Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T16:14:26.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Gnostic Were the Corinthians?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

R. Mcl. Wilson
R. Mcl. Wilson
Affiliation:
(St Andrews, Scotland)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , October 1972 , pp. 65 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

page 65 note 1 I do not consider the Thessalonian letters to show any relation to Gnosticism; for Galatians, see Studia Evangelica, IV (Berlin, 1968), 358–67.Google Scholar

page 65 note 2 Recently revived in the posthumous work of Langerbeck, Hermann, Aufsäze zur Gnosis (Göttingen, 1967);Google Scholar cf. Pétrement, S., Rev. de Métaphysique et de Morale, LXXIV (1969), 438 ff.Google ScholarMlle Pétrement herself upholds the traditional view in several publications, e.g. in Le Origini dello Gnosticismo (ed. Bianchi, Leiden, 1967), pp. 460 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 65 note 3 Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968), p. 2;Google ScholarConzelmann, Hans, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen, 1969), p. 26.Google Scholar

page 66 note 1 For example, Montefiore, H. W. suggests (The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1964, pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar) that Hebrews was written by Apollos to Cortinth, and thus was a factor in the situation with which Paul had to deal; for criticism, cf. Barrett, pp. 8 ff.

page 66 note 2 Barrett (p. 148) refers to ‘the libertine claims of the Christ-group’; cf. also his quotation from T. W. Manson on p. 45.

page 66 note 3 N.T.S. XVII (1971), 236.Google Scholar

page 66 note 4 Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen, 1964).Google Scholar On the ‘divine men’ generally (but with particular reference to the Gospel tradition) see now Smith, Morton, J.B.L. XC (1971), 174 ff.Google Scholar

page 66 note 5 N.T.S. XII (1966), 105 ff.Google Scholar

page 66 note 6 Op. cit. p. 123.

page 67 note 1 Cf. N.T.S. XVII (1971), 365 ff.Google Scholar

page 67 note 2 Urgemeinde, Judenchristentum, Gnosis (Tübingen, 1956), p. 30.Google Scholar

page 67 note 3 The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed. J. P. Hyatt, Nashville, 1965), p. 291.Google Scholar

page 67 note 4 Die Vorstellung vom Schöpfungsmittler (TU82, Berlin, 1961), p. 3.Google Scholar

page 67 note 5 Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (ed. Klassen and Snyder, London, 1962), p. 236.Google Scholar

page 68 note 1 On the queation of definition cf. the Forschungsbericht by Rudolph, KurtTh.R. XXXVI (1971), 6 ff.Google Scholar, who experesses doubts about the Auseinanderreissen of Gnosis and Gnosticism (pp. 18 ff.). What is envisaged above, however, is not an absolute separation, but a distinction between what is clearly and unambiguously gnostic in the strict sense, and trends and tendencies which are akin to it but po not necessarily imply the existence of a fully deveoped Gnosticism.

page 69 note 1 Cf. Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Chrisitian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge, 1965), p. 13:Google Scholar ‘no Stoic or Aristotelian, and no orthodox Platonist, could condemn the cosmos as a whole. When we meet such condemnation we must suspect that it derives ultimately from a source further east, a dualism more redical than Plato's.’ Früchetel, Ursula (Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien, Leiden, 1968)Google Scholar observes at several points that both Philo and the gnostics were drawing on the philosophy of their time.

page 69 note 2 The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 98.Google Scholar

page 69 note 3 E.g. the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Mary, the Apocalypse of Adam, the Epistle of Eugnostus. A classic example is of course Reitzenstein's analysis of the Naassenerpredigt in his Poimandres (Leipzig, 1904), pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar

page 69 note 4 Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen, 1971), p. 201;Google Scholar cf. also § 15 of Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament.

page 69 note 5 Op. cit. 38.

page 69 note 6 N.T.S. XVII (1971), 405 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 69 note 7 Op. cit. p. 202.

page 70 note 1 I Corinthians, p. 109; cf. also Schottroff, L., Nov. Test. XI (1969), 302.Google Scholar

page 70 note 2 Op. cit. p. 144.

page 70 note 3 Op. cit. p. 220.

page 70 note 4 In Sacramentum Mundi (London, 1968). II, 378.Google Scholar

page 70 note 5 Op. cit. p. 202.

page 70 note 6 H.T.R. LXII (1964), 278.Google Scholar As Nock aptly puts it, ‘the emergence of Jesus … precipitated elements previously suspended in solution’.

page 71 note 1 The Tests of Life (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 25.Google Scholar Barrett in his commentary (p. 55) goes rather further and affirms ‘There was for example Jewish gnosticism in Corinth’ – but at what stage of development?

page 71 note 2 N.T.S. XVII (1971), 236.Google Scholar

page 71 note 3 Op. cit. p. 29.

page 72 note 1 Cf. Lohse p. 202, cited above p. 69.

page 72 note 2 Op. cit. p. 131.

page 72 note 3 Conzelmann (loc. cit. n. 5) refers to the closing words of the Poimandres in the Corpus Hermeticum (CH I. 32).

page 72 note 4 I Cor. p. 145.

page 72 note 5 Op. cit. p. 37.

page 72 note 6 Op. cit. pp. 17 f.

page 72 note 7 Cf. Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit (Tübingen, 1959),Google Scholar with Köster's, reveiew in Gnomon, XXXIII (1961), 590 ff.Google Scholar and Prümm in ZKT LXXXVII (1965), 399 ff.Google Scholar; LXXXVIII (1966), 1 ff.

page 73 note 1 Cf. Zandee, J. in Le Origini dello Gnosticismo, pp. 209 ff.Google Scholar

page 73 note 2 In this connection reference may be made, among recent literature, to Schottroff, L., Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt (Neukirchen, 1970)Google Scholar, who writes ‘Wie vor allem H. Jonas und C. Cople nachgewiesen haben, ist es verfehlt, gnostiache Texte im Blick auf einen aus ihnen zu rekonstruierenden, hinter diesen Texten im Dunkel liegenden Mythos zu betrachten, ist es verfehlt, mythische Motive aus den verschiedensten Texten zu addieren bzw. zurechtzurücken, bis sich das bekannte Bild eines gnostischen Mythos bietet, der “alt” ist, jedenfalls älter als die uns bekannten gnostischen Texte, und der dann sienen “Einfluß” z. B. auf neutestamentliche Christologien ausgeübt haben könnte’ (1 f.). Dr Schottroff herself however has not altogether avoided this crror. Cf. also Wedderburn, A. J. M., Scot. Journ. Theol. XXIV (1971), esp. pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar