Sunteți pe pagina 1din 33

[JSNT61 (1997) 83-114]

THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OR CHRISTOLOGICAL PRAXIS? PAULINE ETHICS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8.1-11.1* David Horrell
Department of Theology, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QH

Introduction Among the many difficult and complex passages in the Pauline epistles, 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1 must surely be included. These chapters comprise a complex and varied argument in which the connections between the different sections are not always easy to discern. Moreover, it has proved notoriously difficult to decide what Paul's advice actually was on the simple question with which the passage is explicitly concerned: should a Christian eat idol-food? His answer is hardly what we would call direct.1 The passage may seem even more obscure and irrelevant to modern Western readers (though not necessarily for readers in other cultures and contexts),2 for whom the issue of food that has been sacrificed to idols is scarcely a matter of everyday concern. However, Paul's method of responding to this particular ethical dilemma, indirect though it may be on the specific question at issue, makes the passage more relevant than it might otherwise have been to the broader issues concerning the shape and foundations of Christian ethics (cf. Brunt 1985: 115; Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 543).

* A revised version of a paper presented at King's College London and to a research seminar at Exeter University. I am grateful to all those who raised questions and made comments, especially to Edward Adams for his response to the paper. 1. Hence, according to Brunt 1985, Paul's position on idol-food was ignored or misunderstood within early Christianity; cf. also Barrett 1982. 2. Cf., for example, Yeo's (1994; 1995) interest in relating this passage to the Chinese context.

84

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

Some solutions to the complexities of the passage should be rejected at the outset. For some scholars, the seemingly digressive ch. 9, and the apparent differences between the various parts of chs. 8 and 10 (especially between 10.1-22 and the rest of chs. 8 and 10) point to a composite text comprising portions from originally separate letters.3 The problems are therefore solved (or should we say, evaded?) by assigning different sections of the passage to different letters written at different points in time. However, there are strong reasons for rejecting such a solution. There are no compelling textual or literary grounds for the hypothesis of literary partition, and both the form of the argumenta broadly chiastic ABA' pattern with an apparent digression at its heartand the tensions between its various parts are features encountered elsewhere in Paul, indeed in passages that seem to be classic examples of Pauline argumentation (e.g. 1 Cor. 12-14; Rom. 1.18-3.20; 9-11).4 It has also been suggested that the two groups with which Paul is concerned here, generally labelled the 'strong' and the 'weak', are a construction of Paul's rather than a reflection of genuine disagreement and difference in the church at Corinth. J.C. Hurd, for example, followed more recently by Peter Gooch, argued that in fact the Corinthians were united on the issue of idol-food and that the 'weak' are a non-existent, hypothetical group created by Paul, who was trying to impose on the Corinthians a policy agreed at the apostolic council which contradicted Paul's earlier practice and teaching at Corinth.5 Of course Paul's own literary construction of the situation at Corinth is all that we have, and in a number of places in these chapters Paul does present situations as hypothetical. However, there are no compelling
3. E.g. Weiss 1910: xl-xliii, 210-13; Hring 1962: xiii-xiv, 75, 100; Sellin 1987: 2964-82; Yeo 1995: 81-82. 4. On the ABA' pattern, cf. Fee 1987:15-16 with n. 40. The extended arguments in Rom. 1.18-3.20 and 9.1-11.36 both contain passages that, when compared, stand in tension, even contradiction, with one another, but that can be seen to serve the overall direction and purpose of the argument, as they make a particular point at a particular stage (cf., e.g., Rom. 2.12-16 and 3.20, or 9.14-18 and 10.1-13). On the unity of this passage, see Hurd 1965: 131-42; Merklein 1984: 163-73; Schrge 1995: 212-15. Recent work on this passage by Gardner (1994), and on 1 Corinthians by Mitchell (1991), also affirms its unity. 5. Hurd 1965: 117-25; followed by Fee 1980: 175-76; Wright 1991: 133 n. 36; Gooch 1993: 61-72 (except on the issue of whether Paul himself ate idol-food at Corinth); see further my review of Gooch (Horrell 1995a).

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

85

grounds to doubt that differences of opinion and practice existed at Corinth; indeed, much of Paul's exhortation would be rather pointless if it did not. Jerome Murphy O'Connor agrees: 'No evidence contra dicts the traditional opinion that there were two groups within the Corinthian church. One group had no doubts about the legitimacy of eating idol-meat, the other had serious reservations' (1978b: 544; also Brunt 1981: 30 n. 18; Willis 1985a: 92ff.; Horrell 1995a). Other recent studies of this passage, notably those by Tom Wright and Ben Witherington, also fail to do justice to some of the most central and striking features of Paul's argument. While Witherington may be partly right to argue that Paul effectively prohibits participation in pagan cultic worship, I do not think, for reasons we shall explore below, that the thrust of Paul's instruction can be adequately encapsu lated in the phrase 'it's not what you eat, it's where you eat it'.6 Wright's (1991) analysis of 8.6 produces some important reflections on the similarities between the Christian credal confession of what Wright calls 'christological monotheism' and the Jewish Shema, but, I hope to show, is mistaken in terms of the role that it proposes for this confession within the wider argument of chs. 8-10. I aim to outline here an interpretation that does justice to the complex passage as a whole (including, importantly, ch. 9) and that illuminates the main features of Paul's ethical argument. 1 Corinthians 8.1 -13 The passage opens with a clear introduction of the topic, , in a form that, by comparison with 7.1, suggests it was a subject raised 7 in the Corinthians' letter to Paul. Immediately, however, we have to face questions concerning the presence and extent of Corinthian 'slogans' or quotations. While scholars disagree as to the precise form and the number of places where Corinthian opinions are quoted by Paul, there is widespread agreement that in 8.1 and 8.4 at least Paul 8 cites opinions that have been expressed by the strong at Corinth: 'we
6. See Witherington 1994; 1993; 1995: 186-230. 7. See Hurd 1965: 65-74, though note the caution of Mitchell 1989; see further Horrell 1996a: 89-90. 8. See Hurd 1965: 68; Fee 1987: 365 with n. 30; Schrge 1995: 220-21. It is less likely that should be included within the quotation (see Fee 1987: 365 n. 31, against Willis 1985a: 67-70; see further Gardner 1994: 22-23, 34).

86

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

all have knowledge' (8.1b); 'there is no idol in the world9 and there is no God but one' (8.4b).10 These statements represent the theological legitimation for the strong's assertion of their freedom to eat idolfood without restriction (cf. Brunt 1981: 22). However, disputes about the extent of Corinthian quotations here are perhaps less crucial for the interpretation of the passage than is sometimes assumed. For in 8.1, 4, 6 and 8 (where Corinthian quota tions have been suggested) it does seem clear both that the opinions quoted are ones associated with the Corinthian 'strong' but also that they are opinions that Paul basically shareseven though he may qualify them sharply and differ as to their implications for conduct. Here, as in 6.12, he does not counter a cited opinion with an emphatic (as, e.g., in Rom. 3.4, 6, 31; 6.2, 15; 7.7, 13; Gal. 2.17; 3.21) and he seems to include himself in the 'we' who have knowledge in 8.1, 4 and 6 (just as he includes himself explicitly among the 'strong' in faith in Rom. 15.1).11 Right from the outset, then, Paul agrees that he and others have knowledge. Yet also from the outset, he expresses his view that knowl edge is of little value, at least compared to love. 'Knowledge puffs up a pejorative term throughout 1 Corinthians12but love builds up' (8.1). Indeed, the irony is that people who think they know13 do not yet know as they ought to know (8.2). True knowledge is actually connected with those who love.14 Here in the first three verses of the
9. Probably in the sense 'has no real existence' rather than that 'an idol is a nothing'; see discussion in Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 546; Schrge 1995: 236. 10. The likelihood of Paul's quoting in 8.4b is shown by the repetition of cm. cm; see Giblin 1975: 530. 11. Hring (1962: 72) and Schrge (1995: 221: 'da sich V lb und V 7a formal widersprechen') are therefore not quite correct to suggest that there is a formal contradiction between 8.1 and 8.7, thus establishing that the former must be a Corinthian quotation: the two statements may simply indicate that the 'we all' is a group that does not include everyone in the congregation. 12. appears in the New Testament only in 1 Corinthians (4.6, 18, 19; 5.2; 8.1; 13.4) and once in Colossians (2.18), always with a pejorative sense. 13. , 'anything', is absent from $p46, which Zuntz (1953: 31) considers the correct reading. 14. A rough paraphrase of v. 3, based on the shorter reading found in *p46: , . ( would then be read as middle, not passive.) For arguments for this reading, see Zuntz 1953: 31-32; Fee 1987: 364-69; Yeo 1995: 187-88. Schrge (1995: 233-34 with n. 131) objects to this on the grounds that it would undercut Paul's argument here were he to speak of someone attaining

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

87

passage Paul has encapsulated the heart of his argument. However, as will become clear, despite Paul's powerful rhetoric counterposing knowledge and love, it should be borne in mind that the 'love' he has in mind is actually, in one sense, rooted in 'knowledge'; it is a love informed and shaped by the pattern and example of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 8.9: 'For you know [] the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ... '; also 1 Cor. 1.4-6; 2.11-16; 2 Cor. 2.14; 4.6). In v. 4 Paul reiterates the question with which the passage opened and begins to deal with the issue in greater detail. Following the out line of what 'we' know in v. 4b, Paul carefully hedges round both sides of the question of the existence of idols in v. 5: they are only 'so-called' gods ( ) yet indeed there are many gods and many lords (cf. Schrge 1995: 226). 'The pagan pantheon cannot simply be dismissed as metaphysically nonexistent and therefore morally irrelevant' (Wright 1991: 128). But what he is leading to is the emphatic statement of practical monotheism in v. 6, introduced with the strongly adversative ' , 'but for us... ' Here in v. 6, as Wright suggests, we find a concise credal confession of early Christian faith with notable similarities to the Shema (Deut. 6.4). While I am not so sure that this actually represents 'a statement of the highest possible christologythat is, of Jesus placed within the very monotheistic confession itself' (Wright 1991: 132)Paul seems to me, and not least in 1 Corinthians (3.23; 11.3; 15.28), to retain a rather clear and careful distinction between God (the Father) and Christ (the Lord)15it surely does represent a formulaic and concise expression of theological and christological belief which lies at the heart of New Testament Christianity. 'For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we to him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him'. It has been suggested that the verse is another quotation from the Corinthian strong

'knowledge'. However, v. 2 speaks of the kind of knowledge that one ought to have, which contrasts ironically with the supposed knowledge of those who think they know something (cf. 1 Cor. 13.2, 8). 15. Cf. Barrett 1971: 193: 'Jesus Christ is not described as God, and the fact that Lord () serves very frequently in the Greek Old Testament as an equivalent of the Hebrew name of God (Yhwh) loses some force from the fact that it was also used in a variety of other senses; for example, it might mean no more than "Sir", used as a polite form of address. It is always important to note the context in which Lord is used. Here it evidently stands in close relation, but is not identical with, God'.

88

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

(Willis 1985a: 84-86), but again it makes little sense here to divide the opinions of the Corinthians from those of Paul. It is more likely that v. 6 comprises an already established credal formula, but even so it is surely one with which Paul is in wholehearted agreement.16 All of this should make v. 7 strike the exegete with a forceful jolt. How does Paul follow this confession of the heart of early Christian faith? With the simple, but remarkable little phrase: 'but the knowledge is not in all'. As the following verses make clear, Paul is certainly talking here about members of the Christian congregation. Was there ever such a clear-cut example of the need for a programme of theological education? Does Paul really accept with such apparent nonchalance a situation in which believers can be said not to share such fundamental 'knowledge'? It hardly seems likely that Paul actually means that some of the congregation do not believe that 'for us there is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ'; the confession of Christ as Lord is the touchstone for Paul of genuine Christian commitment (1 Cor. 12.3; Rom. 10.9) and he certainly knows nothing of Cupittite atheistic non-realism! What he does perhaps mean is that not all possess this knowledge in a way that convinces them of the non-reality of idols and of the consequent acceptability of idol-food in this sense they do not have the gnosis of the strong.17 They are, Paul says, accustomed to eating idol-food as belonging to an idol, and
16. Cf. Schrge 1995: 221: 'In V 6 greift Paulus wahrscheinlich nicht auf ein Argument der Korinther, sondern auf eine berkommene Formel zurck.' Murphy O'Connor (1978a: 254-59) argues that the text is a pre-Pauline baptismal acclamation. His argument that it is 'soteriologicaT and not Cosmologica!' is less convincing. 17. Cf. Schrge 1995: 254: 'Wohl aber rechnet Paulus offenbar mit einer Diskrepanz zwischen dem, was auch die Schwachen erkennen, und dem, was ihr Verhalten prgt.' Also Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 552-55. Martin (1995: 184) rightly warns against modernizing Paul too easily by imputing to him modern psychological ideas of knowing on a 'conscious' level but not working this through on the 'subconscious' level. Martin suggests that from Paul's point of view (which differs from that of the strong), 'The Strong cannot simply hand over their gnosis to the Weak, as if it could be taught; rather, in Paul's rhetoric, people either have it or do not have it. Possession of gnosis is a matter of state or status, not education' (p. 187). However, Martin's view that Paul regards gnosis as a 'prophylactic talisman' (pp. 179-89) surely needs some qualification. The activity for which the strong claim an would indeed 'pollute' () the weak (cf. Rom. 14.23). Yet part of the point of 10.1-22, surely, is to warn the strong against com placency. Their gnosis is precisely not a 'prophylactic' protection, at least not in the situations in view in 10.1-22. (More generally on Martin 1995, see Horrell 1996b.)

