Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:35:51.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

1 Corinthians 9.9–11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do not Muzzle the Ox’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

D. Instone Brewer
D. Instone Brewer
Affiliation:
(12 Crundale Crescent, Llanishen, Cardiff CF4 5PY, Wales)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Paul interprets ‘Do not muzzle the ox while threshing’ as ‘do not neglect to pay Christian ministers’, commentators have quite naturally assumed that his exegesis was allegorical. However, comparisons with contemporary rabbinic exegesis suggest that this would have been regarded as a literal interpretation of the plain meaning of the text.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 554 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hanson, A. T., Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology (London: SPCK, 1974) 161.Google Scholar

2 Bruce, F. F., ‘Abraham Had Two Sons — a Study in Pauline Hermeneutics’, New Testament Studies – Essays in Honor of Ray Summers in his Sixty Fifth Year (ed. Drum-wright, H. L. and Vaughan, C.: Waco, Texas; Baylor University, 1975) 71–83: 83.Google Scholar

3 Michel, O., Paulus und seine Bibel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972) 110.Google Scholar

4 Hanson, A. T., The Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983) 136.Google Scholar

5 Hanson, Studies, 166.

6 Jeremias, J., ‘Paulus als Hillelit’, Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honor of Matthew Black (ed. Ellis, E. and Wilcox, M.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969) 88–94: 89.Google Scholar

7 Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 407.Google Scholar

8 Lenski, R. C. H., The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1937) 361–2.Google Scholar

9 G. D. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 408.

10 Kaiser, W. C. Jr, ‘The Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apostolic use of Deuteronomy 25.4 in 1 Corinthians 9.8–10’, JETS 21 (1973) 3–18.Google Scholar

11 These are probably two names for one group which may have existed before 70 CE – see: Lauterbach, J. Z., ‘Ancient Jewish Allegorists in Talmud and Midrash’, JQR NS 1 (1910–1911) 291–333, 503–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lévi, I., ‘Les Dorshé Reschoumot’, REJ 60 (1910) 24–31Google Scholar; Ginzberg, L., ‘The Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture’, On Jewish Law and Lore (New York: KTAV, 1955) 127–60 or JE 1 (1901) 403–11.Google Scholar

12 Bonsirven showed that the rabbis frequently employed allegory, but he found no examples before 70 CE and few in the 1st cent.: ‘Exégèse allegorique chez les Rabbins Tan-naites’, RSR 23 (1933) 513–41Google Scholar, and Exégèse Rabbinique et Exégèse Paulinienne (Paris: Beauchesne & Sons, 1939).Google Scholar

13 Brewer, D. Instone, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1992).Google Scholar

14 Other important studies not otherwise cited include: Noonan, J. T. Jr, ‘The Muzzled Ox’, JQR 70 (1980) 172–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lee, G. M., ‘Studies in Texts: 1 Corinthians 9.9–10’, Theology 71 (1968)122–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 H. Thackeray, St. J. pointed out (in The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought [London & New York: Macmillan, 1900] 194)Google Scholar that πάντω could be translated ‘surely’, as in the Vulgate (utique instead of omnino). He claimed that Paul used πάντω in this sense in every instance except 1 Cor 9.22. Although he may have spoiled his case by over-stating it, this is a valuable suggestion which has been taken up by many scholars. It is especially valuable because it appears to remove the implication that Paul is denying the plain meaning of the text. However, it still leaves the question as to why Paul wrote in such a dangerously ambiguous manner. In the present exegesis, πάντω can be read as either ‘surely’ or ‘altogether’.

16 Alford, H., The Greek Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1958) 2.544.Google Scholar

17 Quoted in Lenski, 361.

18 Weiss, J., Der Erste Korintherbrkf (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 237.Google Scholar

19 Conzelmann, H., I Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 155.Google Scholar

20 Robertson, A. and Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1914) 185.Google Scholar

21 L. Ginzberg (‘Allegorical Interpretation’) and Bonsirven (Exégèse Rabbinique, 227–8) argued that Paul could have derived his ruling in 1 Cor 9.9–11Google Scholar from this exegesis alone.

22 Etheridge, J. W., The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum (New York: KTAV, 1968) 632.Google Scholar

23 The better MS evidence for φιμώσεις is outweighed by the likelihood that κημώσεις would have been absorbed from the LXX.

24 Cf. Hooker, M. D., ‘Beyond the Things That Are Written? St Paul's Use of Scripture’, NTS 27 (1980–1981) 295–309:305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 The exactly equivalent phrase occurs in rabbinic sources, e.g. b.Yoma 35b, 66a.

26 Cohn-Sherbok, D., ‘Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis’, SJT 35 (1982) 117–32:132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (London: SCM, 1985) 107.Google Scholar