i.e. the local church in Corinth as a letter of recommendation carried by Paul. But if one accepts that there is a shift in the use of figurative language in verse 3, the “letter” in verse 3 (ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨) and the “letter” in verse 2 (ਲ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ਲȝ૵Ȟ may indicate two different things. They both refer, of course, to the Corinthian Christians (ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ਥıIJȑ … ਥıIJȑ  but in verse 2 they are said to be Paul’s letter of recommendation, whereas in verse 3 Paul seems to 18

So, e.g., Schröter, Versöhner, 66; Gruber, Herrlichkeit, 176-77; Kuschnerus, Gemeinde, 162-63. 19 So, e.g., Plummer, Second Corinthians, 81; Baird, “Letters of Recommendation,” 170; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 108; Furnish, II Corinthians, 182; Wolff, Korinther, 59; De Oliveira, Diakonie, 60; Thrall, Corinthians, 224. For a comprehensive and critical review of Baird’s argument, see Hafemann, Suffering, 195-200.

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

171

abandon the metaphor of the Corinthian Christians as his letter of recommendation and to go on to describe them as another type of letter, namely “a letter of Christ.” With this new metaphor, Paul wants to indicate that the Corinthian Christians are a community belonging to Jesus Christ. 20 That this interpretation of the words “you show that you are a letter of Christ” is most likely to be right, is also demonstrated by the participial phrase that is directly connected with it. The words “prepared by us” įȚĮțȠȞȘșİ૙ıĮ ਫ਼ijૃ ਲȝ૵Ȟ refer without any doubt to Paul’s apostolic ministry of establishing the Christian community in Corinth, as is evident from the use of the cognate words įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ and įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ throughout the section 2:147:4. 21 After having said in the first part of verse 3 that the Corinthian Christians show the world that they are a real “Christian” community (“a letter of Christ”) founded by Paul, the apostle 20

Thus, ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ in the phrase ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ (v. 3) is to be understood as a possessive genitive, like ਲȝ૵Ȟ in the phrase ਲ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ਲȝ૵Ȟ (v. 2). 21 See 3:6-9, 4:1, 5:18, and 6:3-4; cf. also 1 Cor 3:5. On these terms, see also Ellis, “Paul,” 441-45. That means that Paul does not depict himself as the courier of the letter but as its writer, that is, as the founder of the church in Corinth. Cf. Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 199 (Anhang, written by Kümmel; but see Lietzmann’s original text on p. 110); Hafemann, Suffering, 195-200; De Oliveira, Diakonie, 140-41; Schröter, Versöhner, 66-68; Kuschnerus, Gemeinde, 163-64. Pace, e.g., Baird, “Letters of Recommendation,” 168-71, and Dunn, Baptism, 137. The interpretation proposed here makes it clear that Paul’s reference to “a letter of Christ” has nothing to do whatsoever with the motif of a “letter from heaven” (a “Himmelsbrief”), a letter written by God (or Christ) and transcribed on paper by a visionary, like, e.g., Ezek 2:9-3:4 and Rev 2-3; see esp. Bultmann, Korinther, 75; Hafemann, Suffering, 195 n. 64; Thrall, Corinthians, 225-26.

172

Chapter Nine

ends the verse with another participial phrase. Again, it should be connected grammatically to the noun ਥʌȚıIJȠȜȒ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨); it is meant to elucidate the preceding metaphor of the Corinthian Christians as “a letter of Christ” or a “Christian” community. 22 First of all Paul tells his readers that as “a letter of Christ” their community is “written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God (ਥȖȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȘ Ƞ੝ ȝȑȜĮȞȚ ਕȜȜ੹ ʌȞİȪȝĮIJȚ șİȠ૨ ȗ૵ȞIJȠȢ .” By means of this contrast, Paul intends to make clear to his readers that a Christian community like theirs is not any ordinary group of people (“a letter written with ink”) 23 but a fellowship of people who owe their existence as Christians to the work of the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of the living God,” 24 which has given them hope of salvation and eternal life.25 The exact meaning of the contrast becomes evident when one compares it with a phrase in Plutarch; in his Vitae decem oratorum 7.1 (Mor. 841E) the lawgiver Lycurgus is told to have eliminated all malefactors, “so that some of the sophists said that Lycurgus signed warrants against evildoers with a pen dipped, not in ink, but in death Ƞ੝ ȝȑȜĮȞȚ ਕȜȜ੹ 22

As a consequence, the participial phrase with its two contrasts (“ink” versus “Spirit,” and “tablets of stone” versus “tablets of human hearts”) is not meant to characterize Paul’s (figurative) letter of recommendation as compared with those of his rival missionaries. With the phrase “you show that you are a letter of Christ” Paul has abandoned the analogy of the letter of recommendation in favour of a description of the local church as a “letter” belonging to Jesus Christ. 23 Ordinary letters are written with ink: see, e.g., 4 Bar. 6:19, 2 John 12, 3 John 13, and cf. Philo, Abr. 10. 24 The expression “the living God” (șİઁȢ ȗ૵Ȟ) is quite common in OT, Jewish and early-Christian literature; it is often used to stress God’s power in contrast with the idols’ impotence. See esp. De Oliveira, Diakonie, 143 and n. 311. 25 Cf. v. 6, “but the Spirit gives life (IJઁ į੻ ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ ȗ૳ȠʌȠȚİ૙).”

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

173

șĮȞȐIJ૳).” 26 Lycurgus’ orders were not the usual ones to be expected from a lawgiver (“orders written with ink”) but were in fact death warrants (“orders written with death”); so the Christian community is not a common group of people (“a letter written with ink”) but a community of people who have been taken out of the realm of death, i.e. the world of the unbelievers, to the realm of life, i.e. the world of the believers in Jesus Christ (“a letter written with the Spirit of the living God”). The image of the Christian community in Corinth as a letter of Christ not written with ink but with the Holy Spirit, that is, as a fellowship of people who belong to the godly sphere of life, leads Paul to introduce a second contrast to describe the Corinthian Christians. They are also a letter of Christ written “not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts Ƞ੝ț ਥȞ ʌȜĮȟ੿Ȟ ȜȚșȓȞĮȚȢ ਕȜȜૃ ਥȞ ʌȜĮȟ੿Ȟ țĮȡįȓĮȚȢ ıĮȡțȓȞĮȚȢ .” Again, there is a shift in Paul’s use of figurative language. Although both contrasts are to be connected grammatically with the phrase ਥıIJ੻ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜ੽ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ … ਥȖȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȘ Paul seems to abandon the image of the Christian community as a “letter (of Christ)” in the second contrast, since letters were usually written on papyrus and not on tablets of stone or some other material. That means that these two contrasts do not refer to each other, but should be understood as two separate comparisons. 27 In the second contrast, Paul echoes two OT motifs or ideas. The first echo is, of course, a reference to the law of Moses, which was given to him by God when the covenant was made on 26

Fowler, LCL. Cf. Plutarch, Sol. 17.3 (Vit. par. 87E), where Drakon’s laws are said to have been written “not with ink, but with blood (įȚૃ Į੆ȝĮIJȠȢ, Ƞ੝ įȚ੹ ȝȑȜĮȞȠȢ).” 27 Cf. Hafemann, Suffering, 200.

174

Chapter Nine

Mount Sinai and which was written on two “tablets of stone,” according to the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. 28 It is reasonable to assume that Paul used the phrase “tablets of stone” not only to refer to the Decalogue but to the whole of the Mosaic law. In any case, Paul wants to characterize the Christian community in Corinth by one of the main distinctive features of a society or community, i.e. its system of laws. For Paul, a community of Christians has broken with the tradition according to which God’s laws are written down on blocks or tablets of stone, a tradition cherished by the Israelites and the Jews since the covenant between God and his people was made at Sinai. 29

28

See Exod 31:18 (ʌȜȐțĮȢ ȜȚșȓȞĮȢ), 32:15-16, 19 (ʌȜȐțİȢ ȜȓșȚȞĮȚ), 34:1, 4, 28-29 (ʌȜȐțĮȢ ȜȚșȓȞĮȢ … IJ૵Ȟ ʌȜĮț૵Ȟ IJોȢ įȚĮșȒțȘȢ), Deut 4:13 (įȚĮșȒțȘ … ʌȜȐțĮȢ ȜȚșȓȞĮȢ), 5:22 (ʌȜȐțĮȢ ȜȚșȓȞĮȢ), 9:9-11, 15, 17 (IJ੹Ȣ ʌȜȐțĮȢ IJ੹Ȣ ȜȚșȓȞĮȢ, ʌȜȐțĮȢ įȚĮșȒțȘȢ), 10:1-5 (ʌȜȐțĮȢ ȜȚșȓȞĮȢ), and further 1 Kings 8:9, 2 Chron 5:10, Sib. Or. 3.257, Philo, Migr. 85, Her. 167, Heb 9:4, Barn. 4:7-8 and 14:2-3. 29 In the ancient world laws were preserved on blocks of stone (or wood), and the laws of Israel were no exception to the rule. Cf., e.g., Plato, Pol. 298DE, Plutarch, Princ. iner. 3 (Mor. 780C), Num. 22.2 (Vit. par. 74CD), Sol. 25.1 (Vit. par. 92A), Philo, Prob. 46, and see esp. Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 76.3, “laws are preserved on tablets of wood or of stone (ਥȞ ıĮȞȓıȚȞ ਲ਼ ıIJȒȜĮȚȢ ijȣȜȐIJIJȠȞIJĮȚ ´ (Crosby, LCL), 80.5, and Philo, Her. 167, “Again, are not the slabs Įੂ ıIJોȜĮȚ of the ten general laws, which he calls tablets ʌȜȐțĮȢ  two?” (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). The very fact that the law of Moses was written on tablets of stone did not carry a negative connotation in Paul’s view, but the durability of the material did not make it “one of the hallmarks of its glory” in his view either. The high esteem accorded to the tablets of the law, which is reflected in pre- and postPauline Jewish tradition, is foreign to the apostel Paul (so also Thrall, Corinthians, 227). Rather, Paul is familiar with the custom of writing laws on tablets of stone and considers the law of Moses no more than

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

175

After having said that the Corinthian Christians do not have a code written on tablets of stone like the Israelites or the Jews, Paul goes on to say that the Christians’ code is written “on tablets of human hearts.” That Paul is still referring to the Christians’ code is clear from the repetition of the word “tablets” ʌȜĮȟȓȞ . This time, however, he connects the word with another sort of “material,” i.e. that of “human hearts,” which results in the syntactically rather awkward expression “(written …) on tablets, on human hearts.” The phrase “human hearts” (or “hearts of flesh,” țĮȡįȓĮȚȢ ıĮȡțȓȞĮȚȢ is directly derived from the OT, in particular Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26. This somewhat curious and pleonastic phrase does not occur elsewhere in the OT or in pre-Pauline Jewish or early-Christian literature. 30 Both Ezekiel texts, which are more or less identical and parallel to one another, are found in passages dealing with promises of restoration to the people of Israel in exile. Thus, God promises the Israelites that he will gather them from among the nations and bring them back in the land of Israel (Ezek 11:17 and 36:24). After that they will “remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations” (Ezek 11:18) and they will be cleansed by God from all their idols (Ezek 36:25). Finally, God promises, țĮ੿ įȫıȦ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ țĮȡįȓĮȞ ਦIJȑȡĮȞ țĮ੿ ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ țĮȚȞઁȞ įȫıȦ ਥȞ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥțıʌȐıȦ IJ੽Ȟ țĮȡįȓĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ ȜȚșȓȞȘȞ ਥț IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ įȫıȦ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ țĮȡįȓĮȞ ıĮȡțȓȞȘȞ

a fine example of a common practice. Pace Hafemann, Suffering, 204-13. 30 It is found in Barn. 6:14, where the author gives an explicit quotation from Ezekiel.

176

Chapter Nine I will give them one (or “another”) heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh. (Ezek 11:19) 31

This “new heart” or “heart of flesh” given by God to the Israelites will make them follow his statutes and observe his ordinances (Ezek 11:20 and 36:27). That is, the Israelites receive the promise that they will be inwardly renewed and transformed from hard-heartedness, stubbornness and obstinacy (“heart of stone”) to responsiveness and compliance with the ordinances of God (“heart of flesh”). 32 It is important, however, to notice that in the Ezekiel passages there is no trace of a contrast between “tablets of stone” and “tablets of human hearts.” Although there is a contrast between “a heart of stone” on the one hand, and “a human heart” or “a heart of flesh” on the other, any allusion to the Mosaic law or its “tablets” is lacking. Both Ezekiel passages only speak about a future transformation of the Israelites’ hearts, from hard and stubborn hearts to responsive and yielding hearts. 33 That means that the origin of the Pauline contrast must be found elsewhere. To explain Paul’s argument as the result of a free meditation 31

The text of Ezek 36:26 is almost identical: “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh (țĮ੿ įȫıȦ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ țĮȡįȓĮȞ țĮȚȞ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ țĮȚȞઁȞ įȫıȦ ਥȞ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ țĮ੿ ਕijİȜ૵ IJ੽Ȟ țĮȡįȓĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ ȜȚșȓȞȘȞ ਥț IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ įȫıȦ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ țĮȡįȓĮȞ ıĮȡțȓȞȘȞ).” 32 Cf., e.g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 1. Teilband, 250-51; Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 2. Teilband, 879; Wevers, Ezekiel, 95-98, 274; Allen, Ezekiel 1-19, 165; Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, 179. 33 Cf. 4 Ezra 6:26-28, “and the heart of the earth’s inhabitants shall be changed and converted to a different spirit. For evil shall be blotted out, and deceit shall be quenched; faithfulness shall flourish” (Metzger, OTP).

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

177

on, or a simple association of, some Exodus and Ezekiel passages via key-words or “hook-words” 34 in Paul’s mind, is no real solution. 35 Ideas or opinions do not usually arise from just reading or combining texts. They are usually “in the air” in a particular culture or society where they arise, develop and affect all members of society. Therefore, it is hardly imaginable that OT texts or OT expressions such as, for instance, “tablets of stone” and “hearts of flesh,” should have made Paul develop his (theological) ideas of what a Christian community actually is or should be. Rather, as somebody who lived in the Hellenistic period and travelled far and wide through the Roman Empire, Paul shared many ideas that were in vogue in the world of that time, which he incorporated into his belief in Jesus Christ. In his communication with the people of his time, both in the spoken and the written word, he disseminated his ideas in the words and phrases with which he was most closely acquainted, i.e. the words and phrases of the Greek Word of God, the Septuagint. As a consequence, the question remains why Paul should have introduced the second contrast between “tablets of stone” and “(tablets of) hearts of flesh,” that is, a contrast between laws written on stone and laws written in

34

So esp. Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 54-71, esp. p. 56, where the author argues that “a link with all of the Exodus texts–34:1-4, 27-28; 36:21 (LXX)–can be drawn to both of the Ezekiel texts with the key word ‘stone’ (ȜȓșȠȢ), and its adjective ‘stony’ (ȜȓșȚȞȠȢ).” Stockhausen also refers to Jer 31(38):33 and 32(39):39, where God promises to make a new covenant with his people and to give them another heart on which he will write his law, as two other passages that influenced Paul to present his argument that the Christian community is “a letter of Christ … written … not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” See also Windisch, Korintherbrief, 106; Richard, “Polemics,” 344-49; and cf. Kuschnerus, Gemeinde, 168-69. 35 Cf. Hafemann, Paul, 146-47.

178

Chapter Nine

people’s hearts, and the question as to the background and origin of this contrast. Origin and background of the contrast “tablets of stone” and “(tablets of) human hearts” The idea that Paul may have shared with many of his contemporaries and that is likely to have caused the apostle to introduce the contrast between “tablets of stone” and “(tablets of) hearts of flesh,” is most probably the well-known antithesis between the written law ȞȩȝȠȢ ȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȠȢ and the unwritten or godly law ȞȩȝȠȢ ਙȖȡĮijȠȢ  36 Or, in the words of Diogenes Laertius, There are two divisions of law, the one written and the other unwritten (੒ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ Į੝IJȠ૨ ȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȠȢ ੒ į੻ ਙȖȡĮijȠȢ  Written law is that under which we live in different cities, but that which has arisen out of custom is called unwritten law; for instance, not to appear in the market-place undressed or in women’s attire. There is no statute forbidding this, but nevertheless we abstain from such conduct because it is prohibited by an unwritten law. Thus law is either written or unwritten. (Vit. phil. 3.86)37

36

On this topic, see esp. Hirzel, ߹ǹȖȡĮijȠȢ ȞȩȝȠȢ. Cf. further Kranz, “Gesetz”; Bornkamm, “Gesetz,” 106-11; Jones, Freiheit, 93-94, 207; Vollenweider, Freiheit, 265-68; De Oliveira, Diakonie, 171 and n. 450; Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship,” 280-84 [see Chapter Six of this volume, pp. 101-7 above]; Schröter, Versöhner, 71. 37 Hicks, LCL. See further, e.g., Plato, Pol. 295A, 295E, 298DE, Resp. 563D, Leg. 793AB, Aristotle, Rhet. 1.15 (1375ab), Lysias, Orat. 6.10, Thucydides, Hist. 2.37.3, Seneca the Elder, Contr. 1.1.14, Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 31.140-41, 76.1-5, 80.3-6, Plutarch, Princ. iner. 3 (Mor. 780C), Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 6.5, Cicero, Leg. 1.6.1819, 1.15.42, and Philo, Abr. 3-6, 275-76, Prob. 46, Spec. 4.149-50.

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

179

Laws, that is, civil and criminal codes pertaining to particular states and societies, were of course usually written down, preferably on tablets of stone or wood. 38 But there was a popular feeling that besides all these laws there was another statute, an unwritten, natural, and divine law, identical partly with custom and partly with an ethical code containing some universal rules to be obeyed by all people of all times and places. *** It was obvious to everyone that this law was higher than the written, human laws and was to be obeyed even more strictly than the other kind. Paul’s argument in Romans 2:1216 39 makes clear that the apostle shared the view that there was an unwritten universal moral code besides all kinds of written laws, including the Mosaic law to be obeyed by the Jews. 40 Needless to say, Paul’s conception was not exactly synonymous with that of his pagan contemporaries, since for him this universal moral law known to all men was once communicated by the God of Israel. 41

38

See above (and also n. 29). [Cf. Gaius, Inst. 1.1, “The laws of every people governed by statutes and customs are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all mankind. The rules established by a given state for its own members are peculiar to itself, and are called jus civile; the rules constituted by natural reason for all are observed by all nations alike, and are called jus gentium (Omnes populi, qui legibus et moribus reguntur, partim suo proprio, partim communi omnium hominum iure utuntur: nam quod quisque populus ipse sibi ius constituit, id ipsius proprium est vocaturque ius civile; quod vero naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, id apud omnes populos peraeque custoditur vocaturque ius gentium)”; Poste and Whittuck, Gai Inst.]. 39 “They [= the Gentiles] show that what the law requires is written on their hearts (ਥȞįİȓțȞȣȞIJĮȚ IJઁ ਩ȡȖȠȞ IJȠ૨ ȞȩȝȠȣ ȖȡĮʌIJઁȞ ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ țĮȡįȓĮȚȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ´ (v. 15). 40 Cf. also, e.g., Greenwood, “Law”; Martens, “Romans 2.14-16.” 41 So rightly Greenwood, “Law,” 266. ***

180

Chapter Nine

Although in Paul’s days nobody whosoever doubted that there existed a divine “law of nature,” no one knew exactly what was in it.42 What people did know was that in man’s heart or mind there was an inward understanding of virtue and vice and that man’s (right) reason (੒ ੑȡșઁȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ corresponded with this divine and unwritten law. So we read, for instance, in Dio Chrysostom that while laws are preserved on tablets of wood or of stone, each custom is preserved within our own hearts (ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ ਲȝİIJȑȡĮȚȢ ȥȣȤĮ૙Ȣ  And this sort of preservation is surer and better. Furthermore, the written law is harsh and stern, whereas nothing is more pleasant than custom. Then too, our laws we learn from others, but our customs we all know perfectly. (Orat.76.3) 43

Likewise, Philo considers right reason “an infallible law ȞȩȝȠȢ ਕȥİȣįȒȢ engraved not … on parchment or slabs … but by immortal nature on the immortal mind (ਥȞ ਕșĮȞȐIJ૳ įȚĮȞȠȓ઺ IJȣʌȦșİȓȢ ” 44 But it was obvious to everybody that people did 42

Cf. Martens, “Romans 2.14-16,” 67 n. 49. Crosby, LCL. 44 Prob. 46 (Colson, LCL); see further, e.g., Plutarch, Princ. iner. 3 (Mor. 780C), “not law written outside him in books or on wooden tablets or the like, but reason endowed with life within him (ਕȜȜૃ ਩ȝȥȣȤȠȢ ੫Ȟ ਥȞ Į੝IJ૶ ȜȩȖȠȢ)” (Fowler, LCL), Plotinus, Enn. 5.3.4, “But we, too, are king when we are moulded to the IntellectualPrinciple. That correspondence may be brought about in two ways: either through laws of conduct engraved upon our souls as tablets (ਲ਼ IJȠ૙Ȣ ȠੈȠȞ ȖȡȐȝȝĮıȚȞ ੮ıʌİȡ ȞȩȝȠȢ ਥȞ ਲȝ૙Ȟ ȖȡĮijİ૙ıȚȞ)” (MacKenna, Plotinus), Josephus, C. Ap. 2.178, “that we have them (= the laws), as it were, engraved on our souls (਩ȤȠȝİȞ ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ ȥȣȤĮ૙Ȣ ੮ıʌİȡ ਥȖțİȤĮȡĮȖȝȑȞȠȣȢ)” (Thackeray, LCL). Besides, to “implant” laws in the minds of men was considered more valuable than to write them down in “soulless” writings: Plutarch, Num. 22.2-4 (Vit. par. 74CD), and Lyc. 13.1-2 (Vit. par. 47A). Cf. also Thucydides, Hist. 2.43.3, 43

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

181

not live according to this divine law. People were governed by their passions and bad tempers and, as a consequence, were not able to do what their reason told them. At the beginning of human culture, the situation was completely different: this period of mankind was considered a kind of golden age, when people lived with God and were obedient to his ordinances. But since then a process of degeneration had started and man had become more and more wicked and disobedient to God and his divine or natural law. Laws, that is, written laws, were made to control men’s wickedness, but they were not able to stop the process of degeneration. Times had changed for the worse, but one kept hoping and believing that one day the glorious times of old would return and men would be as good and righteous as they were in the beginning. 45 From the second contrast in 2 Corinthians 3:3 it may be deduced that for Paul the process of degeneration had ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With Jesus Christ “a new creation,” a new epoch in the history of mankind, has begun, 46 in which people who believe in Jesus Christ are able to make a new start and keep the commandments of God, which are written in their hearts. 47 With the coming of Jesus Christ, the historical period in which laws written on tablets of stone or wood governed all societies has ended. For Christians

Plato, Phaedr. 276A-C, and Isocrates, Areop. 41. For the more general motif of a law written in man’s heart or mind, see further Deut 6:6, 11:18, Isa 51:7, Jer 31(38):33, Prov 3:3, 7:3, 1QH IV, 10, 4 Ezra 3:22, etc. 45 For this idea of Ursprung und Entartung, see esp. Reinhardt, Poseidonios; Lovejoy and Boas, Primitivism, 23-53; Hollander and Holleman, “Relationship,” 284-86 [= pp. 107-9 above]. 46 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15. 47 Cf. 1 Clem. 2:8 and Aristides, Ap. 15.3.

182

Chapter Nine

there is only one law, the “law of Christ,” 48 which can “be summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 49 Human and written laws do not hold in this new creation, only the divine and unwritten “law of Christ” implanted in the believers’ hearts and minds holds good. Conclusion In the short section 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 we find an essential part of Paul’s defence against a number of Christians in Corinth, who had been influenced by some rival missionaries to question Paul’s apostleship and the Gospel he preached. Paul has to admit that he has no actual letters of recommendation, as his rivals had. But he argues that he has a symbolic letter of recommendation, i.e. the Christian community in Corinth. The very existence of this group of Christians demonstrates Paul’s competence and establishes his authority as an apostle to everybody all over the world (vv. 1-2). In verse 3 Paul goes on to sketch some characteristics of the Corinthian community. First of all he points out to his readers that they show the world that they have become a community that belongs to Jesus Christ, thanks to Paul’s efforts as an apostle of the Lord. Next, he pays attention to the fact that a Christian community like the one in Corinth is not any ordinary group of people, but a fellowship of men and women who owe their existence as Christians to the work of the Holy Spirit. As a consequence, they have been taken out of the realm of death into the godly sphere of life: they no longer belong to this 48

Gal 6:2; cf. also, e.g., 1 Cor 9:21, 1 Clem. 49:1, and Lucian, Peregr. 13. 49 Gal 5:14; cf. Rom 13:8-10 and 1 Thess 3:12. See also Hollander, “Law,” 124-26 [see Chapter Seven of this volume, pp. 127-30].

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

183

world, but to a “new creation,” a world of hope of salvation and eternal life. With the second and last contrast in verse 3, Paul mentions a last characteristic of the Christian community in Corinth, on which he elaborates in the next section. Living in the godly realm of life, the members of the Corinthian church are not ruled by laws written on tablets of stone but by the law of God written in their hearts. This quality of the Christian community means a radical transformation. So far, people have been governed by human and written laws, but in the new era that began with the coming of Jesus Christ, Christians live according to a law that comes from God and is implanted by him in their minds or hearts. This law may also be called the “law of Christ” and may be summed up in the commandment to love one’s neighbour. All this makes it plausible that Paul shares with many of his contemporaries the idea that besides all human, written laws there existed a divine, unwritten law. People should obey this law above all things but they were not able to do so until the coming of a new era in which people would be as good and righteous as they were at the beginning of the history of mankind. For Paul this new era had come with Jesus Christ. In order to formulate this last characteristic of the Christian community Paul echoes two OT motifs. The first one is a reference to the Mosaic law, which according to Exodus and Deuteronomy was written on “tablets of stone.” This explicit reference makes clear that Paul considers the Mosaic law a specimen of the written legal codes that existed in so many regions of the Roman Empire. Every people, country or city had its own code and, in Paul’s view, the Jews were no exception to the rule. Although Paul must have known that the

184

Chapter Nine

Mosaic law was written with “the finger of God” 50 and originated with God, he nevertheless saw it as a specimen of a larger class of national written codes. Recognizing the existence of a divine, unwritten law besides the many written codes, Hellenistic Jews like Philo considered the Mosaic law for the greater part identical with this godly, natural law. For them there was no essential difference between the two: the other written national codes were by far inferior to their law, which was in fact a kind of a written copy of the divine, unwritten law. 51 Since his conversion (or calling), the apostle Paul does not seem to apply this distinction to the Mosaic law on the one hand, and the other written national codes on the other. Both the law of Moses and all other national codes were written codes pertaining to a particular people, country or city. For Paul, Christianity was “a new way” and Christians were “a new creation,” a new people, which meant that national codes had no authority over them, not even the law of Moses. 52 That Paul explicitly refers to the Mosaic law (“tablets of stone”) can be explained satisfactorily: first, it was the law of Moses that he, as a Jew, knew best, and, second, it was the law of Moses that played such an essential role in the history of mankind and in God’s plan to save the world. The people of Israel were God’s chosen people to whom he once gave his commandments through the mediator Moses. However, with the coming of Jesus Christ a new epoch had begun, which meant the end of the Mosaic law 53 and a new start in the history of mankind.

50

See Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10. On this topic, see esp. Najman, “Law,” and Najman, Seconding Sinai, 70-107, 126-37; and Buitenwerf, Sibylline Oracles, 339-42, 355-63. 52 Cf. Hollander, “Law,” 122-26 [= pp. 124-30 above]. 53 Gal 3:19 and Rom 10:4. 51

“A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts”: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3

185

The second OT echo in verse 3 is the phrase “human hearts” or “hearts of flesh.” This phrase can be traced back directly to Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26. Both Ezekiel texts deal with promises of restoration to the people of Israel in exile and speak about a future transformation of the Israelites’ hearts, from hard and stubborn hearts to responsive and yielding hearts. It is evident that Paul took the phrase from Ezekiel to describe the Christians’ understanding of the law of Christ implanted in their hearts and minds. Moreover, it is quite plausible that the apostle was also aware of the context in Ezekiel in which the phrase occurs. In that case, he intended to make clear to his readers in Corinth that God’s promise to give his people a “new,” “human,” heart in order to keep his commandments was being fulfilled in their Christian community (and, of course, in all other Christian communities of the time). 54 In the verses following 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 Paul elaborates on a comparison between the old dispensation and the new one. For the apostle, the new era in which the Christians live is characterized by a new “covenant” between the God of Israel and those who believe in Jesus Christ,55 a covenant “of spirit” and “freedom” (2 Cor 3:6, 17). 56 This new covenant has replaced, as it were, the old covenant between God and the Israelites, which was a covenant “of letter” (2 Cor 3:6), that is, a covenant with a written code as one of its main features. But when it is true that with the coming of Jesus Christ a new dispensation has replaced the old one, Jewish-Christian missionaries should not any longer take pride in their Jewish birth (or in their relationships with some important people in Jerusalem). For in the new era “there is no longer Jew or Greek, 54

Cf. Hafemann, Paul, 146-47. See 1 Cor 11:25 and Jer 31(38):31. 56 For the notion of freedom in this context, see esp. Jones, Freiheit, 61-67, and Vollenweider, Freiheit, 247-84. 55

186

Chapter Nine

there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; … all … are one in Jesus Christ.” 57 Therefore, Paul’s rival missionaries are wrong, not because the Gospel they preach is different from Paul’s but because they do not understand clearly the consequences of living in a new era which has begun with the coming of Jesus Christ. 58

57 58

Gal 3:28; cf. Rom 10:12, 1 Cor 7:19, 12:13, and Gal 5:6, 6:15. Cf. Koch, “Abraham.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alikin, V. A., The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries. Diss. Leiden, 2009 Allen, L. C., Ezekiel 20-48. Dallas: Word Books, 1990 Allen, L. C., Ezekiel 1-19. Dallas: Word Books, 1994 Attridge, H. W., First-century Cynicism in the Epistles of Heraclitus. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976 Bachmann, Ph., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. 3. Aufl. Leipzig/Erlangen: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1921 Baird, W., “Letters of Recommendation: A Study of II Cor 3,1-3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961): 166-72 Balz, H., and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 19801983 [= EWNT] Barrett, C. K., “Cephas and Corinth.” In Abraham unser Vater. Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel. Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by C. Betz, M. Hengel and P. Schmidt, 1-12. Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1963 Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Black, 1968 Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Black, 1973 Barth, G., “Die Eignung des Verkündigers in 2Kor 2,14-3,6.” In Kirche. Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm, edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker, 257-70. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1980 Barthélemy, D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 2. Fribourg/Göttingen: Éditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986 Barton, S. C., “ ‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19-23.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by J. D. G. Dunn, 271-85. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996

188

Bibliography

Basset, S. E., “1 Cor. 13.12, ȕȜȑʌȠȝİȞ Ȗ੹ȡ ਙȡIJȚ įȚૃ ਥıȩʌIJȡȠȣ ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ.” Journal of Biblical Literature 47 (1928): 232-36 Bauer, W., and K. and B. Aland, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6. Aufl. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988 Baumann, R., Mitte und Norm des Christlichen. Eine Auslegung von 1 Korinther 1,1-3,4. 2. Aufl. Münster: Aschendorff, 1986 Baumert, N., “Ȁȅǿȃȍȃǿǹ TOY AIMATOȈ TOY XPIȈTOY (1 Kor 10,14-22).” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 617-22. Leuven: Peeters, 1996 Behm, J., “Das Bildwort vom Spiegel I. Korinther 13, 12.” In Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift, edited by W. Koepp. Vol. 1, 31542. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1929 Berger, K., “Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1): 10-40 Berger, K., “Die sog. ‘Sätze heiligen Rechts’ im N.T.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28 (1972): 305-30 Berger, K., “Zur Diskussion über die Herkunft von I Kor. II.9.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-8): 270-83 Berger, K., Exegese des Neuen Testaments. 2. Aufl. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984 Bieringer, R., “Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief.” In Studies on 2 Corinthians, edited by R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht, 181-221. Leuven: Peeters, 1994 Bill, A., La Morale et la Loi. Étude préliminaire sur le problème de la loi dans la philosophie antique préchrétienne. Strasbourg: Alsacienne, 1928 Björck, G., “Nochmals Paulus Abortivus.” Coniectanea Neotestamentica 3 (1938): 3-8 Black, M., The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. Leiden: Brill, 1985 Blass, F., A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 17. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990 Boman, Th., “Paulus abortivus (1. Kor. 15,8).” Studia Theologica 18 (1964): 46-50

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 189 with the Corinthians Bornkamm, G., “Gesetz und Natur. Röm 2:14-16.” In G. Bornkamm, Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Band II, 93-118. München: Kaiser Verlag, 1959 Brandenburger, E., Adam und Christus. Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Röm. 5,12-21 (1. Kor. 15). Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962 Branick, V. P., “Source and Redaction Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 251-69 Buitenwerf, R., Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and its Social Setting. Leiden: Brill, 2003 Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynischstoische Diatribe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910 Bultmann, R., Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976 Bünker, M., Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 Burchard, C., Joseph und Aseneth. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003 Campbell, J. Y., “ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ and its Cognates in the New Testament.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 352-80 (repr. in J. Y. Campbell, Three New Testament Studies [Leiden: Brill, 1965], 128) Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983-1985 [= OTP] Colin, G., La Gloire des Rois (Kebra Nagast): Épopée nationale de l’Éthiopie. Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 2002 Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 12. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981 Cook, D., “I Peter iii.20: An Unnecessary Problem.” The Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 31 (1980): 72-78 Cramer, J. A. (ed.), Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum. Vol. 5. Oxford: University Press, 1844 Dalfen, J., Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Selbstbetrachtungen Marc Aurels. Diss. München, 1967 Dautzenberg, G., “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der įȚȐțȡȚıȚȢ ʌȞİȣȝȐIJȦȞ (I Kor. 12. 10).” Biblische Zeitschrift 15 (1971): 93-104 Dautzenberg, G., Urchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten

190

Bibliography

Korintherbrief. Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln/Mainz: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1975 De Boer, M. C., The Defeat of Death. Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988 Deissmann, A., Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. 2. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1925 De Jonge, H. J., “The Early History of the Lord’s Supper.” In Religious Identity and the Invention of Tradition, edited by J. W. van Henten and A. Houtepen, 209-37. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001 De Jonge, H. J., Avondmaal en symposium. Oorsprong en eerste ontwikkeling van de vroegchristelijke samenkomst. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 2007 Delobel, J., “Coherence and Relevance of 1 Cor. 8-10.” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 177-90. Leuven: University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996 De Oliveira, A., Die Diakonie der Gerechtigkeit und der Versöhnung in der Apologie des 2. Korintherbriefes. Analyse und Auslegung von 2 Kor 2,14-4,6; 5,11-6,10. Münster: Aschendorff, 1990 De Oliveira, A., “ ‘Ihr seid ein Brief Christi’ (2 Kor 3,3).” In Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments. Festschrift für Karl Kertelge, edited by R. Kampling and T. Söding, 356-77. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1996 Diels, H., and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 3 vols. 6. Aufl. Berlin: Weidmann, 1951 Dodds, E. R., The Ancient Concept of Progress and other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973 Downing, F. G., “Reflecting the First Century: 1 Corinthians 1312.” The Expository Times 95 (1984): 176-77 (repr. in F. G. Downing, Making Sense in [and of] the First Christian Century [Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000], 233-35) Drake Williams, III, H. H., “The Psalms in 1 and 2 Corinthians.” In The Psalms in the New Testament, edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken, 163-80. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004 Dudley, D. B., A History of Cynicism, From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. London: Methuen, 1937 Dunn, J. D. G., Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 191 with the Corinthians Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus, Paul and the Law. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990 Dupont, J., Gnosis: La connaissance religieuse dans les Épîtres de saint Paul. Bruges/Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1949 Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 Ellis, E. E., “Paul and his Co-workers.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1): 437-52 Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1978 Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987 Findlay, G. G., “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.” In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Vol. 2, 727-953. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979 Fischer, E., Die Ekloge des Phrynichos. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1974 Fishbane, M., “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek. 43.3, Num. 12.8 and 1 Cor. 13.12.” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 63-75 Fishburne, C. W., “I Corinthians III. 10-15 and the Testament of Abraham.” New Testament Studies 17 (1969-70): 109-15 Fitch, W. O., “Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ.” Theology 74 (1971): 18-24 Fotopoulos, J., Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A SocialRhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003 Fridrichsen, A., “Paulus Abortivus. Zu 1 Kor. 15,8.” In Symbolae philologicae O.A. Danielsson octogenario dicatae, edited by A. Nelson, 79-85. Uppsala: Lundequist, 1932 Friesen, I. I., The Glory of the Ministry of Jesus Christ: Illustrated by a Study of 2 Cor. 2:14-3:18. Basel: Reinhardt, 1971 Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1984 Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cambridge: University Press, 1965 Gnilka, J., Ist 1 Kor 3,10-15 ein Schriftzeugnis für das Fegfeuer? Eine exegetisch-historische Untersuchung. Düsseldorf: Triltsch, 1955

192

Bibliography

Goodspeed, E. J. (ed.), Greek Papyri from the Cairo Museum. Chicago: University Press, 1902 Greenwood, D., “Saint Paul and Natural Law.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 1 (1971): 262-79 Grenfell, B. P., and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 17 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Fund/Oxford University Press, 18981927 Grenfell, B. P., and J. P. Mahaffy, Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896 Gruber, M. M., Herrlichkeit in Schwachheit. Eine Auslegung der Apologie des Zweiten Korintherbriefs 2 Kor 2,14-6,13. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1998 Grudem, W. A., “A Response to Gerhard Dautzenberg on 1 Cor. 12. 10.” Biblische Zeitschrift NF 22 (1978): 253-70 (repr. in W. A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians [Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982], 263-88) Guthrie, W. K. C., The Sophists. Cambridge: University Press, 1971 Haacker, K., “Der ‘Antinomismus’ des Paulus im Kontext antiker Gesetzestheorie.” In Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, Band III, edited by H. Lichtenberger, 387-404. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996 Haag, E., “Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan 3:1-30.” In Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, edited by J. W. van Henten together with B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter and H. J. W. van der Klaauw, 20-50. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1989 Hafemann, S. J., Suffering and the Spirit. An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14-3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986 Hafemann, S. J., Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995 Hays, R. B., “Three Dramatic Roles. The Law in Romans 3-4.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by J. D. G. Dunn, 151-64. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996 Heckel, U., “Das Bild der Heiden und die Identität der Christen bei Paulus.” In Die Heiden, Juden, Christen und das Problem des

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 193 with the Corinthians Fremden, edited by R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel, 269-96. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994 Heiligenthal, R., Werke als Zeichen. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1983 Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis. Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts. Basel: Reinhardt, 1945 Héring, J., The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. London: Epworth Press, 1962 Hirzel, R., “ǹȖȡĮijȠȢ ȞȩȝȠȢ. Leipzig: Teubner, 1900 Hofius, O., “Die Adam–Christus–Antithese und das Gesetz: Erwägungen zu Röm 5, 12-21.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by J. D. G. Dunn, 165-206. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996 Hollander, H. W., “The testing by fire of the builders’ works: 1 Corinthians 3.10-15.” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 89-104 Hollander, H. W., “The Meaning of the Term ‘Law’ (ȞȩȝȠȢ) in 1 Corinthians.” Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 117-35 Hollander, H. W., “ ‘A Letter Written on Tablets of Human Hearts’: Ezekiel’s Influence on 2 Corinthians 3:3.” In The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence, edited by H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp, 103-21. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007 Hollander, H. W., “The Idea of Fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10.1422.” New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 456-70 Hollander, H. W., “Seeing God ‘in a riddle’ or ‘face to face’: An Analysis of 1 Corinthians 13.12.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (2010): 395-403 Hollander, H. W., “Prophecy and Glossolalia and Paul’s Concern for Order in the Christian Assembly (1 Cor 14.26-33a).” The Expository Times 124 (2013): 166-73 Hollander, H. W., “Paul’s use of the Old Testament and his attack on Apollos’ adherents in Corinth.” In The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maarten J. J. Menken, edited by B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden, 179-91. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013

194

Bibliography

Hollander, H. W., and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1985 Hollander, H. W., and J. Holleman, “The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Cor 15:56.” Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 27091 Hollander, H. W., and G. E. van der Hout, “The apostle Paul calling himself an abortion: 1 Cor. 15:8 within the context of 1 Cor. 15:810.” Novum Testamentum 38 (1996) 224-36 Horn, F. W., “1 Korinther 15,56–ein exegetischer Stachel.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1991): 88105 Horsley, G. H. R. (ed.), New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 2. North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1982 Horsley, R. A., “The Law of Nature in Philo and Cicero.” Harvard Theological Review 91 (1978): 35-59 Hübner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie. 2. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980 Hugedé, N., La métaphore du miroir dans les Épîtres de saint Paul aux Corinthiens. Neuchâtel/Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1957 James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924 Jones, F. S., “Freiheit” in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. Eine historische, exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987 Jourdan, G. V., “Ȁȅǿȃȍȃǿǹ in 1 Corinthians 10:16.” Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948): 111-24 Kammler, H.-C., Kreuz und Weisheit: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 1,10-3,4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003 Käsemann, E., “Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament.” New Testament Studies 1 (1954-5): 248-60 Kellermann, U., “Das Danielbuch und die Märtyrertheologie der Auferstehung.” In Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, edited by J. W. van Henten together with B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter and H. J. W. van der Klaauw, 51-75. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1989 Kern, O., Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin: Spemann, 1900