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

89

because they still have this awareness, if they eat, their weak is defiled (v. 7). 18 Whatever the precise explanation, this juxtaposition of vv. 6 and 7 is a key to understanding this passage. It is notable that Wright skips over it completely. His only reference to v. 7 is the following sentence in a section stressing the importance of love within the family which is 'the Messiah-and-his-people'. 'This', he suggests, 'is essentially the point of vv. 7-13, whose focus is vv. 1112' (Wright 1991: 133). We shall return to this point. In v. 8, Paul expresses a view with which the strong might at least in part agree, though it is certainly Paul's view too (cf. Rom. 14.1415), and hence it is unnecessary and probably unconvincing to see it as another Corinthian quotation. Moreoever, the assertion that 'food will not commend us to God' is used by Paul to show that the act of eating brings no particular benefit, and equally, therefore, that abstaining implies no loss. The strong will not suffer any spiritual lack if they do abstain from (cf. Gardner 1994: 48-53). Food itself is indeed a matter of moral indifference; what is crucial in this case is the effect one's conduct has on others, whose 'consciences' are weak. , 'watch out' (v. 9), is the first imperative Paul uses in this passage. The problem is that the strong's exercise of their authority, their , may become a stumbling block to the weak; seeing the strong eating or elsewhere, they may be 'built up' , an ironizing of the term Paul uses so positively elsewhereto eat idol-food even while conscious of its idolatrous connections. The conduct of the strong would therefore lead to the destruction of the weak, who are, as much as anyone else, people for whom Christ died (v. 11). In vv. 11-13, there emerges a clear emphasis upon christologically based relational concerns. In contrast to the theological legitimations which are cited in vv. 1-6 as the basis from which the strong argue their right to eat idol-food, here the foundation for ethical action is
18. There has been much discussion of the meaning of the term here and in the New Testament. It certainly has a sense somewhat different from the modern use of the word 'conscience': those with a 'weak' are not those with a slack or undisciplined approach to morality, but quite the opposite. It is gene rally argued that a sense of 'consciousness' or 'self-awareness' (in relation to others and/or to God) is more apposite in the New Testament. See, e.g., Maurer, TDNT1: 914-15; Horsley 1978; Tomson 1990: 195-96,210-16; Gardner 1994: 42-48; Martin 1995: 180-82.

90

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

the status of each fellow believer as a brother or sister in Christ.19 The word appears four times in w . 11-13, in what Murphy O'Connor (1978a: 266) calls 'calculated repetition'. First the point is made that each of these , is someone for whom Christ died. Christ gave himself completely for each one, even to death. Moreover, to offend or cause to stumble one of these is to sin against Christ (v. 12), 'the only occasion on which Paul speaks of a "sin against Christ'". 20 Thus in a hyperbolic summary of his point Paul declares that he himself would go to extreme lengths, giving up meat com pletely rather than be a cause of offence and stumbling to any of these sisters and brothers (v. 13; cf. the extreme language of Rom. 9.3). The shift between w. 6 and 7 is, I submit, crucial to this argument. Paul, it seems to me, does almost precisely the opposite of what Wright sees him doing. Wright proposes that
Paul, in addressing a very specific situation and problem, argues from basic, and thoroughly theological, principles to a view which is, in terms of the history of religions, specifically and uniquely Christian, and that in the middle of his argument v. 6 functions as a Christian redefinition of the Jewish confession of faith, the Shema (1991: 121).21

What we actually find in vv. 4-6 is Paul's outline of the theological principles upon which the strong base their freedom to eat idol-food. Paul does not disagree with the theological principles (though v. 5 reflects some ambivalence about the non-existence of idols), nor with the consequence drawn from them, that food is a matter of moral indifference and that idol-food can therefore be eaten without worry. There is no hint in ch. 8 that the of the strong is anything other than entirely legitimate (v. 9). What Paul does do is to insist that 22 Christian conduct has quite a different foundation and motivation.
19. Cf. Furnish 1990: 154: Paul *shifts attention away from the question of what rights believers have before God to the matter of what responsibilities believers have for one another'. 20. See Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 563-65, who argues that it is the community as the body of Christ which is in view here. 21. Cf. p. 125: 'his [sc. Paul's] basic rule of thumb for addressing this question is, as one might have predicted from a Jewish background, the reassertion of Jewishstyle monotheism'. 22. Hays (1997: 16-19, 46) argues that 'there is no meaningful distinction between theology and ethics in Paul's thought* (p. 46). Cf. the well-known work of Furnish 1968, which explored the connection between theology and ethics in Paul,

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

91

There are some who do not see the theological knowledge or its con sequences in the same way as the strong, and rather than seeking to educate or enlighten them so as to change their views and practice, Paul insists that a christologically based pattern of self-giving for one's brothers and sisters in Christ must be adopted. Even a practice for 23 which one has an unquestionable 'right', which has an unquestionable theological basis, must be set aside if it is a cause of stumbling. That this interpretation of ch. 8 is correct is, I suggest, confirmed by what follows in ch. 9. 1 Corinthians 9.1-27 Chapter 9 may be digressive but I believe it plays a crucial role in the argument of the whole passage. It is notable, and unfortunate, that a good many studies concentrate on chs. 8 and 10 (or parts thereof) with out giving attention to ch. 9 and its role here.24 Just as 1 Corinthians 13 is a digression from the specific theme of spiritual gifts and their exercise within the community, yet at the same time points to love
drawing attention to the way in which they are linked through the pattern of indicative and imperative. Certainly, in a general sense (against the idea that Paul's ethics are merely adopted ad hoc from various sources contemporary with him, cf. Hays 1997: 17) I would agree that Paul's ethics are thoroughly grounded in the Gospel (cf. Furnish 1990; Hays 1994). However, what I am arguing for here is a rather more nuanced expression of the broadly 'theological' foundations of Paul's ethics. In this passage at least, theological principles, such as the monotheistic confession (v. 6) are not (pace Wright) used as a basis for ethical action. This does not mean, how ever, that Paul's ethics are merely 'relational' or contextual; rather, they are based upon profoundly christological foundations. When it comes to the ethical shaping of action and relationships in the Christian community, it seems (here at least) that it is the christological paradigm, rather than strictly ideological principles, which is ethically determinative. 23. Following many New Testament scholars, and BAGD, 277,1 have used the term 'right' to translate in this passage, esp. in ch.9.1 recognize, however, that there is an important contemporary debate as to whether the notion of 'rights' has any legitimate part in Christian ethics. Winter (1994: 166-77) argues for the transla tion 'right', and suggests that Paul has a specific 'civic right' in view, 'a civic privi lege which entitled Corinthian citizens to dine on "civic" occasions in a temple' (p. 166), connected probably with festivities during the Isthmian games. 24. E.g. Willis 1985a (but note 1985b); Murphy O'Connor 1978b; Yeo 1995. The corresponding problem besets an examination of 1 Cor. 9 which does not locate it explicitly within the wider argument in which it functions (e.g. Robbins 1996).

92

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

as the most important foundation for the whole discussion, so 1 Corinthians 9 points to issues that are of fundamental importance in the context of the discussion of . The verbal and thematic links indicate the integration of ch. 9 into the wider argument to which it contributes.25 There has been considerable debate as to whether this chapter should be read primarily as a defence or as an example (see Horrell 1996a: 204-206). Certainly there are elements of defensiveness here in rela tion to Paul's apostleship (vv. 1-3) and perhaps also in relation to his refusal of financial support from the Corinthians.26 Yet in the argu ment of the passage as a whole it clearly serves as an example, spelling out for the strong the pattern of conduct that Paul calls them to imitate, and that he perceives as an imitation of Christ (11.1). The opening verses are a robust assertion of Paul's apostleship, which may well reflect his defensiveness on this very question, not least at Corinth.27 But the reason that it is so crucial for Paul to estab lish his apostolicity at this point is that it is a necessary prerequisite for the validity of the argument that follows. Paul will go into some detail about his refusal to use his rights as an apostle, but if he were not a true apostle then the whole argument becomes completely worthless. However, having established his apostolic status he can then list the rights of an apostle (vv. 4-6) with the clear and insistent pre sumption that he and Barnabas are as entitled to these rights as any of 'the other apostles' (v. 5). Then he proceeds to list the grounds upon which such rights are based, the principles with which they can be legitimated. In this list there is a clear progression, with more weighty and decisive reasons drawn in, and reaching a rhetorical climax in v. 14.28
25. E.g. (8.9; 9.4-6, 12, 18) and the various words related to the idea of 'offence': (8.9); (9.12); (10.32); (8.13); also (9.19-23). See further Willis 1985b: 39-40; Malherbe 1994; Schrge 1995: 213. 26. I cannot see any evidence for the view that Paul is defending himself against criticism that he ate idol-food in this chapter, as argued by Hurd 1965: 130-31; Fee 1987: 363, 393,425 etc.; contrast Gooch 1993: 93-95. 27. Schrge (1995: 280-91) suggests that the 'defence' mentioned in v. 3 relates to vv. 1-3, whereas w . 4ff. are primarily an exemplum. Many scholars recognize the implication here that there are some doubts about Paul's apostleship at Corinth; e.g. Barrett 1971: 200; Fee 1987: 392-401. 28. Cf. Schrge 1995: 295, 308: 'Vermutlich zielt Paulus doch eher auf eine

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

93

First there are the reasons drawn from the logic of human affairs: soldiers receive provisions from those for whom they fight; those who plant vineyards enjoy the fruit of the vines; shepherds drink the milk from their flock (v. 7). The reasons become more important and authoritative: it is not just human reason and experience that show this principle to be right, the law of Moses says so too (vv. 8-9). The regulation from Deuteronomy about the threshing ox was meant, Paul insists, as a principle for human beings,29 a principle that Paul elabo rates in v. 10 30 and relates specifically to the Corinthian situation in v. 11. He and his co-workers, more than any others ( ), have a right, an , which is surely unquestionable. However, strikingly, it is a right that they choose not to use, so as not to place any stumbling block in the way of the gospel (v. 12). Having made this point explicitly, the rhetorical climax comes as Paul returns to yet further legitimations of these rights, followed by the personalizing of the issue onto himself alone, as the shift from first person plural to first person singular shows (cf. v. 12 and v. 15). First he mentions the principle at work in the operations of temple and cult (v. 13), and then 'clinches the argument' (Fee 1987: 412) with surely the ultimate Christian legitimation: the command of Jesus (v. 14).31 Paul has thus demonstrated the following: if ever there were a right, an , which could be unquestionably legitimated, this is it. It is undergirded by the logic of human affairs, by the scriptures, by the way the temple operates, and even by a command of the Lord. Yet how does Paul act in relation to this right? He sets it aside, and refuses to use it, employing hyperbole once more as he declares that he would

