Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:47:04.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Gospel and Social Practice according to 1 Corinthians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

T. Engberg-Pedersen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Paul's thought forms a unity of a very peculiar kind. It certainly has a single focus: Christ, but this fact is not in itself sufficient to bring the many disparate elements in his thought together to form the unity that it manifestly has. Nor is that unity that of a system. The search for a Pauline ‘system’ of beliefs (δόγματα) with clearly defined relations between them is in vain – and even more so is the attempt to find a single formula supposed to express the whole of his thought. The immense diversity of his thinking should never be forgotten.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 557 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

NOTES

[1] I am thinking primarily of the following two papers by Theissen: ‘Die Starken und Schwachen in Korinth, Soziologische Analyse eines theologischen Streites’, Ev.Th. 35 (1975) 155–72;Google Scholar‘Soziale Integration und sakramentales Handeln, Eine Analyse von 1 Cor. XI 17–34’, Nov. Test. 16 (1974) 179–205;Google Scholar also relevant is ‘Soziale Schichtung in der korinthischen Gemeinde, Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentums’, ZNW 65 (1974) 232–72.Google Scholar These papers are collected, with others, in Theissen, G., Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, WUNT 19Google Scholar, Tübingen, , 1983 (2nd ed), from which I quote. All three papers are translated into English in Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, ed. Schütz, John H. (Edinburgh, 1982).Google Scholar

[2] ‘Die Starken und Schwachen in Korinth’.

[3] ‘Soziale Integration und sakramentales Handeln’.

[4] ‘Die Starken und Schwachen’, 287–9 (English ed. 138–40), ‘Soziale Integration’, 311–17 (English ed. 163–8); see also ‘Soziale Schichtung’, 268–71 (English ed. 106–10).

[5] ‘Die Starken’, 288 (English ed. 139–40), ‘Soziale Integration’, 312 (English ed. 164), ‘Soziale Schichtung’, 268, 271 (English ed. 107–8, 109). Theissen is following Troeltsch, E., ‘Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen’, Gesammelte Schriften 1 (1923) 67–83.Google Scholar

[6] ‘Soziale Schichtung’, 268–9 (English ed. 107).

[7] A convincing reconstruction of the central features of the historical situation behind the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians is given by Hyldahl, Niels, in Die paulinische Chronologie, Acta Theologica Danica 19 (Leiden: E. J. Brill [1986]) 18–106.Google Scholar

[8] I am only concerned here with what I consider to be the ‘argument’ of the passage. The recent work from which I have benefited most is Sellin, G., ‘Das “Geheimnis” der Weisheit und das Rätsel der “Christuspartei” (zu 1 Kor 1–4)’, ZNW 73 (1982) 69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Theissen, G., Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie, FRLANT 131 (Göttingen, 1983) 341–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[9] The structure of 8. 31–35 is intricate. Rather than understand 32 as taking up the protasis of 31b and 33–34 as taking up the apodosis of 31b (so U. Wilckens in his commentary, EKK VI 1–3, 1978–82 ad loc.), one should presumably emphasize the constant contrast: if God …, then who …? (31b). Thus 32 will mean that when God has given his own son on behalf of man, he will give everything, i.e. there will be nobody who may take away anything from man. 33a will have the same logical structure (see the text). 33b will go with 34a, and 34b will go with 35a with Christ playing the role earlier played by God.

[10] The interpretation I have given of the content of Christian wisdom is indebted to Theissen's, G. discussion in Psychologische Aspekte 367–8. I have attempted to argue for it a little more comprehensively than does Theissen. Note that the account I give below of chapters 3 and 4 is also part of this argument.Google Scholar

[11] It is reassuring that although his approach is entirely different from mine (it is in the main traditionsgeschichtlich) and although he is not concerned, as I am, to discover the unity of meaning of chapters 1–4 as a whole, Sellin, G. reaches what is basically the same ‘textual’ understanding of chapter 3, especially of its last verses (18–23);Google Scholar see ‘Das “Geheimnis”’ 92–6.

[12] I take it that a clear distinction can be upheld between on the one hand participating in non-Christian religious service, i.e. ειδωλολατρία – the subject of 10. 1–22, and on the other hand eating meat (that may have been consecrated to heathen idols) in non-religious situations – the subject of chapters 8–9 and 10. 23–11. 1. 1 also believe that it can be shown that 10. 23–31 differs from 8. 4–13 in that Paul's subject in the later passage is the behaviour of (strong) Christians, with respect to eating of meat, in relation to non-Christians, whereas in the former it is the mutual relationship of strong and weak Christians only. Thus 10. 1–22 does not so clearly break up an otherwise coherent whole as it is normally taken.

[13] Cf. Theissen, , ‘Die Starken’, 277–9Google Scholar (English ed. 127–9).

[14] This interpretation should be compared with the widely different one given by Theissen, G. in ‘Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare’, NTS 21 (1974–1975) 192–221, 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Theissen, , Studien, 216).Google Scholar Theissen ascribes to Paul an attempt to reinterpret as a right what was originally an injunction about how to live as a missionary preacher. By so doing Paul attempts to defend his own behaviour against critics who had claimed that in his behaviour he showed himself not to be a genuine ‘apostle’. I believe that the (traditional) interpretation that I have adopted (and the way I develop it further on in the text) fits better with the actual position of chapter 9: 8. 1–11. 1 constitutes a single argumentative unit – even if a slightly loose one (cf. note 12 above).