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 195 with the Corinthians Kindstrand, J. F., Anacharsis. The Legend and the Apophthegmata. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1981 Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 19331979 [= ThWNT] Kitzberger, I., Bau der Gemeinde. Das paulinische Wortfeld Ƞ‫ݧ‬țȠįȠȝȒ‫݋‬ʌ ȠȚțȠįȠȝİ߿Ȟ. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986 Koch, D.-A., Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986 Koch, D.-A., “Abraham und Mose im Streit der Meinungen. Beobachtungen und Hypothesen zur Debatte zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern in 2 Kor 11,22-23 und 3,7-18.” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 305-24. Leuven: Peeters, 1996 Kranz, W., “Das Gesetz des Herzens.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie NF 94 (1951): 222-41 Kremer, J., Der Erste Brief an die Korinther. Regensburg: Pustet, 1997 Kuck, D. W., Judgment and Community Conflict. Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5-4:5. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1992 Kühn, C. G. (ed.), Medicorum Graecorum Opera Quae Exstant. Leipzig: Knobloch, 1821-1833 Kuschnerus, B., Die Gemeinde als Brief Christi. Die kommunikative Funktion der Metapher bei Paulus am Beispiel von 2 Kor 2-5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002 Lake, K., The Apostolic Fathers. London: W. Heinemann, 19121913 Lambrecht, J., “Structure and Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 2,144,6.” Biblica 64 (1983): 344-80 (repr. in Studies on 2 Corinthians, edited by R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht, 257-94. Leuven: Peeters, 1994) Lang, F., Die Briefe an die Korinther. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986 Levison, J. R., Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. From Sirach to 2 Baruch. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988

196

Bibliography

Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 [1940] Lietzmann, H., and W. G. Kümmel, An die Korinther I/II. 5. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1969 Lindemann, A., “Die biblische Hermeneutik des Paulus. Beobachtungen zu 2Kor 3.” Wort und Dienst. Jahrbuch der Kirchlichen Hochschule Bethel NF 23 (1995): 126-51 Lindemann, A., Der Erste Korintherbrief. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000 Littré, E., Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocrate. Paris: Baillière, 18391861 Lovejoy, A. O., and G. Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1935 MacKenna, S., Plotinus: The Enneads. 4th ed., revised by B.S. Page. London: Faber and Faber, 1969 Malherbe, A. J., The Cynic Epistles. A Study Edition. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977 Malherbe, A. J., Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989 Malherbe, A. J., “Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9.” In Paul in His Hellenistic Context, edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 231-55. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994 Malitz, J., Die Historien des Poseidonios. München: Oscar Beck, 1983 Maly, K., Mündige Gemeinde. Untersuchungen zur pastoralen Führung des Apostels Paulus im 1. Korintherbrief. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967 Martens, J. W., “Unwritten Law in Philo: A Response to Naomi G. Cohen.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 38-45 Martens, J. W., “Romans 2.14-16: A Stoic Reading.” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 55-67 Martin, B. L., Christ and the Law in Paul. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1989 Massyngberde Ford, J., “You are God’s ‘Sukkah’ (1 Cor III.10-17).” New Testament Studies 21 (1974-5): 139-42 Mattern, L., Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus. Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli Verlag, 1966

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 197 with the Corinthians McDermott, J. M., “The Biblical Doctrine of KOINONIA.” Biblische Zeitschrift NF 19 (1975): 64-77, 219-33 Merklein, H., “Der Theologe als Prophet. Zur Funktion prophetischen Redens im theologischen Diskurs des Paulus.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 402-29 Migne, J.-P., Patrologia Graeca. 162 vols. Paris: J.-P. Migne’s Imprimerie Catholique, 1857-1866 Mitchell, M. M., “Concerning ȆǼȇǿ ǻǼ in 1 Corinthians.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 229-56 Mitchell, M. M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/Knox, 1992 Mortley, R., “The Mirror and I Cor 13,12 in the Epistemology of Clement of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 109-20 Moulton, J. H., W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963 Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament ǿllustrated from the Papyri and other ȃon-literary Sources. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1972 [1930] Munck, J., “Paulus tanquam abortivus (1 Cor. 15:8).” In New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson 1893-1958, sponsored by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, edited by A. J. B. Higgins, 180-93. Manchester: University Press, 1959 Musurillo, H., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972 Najman, H., “The Law of Nature and the Authority of Mosaic Law.” Studia Philonica Annual 11 (1999): 55-73 Najman, H., Seconding Sinai. The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2003 Nam, S.-R., Das Problem “Physis”–“Nomos” im griechischen Denken im Verhältnis zur chinesischen Philosophie. Diss. Heidelberg, 1985 Newton, D., Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998 Niccum, C., “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor. 14.34-5.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 242-55

198

Bibliography

Nickelsburg, G. W. E., “An ਩țIJȡȦȝĮ, though appointed from the womb: Paul’s apostolic self-description in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 198-205 Niehues-Pröbsting, H., Der Kynismus des Diogenes und der Begriff des Zynismus. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1979 Ollrog, W.-H., Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis des paulinischen Mission. Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979 Osburn, C. D., “The Interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35.” In Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, edited by C. D. Osburn, vol. 1, 219-42. Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1993 Panikulam, G., Koinonia in the New Testament. A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979 Pate, C. M., The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000 Pearson, B. A., The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism. Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1973 Perry, A. S., “I Corinthians xiii.12a: ȕȜȑʌȠȝİȞ Ȗ੹ȡ ਙȡIJȚ įȚૃ ਥıȩʌIJȡȠȣ ਥȞ ĮੁȞȓȖȝĮIJȚ.” The Expository Times 58 (1946-7): 279 Pesch, W., “Der Sonderlohn für die Verkündiger des Evangeliums.” In Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid, edited by J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mußner, 199-206. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963 Plummer, A., Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915 Pohlenz, M., “Nomos und Physis.” Hermes 81 (1953): 418-38 (repr. in M. Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften [Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965], 2.341-60) Poirier, J. C., “Romans 5:13-14 and the Universality of Law.” Novum Testamentum 38 (1996): 344-58 Poste, E., and E. A. Whittuck, Gai Institutiones or Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904 Powers, D. G., Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology. Leuven/Paris/Sterling, Va.: Peeters, 2001 Preisigke, F. (ed.), Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Vol. 1. Straßburg: Trübner Verlag, 1915

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 199 with the Corinthians Preuß, H. D., and K. Berger, Bibelkunde des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Vol. 2. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1980 Preuschen, E., “Das Rätselwort im Spiegel I Kor 13, 12.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900): 180-81 Provence, Th. E., “ ‘Who is Sufficient for These Things?’ An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians ii 15-iii 18.” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 54-81 Radl, W., Ankunft des Herrn. Zur Bedeutung und Funktion der Parusieaussagen bei Paulus. Frankfurt a.M./Bern/Cirencester: Lang, 1981 Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983 Reinhardt, K., Poseidonios über Ursprung und Entartung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1928 Richard, E., “Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II Cor. III, 1-IV, 6.” Revue Biblique 88 (1981): 340-67 Richardson, W., “Liturgical order and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14.26c-33a.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 144-53 Robertson, A., and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914 Sagnard, F., Clément d’Alexandrie, Extraits de Théodote. Paris: Cerf, 1948 Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983 Sanders, J. T., “Paul between Jews and Gentiles in Corinth.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997): 67-83 Sandnes, K. O., Paul–One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991 Sayre, F., Diogenes of Sinope. A Study of Greek Cynicism. Baltimore: J. H. Furst, 1938 Schade, H.-H., Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus. 2. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 Schaefer, M., “Paulus, ‘Fehlgeburt’ oder ‘unvernünftiges Kind’? Ein Interpretations-vorschlag zu 1 Kor. 15,8.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 85 (1994): 207-17 Schmithals, W., Die Gnosis in Korinth: Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen. 3. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969

200

Bibliography

Schrage, W., Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 1,1-6,11). Zürich/Braunschweig: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991 Schrage, W., Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 2. Teilband 1 Kor 6,12-11,16. Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995 Schrage, W., Der erste Brief an die Korinther. 3. Teilband 1 Kor 11,17-14,40. Zürich/Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999 Schröter, J., Der versöhnte Versöhner. Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2 Kor 2,14-7,4. Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1993 Schulz-Falkenthal, H., “ȀĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ Bemerkungen zum Ideal des naturgemäßen Lebens bei den ‘älteren’ Kyniker.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Martin Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg 26 (1977): 51-60 Seaford, R., “I Corinthians xiii.12.” The Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 35 (1984): 117-20 Seesemann, H., Der Begriff ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ im Neuen Testament. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1933 Sellin, G., “Das ‘Geheimnis’ der Weisheit und das Rätsel der ‘Christus-partei’ (zu 1 Kor 1-4).” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1982): 69-96 Sellin, G., Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung von 1 Korinther 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986 Senft, C., La Première Épître de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1979 Shanor, J., “Paul as Master Builder. Construction Terms in First Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 461-71 Smit, J. F. M., “Tongues and Prophecy: Deciphering 1 Cor. 14, 22.” Biblica 75 (1994): 175-90 Smit, J. F. M., “1 Cor. 8, 1-6: A Rhetorical Partitio. A Contribution to the Coherence of 1 Cor. 8, 1-11, 1.” In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 577-91. Leuven: University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 201 with the Corinthians Smit, J. F. M., “About the Idol Offerings”: Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1-11:1. Leuven/Paris/Sterling, Va.: Peeters, 2000 Söding, Th., “ ‘Die Kraft der Sünde ist das Gesetz’ (1 Kor 15,56). Anmerkungen zum Hintergrund und zur Pointe einer gesetzeskritischen Sentenz des Apostels Paulus.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 74-84 Staab, K. (ed.), Pauluskommentare aus der Griechischen Kirche. Münster: Aschendorf, 1933 Standhartinger, A., Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag anhand von “Joseph und Aseneth.” Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1995 Stanley, Chr. D., Paul and the language of Scripture. Citation technique in the Pauline Epistles and contemporary literature. Cambridge: University Press, 1992 Stewart, A., and G. Long, Plutarch’s Lives. 4 vols. London: George Bell & Sons, 1883-1889 St John Parry, R., The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Cambridge: University Press, 1916 Stockhausen, C. K., Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor. 3,1-4,6. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989 Straatman, J. W., Kritische Studiën over den 1en Brief van Paulus aan de Korintiërs. 2 vols. Groningen: Van Giffen, 1863-1865 Strobel, A., Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989 Sung Bok Choi, Geist und christliche Existenz. Das Glossolalieverständnis des Paulus im Ersten Korintherbrief (1Kor 14). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007 Tcherikover, V. A., and A. Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957 Theißen, G., “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare.” New Testament Studies 21 (1974-5): 192-221 (repr. in G. Theißen, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums [2. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1983], 201-30; English translation in G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982], 27-67)

202

Bibliography

Thielman, F., “The coherence of Paul’s view of the law: the evidence of First Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 235-53 Thieme, G., Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander und das Neue Testament. Inaugural-Dissertation. Borna/Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1905 Thiselton, A. C., The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000 Thrall, M. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. I. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994 Till, W., Koptische Heiligen- und Martyrerlegenden. 2 vols. Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1935-1936 Tomson, P. J., Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the letters of the apostle to the Gentiles. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990 Tromp, J., The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1993 Trumpf, J. (ed.), Anonymi Byzantini, Vita Alexandri regis Macedonum. Stuttgart: Teubner Verlag, 1974 Van Dülmen, A., Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968 Vatin, C., Recherches sur le marriage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’Époque hellénistique. Paris: de Boccard, 1970 Vielhauer, Ph., “Paulus und die Kephaspartei in Korinth.” New Testament Studies 21 (1974-5): 341-52 Vollenweider, S., Freiheit als neue Schöpfung. Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 Wallis Budge, E. A., The Queen of Sheba and her only Son Menyelek … London: Martin Hopkinson & Company, 1922 Wanamaker, C. A., “A Rhetoric of Power: Ideology and 1 Corinthians 1-4.” In Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, edited by T. J. Burke and J. K. Elliott, 115-37. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003 Wedderburn, A. J. M., Adam and Christ. Cambridge 1970 [unpublished dissertation] Weiss, J., Der Erste Korintherbrief. 9. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence 203 with the Corinthians Wenkebach, E., and F. Pfaff (eds.), Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (CMG). Vol. 5.10.2.2 Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum Librum VI Commentaria I-VIII. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956 Wevers, J. W., Ezekiel. London: Nelson, 1969 Whittaker, M., Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views. Cambridge: University Press, 1984 Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu 1. Kor. 1 und 2. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1959 Wilckens, U., “Zur Entwicklung des Paulinischen Gesetzesverständnisses.” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 15490 Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer I. 2. Aufl. Zürich/ Einsiedeln/Köln: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987 Wilk, F., Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998 Wilk, F., “Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians.” In Isaiah in the New Testament, edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken, 133-58. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2005 Willis, W. L., Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1985 Wilson, S. G., Luke and the Law. Cambridge: University Press, 1983 Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924 Winger, M., By what law? The Meaning of ȃȩȝȠȢ in the Letters of Paul. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992 Wolff, C., Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989 Wolter, M., “Ethos und Identität in Paulinischen Gemeinden.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 430-44 Yonge, C. D., The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. 4 vols. London: George Bell and Sons, 1913-1921 Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Vol. 2. 5. Aufl. Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1922 Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel, 2. Teilband. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969

204

Bibliography

Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel, 1. Teilband. 2. Aufl. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 2:17 95 3:1-24 95 3:16 135 12:7 125 26:29 150 32:30 (32:31) 50, 51

24:5-9 26 Numbers 12:6-8 49 12:8 49-52, 54 12:12 73, 77, 79-80 31:22-23 8

Exodus 3:11 85-86 4:10 85-86 4:13 85-86 15:7 9 25:23-30 26 31:18 174, 184 32:15-16 174 32:19 174 33:11 51 33:18 48 33:18-23 49 33:20-21 48 34:1 174 34:1-4 177 34:4 174 34:27-28 177 34:28-29 174 36:21 177

Deuteronomy 1:43-44 125 4:13 174 5:4 50-51 5:22 174 6:6 181 9:9-11 174 9:10 184 9:15 174 9:17 174 10:1-5 174 11:18 181 14:22-27 28 25:4 122-23, 142 32:17 28 34:10 50-52, 54

Leviticus 7:11-15 28

Judges 6:15 86

Joshua 8:31-32 (9:2) 124

Index of Ancient Sources

206

6:22

50-51

106:37 (105:37) 28

1 Samuel 9:21 86

Proverbs 2:6 152 3:3 181 7:3 181 8:10-11 9 8:19 9 10:20 8 24:12 4 30:3 152

1 Kings 7:48 26 8:9 174 1 Chronicles 22:14-16 7 29:2 7

Ecclesiastes 1:16-18 152 2:21 152 2:26 152 6:3 77, 79 6:3-5 78 9:10 152

2 Chronicles 3:6 7 5:10 174 23:18 124 32:27 9 Job 3:16 73, 77-79 5:13 155, 160 21:10 77, 79 22:25 8 41:19-21 10 Psalms 12:6 (11:7) 33:10 (32:10) 42:3 (41:4) 42:10 (41:11) 51:6 (50:8) 58:8 (57:9) 62:12 (61:13) 66:10 (65:10) 94:8 (93:8) 94:11 (93:11) 96:5 (95:5)

8 154 94 94 11 77-79 4 8 155 155, 160 28

Isaiah 1:23 33 3:3 5 5:24 10 6:5 86 10:20 10 11:2 152 13:6 10 13:9 10 14:19 77-79 19:12 94 25:8 93, 97 28:11-12 131, 142 29:14 153-54, 160 33:18 94 36:19 94 37:13 94 40:10 4

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

51:7 181 51:13 94 62:11 4 63:11 94 63:15 94 63:16 53 64:4 15 65:17 15 66:15-16 14 Jeremiah 1:6 86 1:10 5 2:28 94 17:10 4 18:9 5 24:6 5 31(38):31 185 31(38):33 168, 177, 181 32(39):39 177 Ezekiel 2:9-3:4 171 11:17 175 11:18 175 11:19 165, 175-76, 185 11:20 176 20:35 51 22:18-22 8 36:24 175 36:25 175 36:26 165, 175-76, 185 36:27 176 44:16 26 Daniel 7:9 12 11:27 37

11:38 9 Hosea 13:13 73 13:14 93-94, 97, 137 Joel 2:3 2:5 2:30

12 10 12

Amos 4:11 22 9:11 10 Obadiah 18 10 Zephaniah 1:15 10 1:18 10 2:3 10 Zechariah 3:2 22 12:3-4 10 12:6 9 13:9 8 Malachi 1:7 26 1:12 26 3:2-3 8 4:1 (3:19) 10, 12 4:1-6 (3:19-24) 10 4:4 (3:24) 124

207

Index of Ancient Sources

208

New Testament Matthew 3:10 14 6:30 10 16:27 4 Mark 4:24 5:10 5:23 6:40 13:9

6 150 150 61 6

Luke 2:22 12:2 12:15 21:9 24:44

124 12 42 56 124

John 3:30 7:23

87 124

Acts 13:39 124 15:5 124 17:18 28 18:24-19:1 3 19:25 42 28:23 124 Romans 1:5 5 2:6 4 2:12 129 2:12-16 179

2:15 168, 179 3:19 124-25 3:25 29 3:27 94, 119 3:27b 119 4:2 42 4:3 123 4:9 124 4:15b 100, 119, 140 4:23 123 4:23-24 123 5-8 90 5:9 29 5:12 98 5:12-21 99 5:13b 100, 119, 140 5:20 140 6:14-15 128 7 116 7:1-2 119 7:2 119 7:4 29 7:7 125, 140 7:14-25 12 7:21 119 7:23abc 119 7:25b 119 8:2a 119 8:2b 119 8:24-25 47 10:4 131, 184 10:12 143, 186 11:25-26 147 12:3 5 12:5 36, 59 12:6 66 13:8-10 130, 182 13:9-10 158

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

15:4 15:15 15:20 15:33 16:20

123 5 6 56 56

1 Corinthians 1-4 1-2, 145, 148-56 1-6 148 1:2 133 1:4-7 144 1:5 46 1:9 33 1:10 154 1:10-4:21 147-48, 153 1:10-6:20 159 1:11 145, 148 1:11-12 2, 147 1:12 164 1:17 147 1:18 5 1:18-25 151 1:18-3:23 154 1:19 131, 153-54 1:19-22 147 1:20 94, 154 1:21 145 1:22-24 128 1:24-27 147 1:25 130 1:27 130 1:30 147, 154 1:31 131 2:1 147 2:2 5 2:4-7 147 2:8 145 2:9 15, 131

2:11 145 2:13 147 2:14 145 2:16 145 3 3, 14, 16, 149 3:1-4 3 3:3 122 3:4-5 6 3:4-10 149 3:5 3, 171 3:5-9 1 3:5-17 154 3:6-9 3 3:7 3 3:8 4, 10, 13 3:8b 5 3:9 5 3:10 5-6, 147, 168 3:10-12 7 3:10-15 1-22 3:11 5 3:12 7, 9, 16 3:12-15 6 3:13 5, 10, 12 3:13-15 1, 10, 14, 16 3:13c 14 3:13d-15a 14 3:14-15 12 3:15 13 3:16-17 7, 22 3:17 157 3:18-20 147 3:18-23 154 3:19 131, 155 3:19-20 154 3:19a 154 3:19b-20 155 3:20 145, 155

209

210

Index of Ancient Sources

3:21-22 3, 6 3:21-23 149, 156 4:6 149 4:8 115 4:10 130 4:15 168 4:17 133, 145, 151 4:19 145 5-6 147 6:5 147 6:12 158 6:15 36 7 146, 156 7-16 148, 156-60 7:1 145 7:15 150 7:17 133 7:19 119, 129, 143, 186 7:25 145 7:31 151 7:37 158 7:39 118 8 121, 145, 148 8-10 121, 127, 146 8:1 23, 46, 56, 145-46, 156 8:1-13 23 8:2-3 145 8:4-6 27, 146 8:7 46, 130, 145 8:9 158 8:9-10 130 8:10 46, 145 8:11 46, 145 9 127 9:1 127, 158 9:1-2 167-68 9:1-5 121