beabsichtige Steigerung von Alltags- und Vernunftgrnden ber das Mosegesetz bis zrn Herenwort, (p. 295). 29. See further Listone Brewer 1992; Robbins 1996: 121-22,130. 30. Some have argued that v. 10b is a quotation from an unknown apocryphal source introduced by . .. (e.g. Conzelmann 1975: 155; Schrge 1995, 302; it is italicized in NA 27 ). However, while it may be based to some extent on Sir. 6.19, with which it has notable similarities, it is more convincing to take the verb to refer back 'to the cited passage in v. 9' and to read the in 'a causal or explanatory sense' (with Fee 1987: 409 n. 68). 31. 'V 14 nennt Paulus nun. .. die entscheidende Instanz in seinem Beweisgang, nmlich ein Herrenwort' (Schrge 1995: 308). The use of , Schrge argues, also shows that it is mistaken to regard this citation as just a further 'and by the way. . . (beilufig)' addition to the list (pp. 308-309).

94

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

rather die than be deprived of his boast in this matter (v. 15).32 Indeed, his proclamation of the gospel is something he undertakes not from choice but under compulsion, as a slave,33 and hence he can claim no wage, no (vv. 16-17). The answer to his rhetorical question 'what then is my ?' is deeply ironic: his pay or reward is pre senting the gospel free of charge () so as ( plus articular infinitive) not to use his (v. 18). The argument goes further still: though Paul is unquestionably free (9.1, 19) he has enslaved himself to all (v. 19).34 He has commended the gospel by becoming 'all things to all people' (v. 22). In his list here too there is a rhetorical climax in thefinalphrase 'to the weak, I became weak', the only phrase in the series without the qualifying .35 There is no mention of becoming 'strong' in the list, both because this seems to be the group with which Paul would naturally and initially identify himself and, more importantly perhaps, because the strong are the group he is addressing and challenging to imitate him in accommo dation to others for the sake of the gospel.36 Indeed, Paul concludes, he does everything for the sake of the gospel. This leads him to think about the strenuous effort and self-control which such commitment demands (vv. 24-27). Using the analogy of athletes who run and box, he urges the Corinthians to similarly whole hearted and self-disciplined dedication (see Garrison 1997). Paul goes to the lengths of beating and enslaving his own body, lest he find himself in the end (v. 27). The argument of chs. 8 and 9 may therefore be summarized: Paul cites and accepts the theological principles which the strong use to
32. Cf. Willis 1985b: 35: 'Paul has established his rights so strongly so that he can make something of his renunciation of them\ 33. Paul's situation is that of one who acts , not ; see Martin 1990: 71-77; Horrell 1996a: 207; otherwise Malherbe 1994: 249; Robbins 1996: 85. 34. On the distinctiveness of Paul's view of self-enslavement here, compared with Stoic and Cynic philosophers, see Martin 1990: 71-77,117-35; Malherbe 1994: 251-54. 35. See Horrell 1996a: 208-209; otherwise Tomson 1990: 274-79, whose reading of the textual evidence seems to me rather strongly influenced by his own agenda about Paul. He argues that both the in v. 20a and the phrase (. 20) are later insertions. 36. A point also made by Martin 1990: 118-24; Barton 1996: 279; Hays 1997: 43; though missed by Robbins 1996: 87, who states that, The discourse presents Paul as a person who has forgotten no one. He has become all things to all people.'

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

95

justify their to eat . Paul nowhere questions this or the principles upon which it is based, but what he does do is to maintain that Christian conduct involves a Christ-like self-giving for others, a self-enslavement, a setting aside of one's own rights for the sake of the gospel.37 This, Paul demonstrates, is precisely his own practice. He has an unquestionable right to financial support from the congregations, but he sets it aside in order to place no barrier in the way of the gospel and in order to become weak alongside the weak whom he seeks to gain. Christian life is not about the exercise of free dom or authority, however legitimate that freedom and authority might be. It is about a rigorous self-discipline rooted in concern for others. In the words of Paul's own summary: it is about acting on the basis not of knowledge, but of love; a love whose paradigm is Christ. But if this interpretation is correct, what are we to make of 10.122? In the light of what Paul urges there, can it really be maintained that he accepts as entirely legitimate the of the strong? 1 Corinthians 10.1-22 It is often suggested, with some plausibility, that 10.1-13 is a midrashic passage, based on texts concerning the wilderness wanderings from Exodus and Numbers, which may well have existed in some form prior to its inclusion here, perhaps created, or used previously, by Paul.38 The character and thrust of Paul's argument seem quite clearly to shift here, in a way that has led some to propose that 10.1-22 belongs to a different letter altogether. However, this section is not entirely dis junctive; rather, it picks up the train of thought begun in 9.24-27, specifically the danger of being found in the end , that is, excluded from the company of those who are saved. This is clearly the theme of 10.1-13. The language which Paul uses in vv. 1-4 surely represents a careful and deliberate attempt to parallel the Israelites' experiences with the rituals of baptism and Lord's supper in which the Corinthians have shared. Being under the cloud (an image of burial?) and passing through the sea are described as a baptism into Moses (
37. Cf. Hays 1994: 38 (= 1997: 42): 'The operative norm here is relinquishment of self-interest for the benefit of others'. 38. E.g. Meeks 1982; Collier 1994, who argues that Numbers 11 is the main text which supplies the midrashic basis here. See also Yeo 1995: 156-79

96

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

, . 2). The food and drink the wandering Israelites received are described as spiritual food and spiritual drink (vv. 3-4). And just to make the parallels emphati cally clear, Paul reads Christ explicitly into the wilderness narrative: the spiritual rock from which they drank was Christ (v. 4). So just as all of the Corinthians have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1.13-14; 12.13), and all share in the Lord's supper (1 Cor. 10.16-17; 11.17-34), so all of the Israelites also shared in the rituals of membership and belonging. After the laboured repetition of 'all', , five times in vv. 1-4, the rhetorical impact of v. 5, beginning with the adversative ' , can hardly be missed. Despite the fact that all shared equally in these signs of belonging, 'God was not pleased with the majority of them, for their bodies were scattered in the desert'. And straightaway the explicit link is made: these things happened, Paul tells his readers, as examples for us, , in order to warn us against the forms of behaviour, the 'evil desires' (v. 6), for which the Israelites were judged and condemned: idolatry, sexual immorality, putting Christ ( )39 to the test, and grumbling.40 The lesson is clearly drawn out: so then, ,41 'if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall' (v. 12, NRSV). The whole passage is a warning against complacency: the Israelites all partook in the rituals of community membership just as much as the Corinthians, yet this was no guarantee of salvation. Each person should be aware of the potential precariousness of their position within the communityjust as Paul is too ( ... , 9.27). Evil desires and practices have disastrous consequences and bring terrible judgment; baptism and eucharist provide no guarantee of protection.42 This
39. Verse 9; which some scribes found too odd and changed to . Cf. 8.12 and the warning against 'sinning against Christ'. 40. The symmetrical structure of vv. 6-11 is notable, especially in the changes between first and second person plurals: 6: . . . , Tiuc . . . [first person plural pronouns] 7: . . . [second person plural imperative] 8: . . . . [first person plural hortatory subjunctive] 9: , . . . [first person plural hortatory subjunctive] 10: . . . . [second person plural imperative] 11: . . . . . . [first person plural pronouns] 41. Cf. Gardner 1994: 152: The word " shows the centrality of 12 to Paul's argument'. 42. Cf. the title Barrett 1971:218, gives to 10.1-13: 'Even baptized communicants

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

97

seemingly precarious situation is nothing other than what is normal for human beings, and it is not as if God sets up traps hoping people will fall. On the contrary, God is faithful and provides a way by which temptation can be avoided (v. 13). Not surprisingly the specific sin Paul urges the Corinthians to avoid is that of idolatry (v. 14). He appeals to them as people wise () enough to make the right judgment themselves in this matter (v. 15). In vv. 16-18 Paul uses what is well known and accepted about the Lord's supper (cf. Gardner 1994: 161) and about Israel's sacrificial system to illustrate how eating and drinking in a cultic context estab lish a which embraces those who partake and that which they share. Paul is careful to point out (v. 19) that he is not thereby con ceding any significance to (cf. 8.8) or any real existence to an (cf. 8.4). But (unlike Israel , in v. 18) pagan cultic acts make sacrifices to demons () and not to God, and Paul does not wish his readers to share with demons. Paul wants both to deny that an idol is anything (10.19, cf. 8.4) but also at the same time to acknowledge the existence, or the danger, of spiritual beings other than God (cf. 8.5).43 It is hardly adequate simply to say that Paul denies the existence of idols but believes in demons. The tension, rather, is one that runs through much of the Bible's polemic against idols and idolatry. On the one hand, idols are nothing; they are not gods, but ridiculous artefacts made by human hands (e.g. Isa. 44.920), yet at the same time (or precisely for this reason?) idolatry giving worship and allegiance to anything other than Yhwhis a dangerous and heinous sin (e.g. Deut. 6.13-15). Whatever the ontological status of the inhabitants of Paul's mythological universe, the statement of v. 21 is clear: 'you cannot ( ) drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.' (NRSV) To attempt to do so would be to provoke the Lord and to test his strength and, as the bodies of the Israelites scattered in the desert graphically and typologically demonstrate, the result would be destruction and death. For Paul there
are not secure'. This passage surely raises questions against Martin's (1995: 179-89) argument that gnosis acts (in Paul's view) as a prophylaxis for the strong (see n. 17 above). 43. Cf. Tomson 1990: 156-58, on the two views of idolatry present in Jewish tradition: the 'rational' (in the idol there is nothing real) and the non-rational (idolatry as dominated by demons).

