Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:20:35.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ΣΟΦIA in 1 Corinthians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Michael D. Goulder
Michael D. Goulder
Affiliation:
Birmingham, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1 Corinthians presents many problems, whose difficulty consists in large measure in their interrelatedness; but the major problem of the first four chapters is the nature of the σοφία against which Paul polemicizes. This is especially mysterious because the apostle treats it with unquestionable seriousness, and yet it does not apparently recur in any other letter, not even in 2 Corinthians. As it is so closely linked in the text with the σχίσματα which are the topic of 1.12–17, 3.1–17 and 3.22–3, if not other verses, it is necessary to begin with a brief discussion of that question.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 1991 , pp. 516 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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 Cf. Sellin, G., ‘Hauptprobleme des Ersten Korintherbriefes’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.25.4 (Berlin/New York, 1988) 2940–3044.Google Scholar

2 These are listed in many commentaries: cf. recently Fascher, E., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 1. Teil (3. Aufl.; Berlin, 1984) 90–2.Google Scholar

3 Bibliothek für Kritik und Exegese (1797) I, 91.Google Scholar

4 Baur cites Schmidt, in ‘Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde’, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie (3. Heft; 1831) 76.Google Scholar

5 Variations of it are defended by Barrett, C. K., ‘Cephas and Corinth’, Abraham unser Vater. Festschrift für Otto Michel (Leiden, 1963) 1–12Google Scholar, and Vielhauer, P., ‘Paulus und die Kephaspartei in Korinth’, NTS 21 (1974/5) 341–52Google Scholar. But Dahl, N. A. says of it: ‘there is wide negative agreement that in I Corinthians Paul is not opposing Judaizers’ (‘Paul and the Church at Corinth according to 1 Corinthians 1:10–4:21’, in Christian History and Interpretation. Studies Presented to John Knox [Cambridge, 1967] 315).Google Scholar

6 Standard Jewish use omitted the divine name, yehi raşon (lepaneika), Schrenk, G., TDNT 3Google Scholar, θέλημα, 54; cf. Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans (ET: London, 1980 = Tübingen, 1973) 70, ad 2.18, ‘As in I Cor. 16.12, θέλημα in the absolute denotes in good rabbinic fashion the divine will.’Google Scholar

7 Baur took it in this sense, 99; as does Dahl, art. cit., 323. But the meaning is much disputed, cf. Barrett, , The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1973) 256–7.Google Scholar

8 Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (ET: Edinburgh, 1982) 67Google Scholar, ‘The slogan (“I am of Christ”) does not arise from local Christians but (at least originally) from itinerant missionaries (cf. Mark 9.41).’

9 So Barrett, , A Commentary on The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; London, 1971) 105–6Google Scholar. Hooker, M. D., ‘“Beyond the Things Which Are Written”: An Examination of I Cor.iv.6’, NTS 10 (1963/4), 127–32Google Scholar, among others, takes the clause to refer to the images of gardening and building in ch. 3: but these are ten verses back, and there is no parallel for μετασχηματίζειν to mean ‘express in metaphors’.

10 So Barrett, , First Corinthians, 87–8.Google Scholar

11 Aëtius Placita 1.2; Sextus Empiricus Math. 9.13; cf. Fohrer, G., TDNT 8Google Scholar, σοφία, 473. The phrase is a tag, and reappears in 4 Mace 1.16, and in Latin in Cicero Tusc. 4.25.37.

12 Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (ET: London, 1974 = 2nd German edn. 1973) I, 161Google Scholar. Hengel cites Fichtner, J.: ‘Over against Hellenism and its wisdom, a wisdom in Judaism could only assert itself if it approximated to the factor which played the decisive role in this struggle on the side of the Jews: the law’ (Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischer Ausprägung [Giessen, 1933] 127).Google Scholar

13 Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, 1987) 806Google Scholar, is not untypical in calling it ‘this theological aside’ – like Cato the Censor perhaps, who was said to have ended every speech, ‘Ceterum censeo delendam esse Karthaginem’.

14 M. Aboth 1.1. Moore, G. F. renders, ‘Moses received the Law (written and unwritten) from Sinai’, Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1927) I, 255–6.Google Scholar

15 Cf. Davies, J. A., Wisdom and Spirit (Lanham, Md., 1984) 18ff.Google Scholar

16 M. Neg. 9.3, 11.7. Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Rev. edn. edd. G. Vermes etc.; Edinburgh, 1979–87) 2, 342.Google Scholar

17 The long text is printed in NA26 with brackets and a D vote – Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 1971) 546Google Scholar. But it is stronger than this. πειθο is an Atticism (dat. of the neuter Attic noun πειθώ), while the adj. πειθός is a hapax in all Greek writing. But it is formed from the verb like Matthew's φάγος, and Paul himself writes many such nouns/adjectives, λοίδορος, μέθυσος, μοιχός, πόρνος; no Greek father demurs at πειθος.

18 Horsley, R. A. has argued for σοφία = eloquence in his ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom at Corinth’, CBQ 39 (1977) 224–39Google Scholar. He bases the case on Philo, the basis of many cases: but the ‘taught words of human wisdom’ do not read naturally as eloquence.

19 Die Korintherbriefe (Stuttgart, 1962).Google Scholar

20 On the hakam and sofer cf. Schürer, (new edn.) 2, 324 f.; on the doreš, 339.Google Scholar

21 See BAG ad voc. Hartman, Lars, ‘Some Remarks on 1 Cor.2:l–5’, SEA 39 (1974) 101–20Google Scholar, admits this (119) in an article claiming that 1 Cor 1–2 reflects Greek rhetoric. Note also the absence of ῥήτωρ.

22 E.g. b. Git. 67a; cf. Schürer, (new edn.) 2, 325.Google Scholar

23 ‘Not walking έν πανουργίą’ (4.2) apparently echoes Jewish Christian accusations that Paul was πανοργος (12.16); ‘… nor δολοντες the word of God’ could reflect criticism that he permitted uncircumcision (cf. 2.17); ‘commending ourselves’ looks like a contrast with the opposition's letters of commendation (3.1). Cf. Barrett, , Second Corinthians, 128.Google Scholar

24 Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians (ET: Philadelphia, 1975 = German 1969), 46Google Scholar, cites (as is normal) Mark 8.11 parr.; but the Pharisees' demand from Jesus probably represents Mark's own experience in the Pauline movement of Christian Pharisees' demands for signs.

25 It is often remarked that Luke seems anxious to keep Paul's miracles in Acts level with Peter's; and that he has some difficulty doing so. E. Käsemann stressed the difference between Luke's view of Paul's σημεα and his own view, ‘Die Legitimät des Apostels’, ZNW 41 (1942–3) 33–71Google Scholar; cf. Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (ET: Oxford, 1971 = 14th edn. 1975) 563.Google Scholar

26 E.g. ch. 9 is an excursus in the discussion of idol-food, 8–10; ch. 13 is an excursus in the discussion of gifts in 12–14; 6.1–11 is an excursus in the discussion of πορνεία in 5–6.

27 Conzelmann, , 86. Barrett, 106–7Google Scholar, thinks the Corinthians may have been in danger of treating their party slogans and traditions as if they were on the same level as scripture: but could any Christian have really thought this? M. D. Hooker, art. cit, thinks that the OT texts in 1 Cor 1–3 are what was written: but then what is the force of ύπέρ?

28 ‘Die Christuspartei’; see n. 4.

29 Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth (Gütersloh, 1908).Google Scholar

30 Pp. 47ff.

31 The Petrines must have claimed the authority of the Spirit for their ascetic rulings on sex, which went beyond anything we know in Judaism, for Paul says, ‘I think I also have the Spirit of God.’

32 Theissen, , Social Setting, ch. 2, 125–9.Google Scholar

33 E.g. 1 Thess 1.9,4. 3, Rev 2.14, 20.

34 Haenchen, 469, says that the four requirements of Acts 15.29 stand in Lev 17–18 in the same order: ‘Lev. 17.13 (contains the condemnation) of πνικτόν.’ I am afraid that this is wishful thinking: Lev 17.13 says that an animal taken in hunting must have its blood poured out.

35 Haenchen, 470, says correctly that Luke was describing in his own words ‘a living tradition which was probably even then traced back to the Apostles’.

36 Käsemann, , Romans, 364–73Google Scholar, correctly (and with great caution) sees the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ as Jews and Gentiles, but misses the stress under which Christian Jews would come, importing ‘a type of Judaism which was under syncretistic influence’ (368).

37 Pp. 47ff.

38 Paul distinguishes clearly between his own experience and that of the man he knows in Christ: ‘On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast’ (12.5). So he is distinguishing the many άποκαλύψεις he has had on earth (v. 7) from the rapture to heaven of an όπτασία (vv. 2ff.). Barrett correctly (Second Corinthians, 307) says that Luke uses όπτασία for a vision on earth; but Paul is speaking of two different kinds of event and he uses two terms for them – όπτασία must mean ‘vision in heaven’ to him.

39 So Carr, W. A., ‘The Rulers of This Age: 1 Cor.ii.6–8’, NTS 23 (1976/7) 20–35Google Scholar; Fee, , First Corinthians, 103ffGoogle Scholar. Carr argues from the context, and from the lack of linguistic parallel for ἄρχοντες = rulers in the NT: but the crucial evidence is άνθρώπου in v. 9.

40 Stone, M. E., Scriptures, Sects and Visions (Philadelphia, 1980) 27–47.Google Scholar

41 Rowland, C. C., The Open Heaven (London, 1982) 269–339.Google Scholar

42 Paul is citing the Bible (ώς γέγραπται), not the Apocalypse of Elijah. Isa 64.3 has: άπό το αίνος ούκ ήκούσαμεν ούδέ οί όφθαλμοί ήμν εδον θεόν; 65.16, έπιλήσοναι … καί ούκ άναβήσεται αύτν έπί τήν καρδίαν. God's preparations for τος άγαπσιν αύτόν are rather Pauline (Rom 8.28–9). The introduction of άνθρώπου is important for the argument.

43 See n. 38.

44 M. Meg. 4.10, on suppressing the public reading of Ezek 1; m. Hag. 2.1 forbidding its exposition except with a Sage.

45 Schäfer, P., ‘The New Testament and Hekhalot Literature’, JJS 35 (1984) 19–35Google Scholar, objects to Scholem's, G. G. thesis in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (2nd edn.; New York, 1965)Google Scholar, partly on the ground that the angels only sing God's praise; but a reason is to hand for this development in the threat posed by commands heard in heaven.