9:1-23 9:1-27 9:4-6 9:6 9:7 9:7-8 9:7-10 9:7-23 9:8 9:8-9

121 23 158 121 122-23 134 126 121 100, 123-25, 135 118, 121-27, 136, 142 9:8-10 122-23 9:8a 122, 124 9:8b 122, 124 9:9 100, 122-25, 131, 134, 141-42 9:9c-10a 123, 125 9:10 39, 123 9:12 38, 158 9:12b 121 9:15a 121 9:18 127, 158 9:19 127, 158 9:20 118, 129, 141 9:20-21 158 9:20-22 127-30 9:20-22a 127 9:20a 127-29, 141 9:20b 128-29, 141 9:21 129, 143, 182 9:22 127 9:22a 130 10 23, 121 10:1-13 23 10:1-22 23 10:3-4 36 10:7 131 10:11 123

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

10:12 6 10:14 23, 25 10:14-22 23-44 10:16 24, 29, 33-35, 37, 4243 10:16-17 24 10:17 24-25, 35-36, 41-43 10:17a 37, 39, 41-42 10:17b 37, 39-42 10:18 24, 28, 33-35, 42-43 10:18-21 43 10:19 27 10:19-21 24 10:19-22 27 10:20 24, 26, 28, 33-35, 43 10:20-21 42 10:21 25, 27, 38 10:22 23, 27 10:23 157-58 10:23-11:1 23 10:29 158 10:30 39 10:32 128, 158 11-14 27 11:2-16 132 11:6 133 11:14-15 133 11:16 133 11:17-34 29 11:23-26 29 11:24 29 11:25 29, 185 11:27 29 11:28 39 12 36, 45 12-14 55, 66, 130, 145-46, 148 12:1 145

211

12:7 6 12:8 46, 145-47, 152-53 12:10 63, 65-66, 68 12:12-13 36 12:12-31 36 12:13 128, 143, 186 12:22 130 12:27 36 12:28-30 65 12:30 63 12:31-13:13 130 13 45, 47, 52, 130 13-14 145 13:1-3 45 13:2 46, 145-46, 157 13:4-7 45 13:8 46-47, 145, 157 13:8-9 53 13:8-13 45, 157 13:9 45, 47, 145, 157 13:10 45, 157 13:11 45 13:12 45-54, 145 13:12a 46-48, 50-51, 53 13:12b 45, 47, 53, 157 14 45, 55, 130, 132 14:1 56 14:2 63 14:3 56 14:3-4 55 14:3-5 6, 157 14:4 56, 63 14:5 55-56, 63 14:6 46, 145-46 14:7 145 14:9 145 14:12 6, 56, 68, 157 14:13 55, 63

212

Index of Ancient Sources

14:17 56, 157 14:20-25 130 14:21 118, 124, 130-31, 141-42 14:22 131 14:23 58 14:23-25 131 14:24 64 14:26 6, 56, 58, 63, 69, 157 14:26-33 56 14:26-33a 55-69 14:26-40 132 14:27 57, 61-63, 67 14:27-28 57-63 14:27a 63 14:28 63 14:29 57, 65-66 14:29-32 57-58, 64-68 14:29a 64 14:29b 64 14:30 67-68 14:30-32 68 14:31 57, 59, 64, 67 14:32 67-68 14:33 150 14:33a 56, 58, 68 14:33b 56 14:33b-35 133 14:33b-36 132 14:34 118-19, 124-25, 13236, 142 14:34-35 56, 132-35 14:36 133 14:37 119 14:39 56 14:40 56, 58, 69, 132 15 70, 90, 92-93, 97, 100, 115, 138

15:8 70-88 15:8-10 70-88 15:9 85 15:9-10 84-85, 87 15:10 5, 85 15:21 94 15:21-22 95, 137 15:22 94 15:26 93-94, 137 15:32 122 15:45 131 15:45-49 94-95 15:51-52 147 15:54 93 15:54-55 89, 93, 97 15:54-57 101 15:55 137 15:56 89-116, 118-19, 13642 15:56a 97, 100, 137 15:56b 100-101, 138-40 15:57 89, 93-94 16:1 145 16:10-11 145, 150 16:12 145, 150 2 Corinthians 1:7 33 2:14 168, 170 2:14-16b 165 2:14-3:6 164-65 2:14-4:6 164-65 2:14-7:4 164, 171 2:16 85 2:16c 165 2:17 165-66, 170 3:1 164, 166-67 3:1-2 182

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

3:1-3 165-78 3:2 167-70 3:2-3 167 3:3 162-86 3:4-5 85 3:4-6 165 3:6 172, 185 3:6-9 171 3:17 185 4:1 171 4:1-6 164 5:7 47 5:10 11 5:12 167 5:12-13 163 5:17 181 5:18 171 6:3-4 171 6:16 7 7:3 168 10-12 118 10-13 164 10:10 149, 163 10:12-18 167 11:4 162 11:5 118, 163 11:5-6 163 11:7-10 163 11:9-10 122 11:13 118, 163 11:15 4 11:19-20 163 11:22 163 11:22-23 163 11:30 167 12:1-5 163 12:1-10 167 12:9 167

12:11 118 12:11-12 163 12:13 122 12:13-16 163 13:11 56 Galatians 1:15 72-73 2:9 5 2:16 12, 42 3 126 3:15 122 3:19 126, 131, 184 3:23 131 3:25 131 3:28 143, 186 4:15 94 4:21 128 5:6 143, 186 5:14 130, 158, 182 6:2 119, 129-30, 158, 182 6:15 143, 181, 186 Ephesians 1:23 36 2:16 36 2:20 6 2:21 7 3:7-8 5 3:8 86 4:4 36 4:12 36 4:16 36 5:23 36 5:24 134 5:30 36

213

Index of Ancient Sources

214

Philippians 1:7 168 2:1 33 2:19-22 151 3:10 33 4:9 56 Colossians 1:18 36 2:3 152 3:15 36 3:18 134 1 Thessalonians 1:3 5 2:6-9 122 3:5 5 3:12 130, 182 4:15-17 147 5:4 10 5:23 56 2 Thessalonians 1:7 12 3:16 56 1 Timothy 1:15-16 86 2:11 134 2 Timothy 4:14 4 Titus 2:5

134

Philemon 6 33

Hebrews 9:4 174 10:25 10 10:28 124 11:31 151 12:14 151 13:20 56 1 Peter 1:7 9 1:17 4 3:1 134 3:5 134 3:20 22 4:12 9 2 Peter 3:16 90 2 John 12 172 3 John 13 172 Revelation 2-3 171 2:2 5 2:23 4 3:18 9 9:20 28 14:13 5 16:10 42 18:12 9 20:12-13 4 22:12 4

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

Apocrypha and Septuagint 1 Esdras (3 Ezra) 8:3 124 Tobit 6:13 124 7:13 124 Judith 7:15 150 9:11 87 1 Maccabees 1:22 26 4:49 26 4:51 26 Wisdom of Solomon 3:4-6 8-9 3:7 10 7:26 48 10:17 5 Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 1:30 12 2:5 8 6:10 31, 33 11:27 12 16:12-14 4 21:18 152 49:7 5 Baruch 4:7 28

Daniel (additions) 3 17-18 3:50 17-18 3:94 17-18

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Elijah 1:4 10 5:23 10 Assumption of Moses 12:6-7 86 2 Baruch 17:2-3 95 48:39 20 54:9 86 83:2-3 11 3 Baruch 4:14 150 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) 6:19 172 1 Enoch 19:1 28 41:1 21 45:3 11 48:9 10 99:5 80 99:7 28 100:7 4 100:10 11

215

216

Index of Ancient Sources

103:3 168 2 Enoch 44:5 4, 11 52:15 21 4 Ezra 3:7 95 3:22 181 3:34 21 6:21 80 6:26-28 176 7:35 10, 21 7:52-61 7 6 Ezra 1:23 10 Joseph and Aseneth 8:5 25-26 8:11 25 12:5 25 Jubilees 1:11 28 9:15 14 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 3:10 4 6:16-18 17-18 11:14 49 38:3-4 17-18 4 Maccabees 1:16 152 10:1 150

Odes of Solomon 38:16-22 5 Psalms of Solomon 13:6 18 15:4 18 Questions of Ezra B 14 4 A 39 49 Sibylline Oracles 2:252-55 19 2:254-82 80 3:72-74 14 3:257 174 5:67 94 8:43-45 94 8:79 94 8:411 20 12:113-14 56 13:107 56 14:231-33 56 Testament of Job 3:3 28 Testaments of the Three Patriarchs Testament of Abraham 3:3 15 12 21 13 14, 16 13:11-13 16 13:11-14 15 13:13 18 Testament of Isaac 5:21-25 19

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Dan 4:1 101 5:2 56 Testament of Gad 6:3 151 Testament of Joseph 17:8 87 Testament of Judah 20:4 168 21:5 26 Testament of Levi 8:16 26 Vision of Ezra 3-10 19

De confusione linguarum 5 6 87 6 De decalogo 48 9 105 48 De ebrietate 47 120 76 56 141-43 120 193 120 195 120 198 120

Dead Sea Scrolls

De fuga et inventione 82 152 213 48

1QH IV, 10 181

De gigantibus 30 6

Philo

De Iosepho 90 66 93 66 104 66 110 66 125 66 143 66 184 42 196 27 269 66

De Abrahamo 3-6 178 5 109 10 172 16 109 135 120 275-76 178 De cherubim 101 6

De migratione Abrahami 33 80 85 174

217

218

Index of Ancient Sources

De mutatione nominum 15 47 211 6

De virtutibus 10 138 65 120

De opificio mundi 134-69 95-96 140 98-99 141 99 148 99 152 95-96, 98 167 135

De vita contemplativa 34 6

De plantatione 27 48 De posteritate Caini 15-16 47 169 47 De praemiis et poenis 40 47 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 80 8 De somniis 1.66 47 2.7 66 2.8 6 De specialibus legibus 1.46-47 47 1.221 28, 31, 34, 37 3.96 36 4.119 34 4.149-50 178

De vita Mosis 1.276 28 1.300 120 Legum allegoriae 1.48 5 1.76 80 3.97-103 48 3.100-101 47 3.101 48 3.103 49 Questiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.32 99 1.40 99 1.51 96 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 116 6 167 174 262 52 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 89 47 159 125 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 99 125

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

Quod omnis probus liber sit 46 174, 178, 180 59 158

Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 3.142 60-61 4.204 32 4.210 168 4.322 120 5.172 60-61 8.148 66 16.277 120 Bellum judaicum 2.132 62 6.153 9 Contra Apionem 1.114 66 2.145-295 114 2.167 47 2.172 120 2.178 180 2.201 135

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 2:3 152 4:7-8 174 6:14 175 7:9 10 14:2-3 174 15:1 51 16:7 28

21:3

10

1 Clement 2:8 181 3:2 56 20:10-11 151 34:3 4 43:2 26 49:1 182 57:2 87 2 Clement 16:3 11 17:4 4 Didache 16:5 9, 13 Ignatius To the Ephesians 20:2 37 To the Romans 9:2 82-83, 86 Martyrdom of Polycarp 15-16 18 15:2 9 Shepherd of Hermas Similitudes 4.3 11 5.4.1 150 9.18.1 53 Visions 2.2.1 150 4.3.4 8, 9, 13

219

220

Index of Ancient Sources

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acta Pauli et Theclae 3 71 Apocalypse of Peter 6 20 26 82 Apocalypse of PseudoMethodius 11:14 9 Apostolic Constitutions 8.12.7 152 Martyrdom of Paese and Thecla (ed. Till) 1.77-80 (1.89-90) 18 Martyrdom of Pionius 22 18 Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 8.20.1 34 8.23.2 34 17.18.6 49

Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Aelius Aristides Orationes 2.1.38-39 126 2.1.227 125

2.1.271 2.2.340

125 138

Antiphon frg. 44A, col. 1 103 frg. 44A, col. 2 103 frg. 44A, col. 6 103 Aristides Apologia 15.3

181

Aristotle De generatione animalium 4.5 (773b) 75 Historia animalium 9(7).3 (583b) 76 Meteorologica 341b 27 9 Problemata 1.9 (860a) 76 Rhetorica 1.15 (1375ab) 125, 178 1.15.12 (1375b) 125 Cicero De domo sua 49 141 127 141 De finibus 4.61 120 5.11 120 De legibus 1.6.18-19 178 1.15.42 178 2.4.10 107 2.5.13 107 2.23 120

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

2.16.43 107 2.17.42 107 De re publica 1.2-3 120 1.3 114 2.64 120 Paradoxa Stoicorum 34 158 Pro Tullio 9 140-41 Tusculanae disputationes 1.47 47 2.34 126 Claudius Ptolemaeus Tetrabiblos 3.4.116 76 Clement of Alexandria Excerpta Theodoti D 68 84 Quis dives salvetur 22 56 Critias frg. 25 104 Demosthenes Contra Leocharem 67 125 Contra Macartatum 55 125 Didymus Alexandrinus Fragmenta in Epistulam i ad Corinthios (ed. Staab) 6-7 82

Dio Chrysostom Orationes 13.13 138 13.31 60-61 14.13-18 158 17.3-4 138 17.6 138 30.41-42 62 30.42 60-61 31.140-41 178 74.1 138 74.9 138 75.1 106 75.2 106 76 120 76.1 106 76.1-5 178 76.3 106, 174, 180 76.4 106, 140 80.3-6 178 80.4 106, 140 80.5 107, 174 80.6 107 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 1.94.1-2 126 1.94.2 126 3.29.2 9 3.64.4 76 4.2.3 76 5.21.5 9 5.46.7 26 16.41.5 9 17.10.5 66 20.65.1 9 40.3.3-8 126 40.3.5 120

221

222

Index of Ancient Sources

Diogenes Laertius De clarorum philosophorum vitis 1.64-65 110 2.68-69 114 2.93 120 3.86 178 5.20 113-14 6.11 114 6.63 105, 139 6.71 104 6.71-72 139 6.72 105 7.124 32 7.125 158 8.35 37 9.61 120 9.95 120 Epictetus Dissertationes 1.13.5 107, 139 1.29.4 107 1.29.13 107 2.1.23 158 2.15.8 6 2.16.37 158 3.10.17 94 3.17.6 107 3.22.63 32 4.1.1 158 4.1.158 105, 139 4.3.12 107 4.7.17 105, 139 4.8.17 63

Epiphanius Adversus haereses (Panarion) 3.2.9 104 Eusebius Commentaria in Isaiam 40.11 83 Historia ecclesiastica 5.1.11 83 5.1.45 83 Gaius Institutiones 1.1 179 Galenus In Hippocratis Epidemiarum Librum VI Commentaria 1.2 75 Gregory of Nyssa Ad imaginem Dei et ad similitudinem (PG 44:1328-29) 83 Heraclitus frg. 112 102 frg. 114 102 Herodotus Historiae 1.143.3 39 1.144.1 39 1.144.3 40 1.181.5 26 1.183.1 26 3.29.3 42

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

3.32.4 76 8.132 40 8.132.2 40 Hippocrates De aere, aquis, locis 101 De mulierum affectibus 1.78 75 Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.17.6 84 6.31.2 84 6.31.4 84 6.36.3 84 History of the Rechabites 18.4 151 Homer Odyssea 15.197 41-42 Hyperides Adversus Athenogenem 13 125 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.4.1 84 1.8.2 84 Isocrates Areopagiticus 41 181

223

Joannes Tzetzes Historiarum variarum chiliades 5.515 71 John Chrysostom Adversus Catharos (PG 63:492 [355]) 82 Catenae in epistulas ad Corinthios (ed. Cramer) 5.286-87 82 Homilia 38 in I. Epistulam ad Corinthios (PG 61:326-29) 82 Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone 30.3 28 55.2 28 73.2 28 Kebra Nagast 96 48 Lactantius Divinarum institutionum libri VII 7.21 17, 19-20 Libanius Epistulae 245.6 125 Orationes 33.15 125 Lucian Cynicus 7 27

224

Demonax 3 114 5 114 59 114, 139 De morte Peregrini 13 182 Patriae laudatio 4 136 Toxaris 25 27 Lysias Orationes 2.81 120 6.10 178 Marcus Aurelius Meditationes 10.31 94 12.27 94 Maximus Tyrius Dissertationes 6.5 105, 139, 178 36.5 105 36.6 105 Medicorum Graecorum Opera (ed. Kühn) 4.631.15 75 4.662.17 75 17,2.849.13 75 Pedanius Dioscorides De materia medica 4.185 76

Index of Ancient Sources

Phrynichus Arabius Ecloga 179 74 258 74 Plato Euthydemus 301E 53 Gorgias 482C-484B 125 Leges 793AB 178 959B 125 Minos 125 Phaedrus 246E-247A 60 276A-C 181 Politicus 295A 178 295E 178 298DE 174, 178 Protagoras 337CD 102-103 Respublica 404E-405A 113 451B 125 563D 178 604B 125, 136 Symposium 176A 27 Theaetetus 152A 102 Plotinus Enneades 3.2.9 125 5.3.4 180

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

Plutarch Ad principem ineruditum 3 (Mor. 780C) 174, 178, 180 3 (Mor. 780E) 126 5 (Mor. 781F) 48 Alexander 26 (Vit. par. 679F) 5 Amatorius 5 (Mor. 752A) 32 Artaxerxes 18.6 (Vit. par. 1020C) 32 Brutus 13.7 (Vit. par. 989F) 27, 32 Conjugalia praecepta 31-32 (Mor. 142CD) 133 33 (Mor. 142E) 134 Consolatio ad Apollonium 15 (Mor. 110D) 94 De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute 1.7 (Mor. 329E) 37 De Iside et Osiride 76 (Mor. 382AB) 48 De recta ratione audiendi 14 (Mor. 45E) 32 Dion 32.3 (Vit. par. 972D) 31 Galba 19.7 (Vit. par. 1061E) 41 Lucullus 16.3 (Vit. par. 501E) 31, 34 Lycurgus 5.3 (Vit. par. 42B) 126 13.1-2 (Vit. par. 47A) 180 28.1 (Vit. par. 56F) 111

225

Maxime cum principibus viris philosopho esse disserendum 4 (Mor. 779B) 168 Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 14 (Mor. 1096C) 9 Numa 4.7 (Vit. par. 62D) 126 22.2 (Vit. par. 74CD) 174 22.2-4 (Vit. par. 74CD) 180 25.9-10 (Vit. par. 77AB) 133 Quaestionum convivalium libri IX 2.10.1 (Mor. 643A) 30 2.10.1-2 (Mor. 642F-644D) 30 4. praef. 1 (Mor. 660B) 30 5.5.2 (Mor. 679AB) 60 7.6.2 (Mor. 707C) 31, 34 7.6.3 (Mor. 708D) 31 9.1.1 (Mor. 736DE) 37 Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 23 (Mor. 64D) 40 Septem sapientium convivium 4 (Mor. 149F) 30, 34, 37 5 (Mor. 150D) 27 15 (Mor. 158C) 27, 30 Solon 5.2 (Vit. par. 80F) 110 5.2-3 (Vit. par. 80F-81A)140 5.3 (Vit. par. 80F) 110 17.3 (Vit. par. 87E) 173 25.1 (Vit. par. 92A) 174 Vitae decem oratorum 7.1 (Mor. 841E) 172-73

226

Index of Ancient Sources

Pseudo-Diogenes Epistula 28 112-13, 140 Pseudo-Heraclitus Epistula 7 111, 140 Pseudo-Socrates Epistula 6 136 Sacramentarium Serapionis 11.1-2 152 Seneca Epistulae morales 90.4-6 109 102.28 47 Seneca the Elder Controversiae 1.1.14 178 Severian of Gabala Fragmenta in Pauli epistulas (ed. Cramer) 5.286-87 83 Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes 1.216 102 Strabo Geographica 6.1.8 113 10.4.19 126 15.1.65 105 16.2.34-40 108 16.2.35-39 126 16.2.36 108

16.2.37 108 16.2.38 126 16.2.39 108 Tacitus Annales 3.26 109 Theodoret of Cyrus Interpretationes in Pauli epistulas, I. ad Corinthios 15:8 (PG 82:352) 83 Thucydides Historiae 2.37.3 178 2.43.3 180 7.63.4 32 Vettius Valens Anthologiae 1.24 (1.22.1) 76 Vita Alexandri 39.8 75-76 Xenophon Anabasis 2.5.5 42 Memorabilia 2.1.32 32 4.4.13-14 103 Symposium 2.1 27

Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians

Papyri and Inscriptions Inscription from Magnesia (ed. Kern) no. 116, l. 16 41 Inscription from Ptolemais (ed. Preisigke) no. 3451 76 Inscription from Smyrna (?) (ed. Horsley, 2.82) l. 5 76 Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (eds. Grenfell and Hunt) 12.1408, l. 26 40

227

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (ed. Horsley) 38, col. 2, l. 22 76 Papyrus Cairo Goodspeed (ed. Goodspeed) no. 15 76 Papyrus Michigan (ed. Horsley) no. 5, ll. 20-22 76 Papyrus Revenue Laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (eds. Grenfell and Mahaffy) col. 14, ll. 9-11 40 Papyrus Tebtunis (eds. Tcherikover and Fuks) no. 800 79-80