98

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

is clearly a 'mystical reality' about the believers' in the one body of Christ (vv. 16-17). This is simply incompatible with with demons; to risk the latter is therefore a dangerous thing, inviting a judgment of destruction. Similarly, failing to 'discern the body'44 at the Lord's supper and acting 'unworthily' () brings the judg ment of sickness and even death (11.27-31).45 Here then, as elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, it is a further christological foundationthe unity of the community as the body of Christwhich forms a basis for admonition (1.10-17; 11.17-34; 12.12-27; cf. also 5.3-13; 6.15-20). So how does Paul's extended attack on complacency and warning against idolatry and with demons relate to the argument of chs. 8 and 9, and to what follows in 10.23-11.1? There is certainly at least an apparent contrast between 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1 on the one hand, and 10.1-22 on the other: in the former passages Paul seems to regard eating as permissible unless another is offended, whereas in 10.1-22 he stresses the danger of eating (cf., e.g., Conzelmann 1975: 137). Gordon Fee, however, argues that there are differences between 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1 and 'that the alleged ten sion between 8,7-13 and 10,14-22 has been considerably overdrawn' (1980: 176). In his view, 8.1-13 and 10.1-22 both concern temple meals and only in 10.23ff. does Paul introduce the different subject of idol-meat sold in the market place and meals taken in the home. According to Fee, Paul prohibits participation in meals at pagan temples, whereas he permits, or regards as indifferent in itself, to be avoided only if it offends others, buying meat from the macellum, the 46 market, and eating whatever is served at meals in private homes. Witherington similarly proposes the solution that 'Paul distinguishes between eating at home and eating in temples and strictly forbids the latter (10.14-23)' (1995: 188; also Wright 1991: 134-35). He argues that the term ' means meat consumed in the presence of an idol, or at least in temple precincts where the god's power and pre sence was thought to abide' (1993: 242; cf. Fee 1980: 181-87) whereas
44. The possible meanings of this enigmatic phrase have been much discussed; see, e.g., Barrett 1971: 273-75; Martin 1995: 194-96; Horrell 1996a: 152-53. 45. Cf. Martin 1995: 194: 'what Paul means by "unworthily" has to do with fracturing the body of Christ. Unworthiness consists in participation in the destruc tion of the integrity of Christ's body'. 46. See Fee 1980; 1987: 357-63. Note the useful critique by Fisk 1989. Martin 1995: 182-83, also questions the notion that Paul has two separate 'venues' in view.

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

99

'is the proper term for food that has come from the temple, but is not being eaten in the temple or as part of temple worship' (1993: 248). Thus Paul prohibits but permits . Witherington states that 'Paul comes to the nub of the argument in 8.10* where he refers to the strong 'eating in the temple of an idol' (italicized in Witherington's paraphrase of v. 10; 1993: 246). 47 Yet the implication in ch. 8 seems clearly to be that eating is not idolatrous or sinful per se9 but only if it causes problems for the weak who eat it as of an idol. In 8.10 there is no hint that their presence in a temple is of itself unacceptable, or idolatrous, and Witherington's linguistic study does not sufficiently establish that the clear distinction he wishes to make can be based on Paul's use of the two terms.48 Fee attempts to get around this difficulty49 by suggesting that Paul begins (in ch. 8) by correcting the Corinthians' misunder standing of the nature of Christian ethics and only gives the imperative against idolatry and prohibiting attendance at temple meals in 10.1-22, after what Fee sees as 'a vigorous defence of his apostleship' in 9.123. 5 0 In Fee's words: 'Paul seldom begins with an imperative... he begins by correcting serious theological misunderstandings and then gives the imperative' (1987: 363 n. 23; cf. 1980: 196-97). However, it is surely difficult to see why Paul should apparently leave unques tioned the of the strong to eat , even in a temple, in ch. 8, if he intended to prohibit that very activity in ch. 10. The evidence of chs. 8 and 10 together requires us to acknowledge that for Paul 'eating need not be inherently idolatrous' (Fisk 1989: 59). Bruce Fisk is right to maintain that 'One of the greatest obstacles to Fee's interpretation is its inability to explain Paul's tolera tion in chap. 8 of an activity declared idolatrous in chap. 10' (1989:
47. Witherington considers it 'probable that Paul is here referring to the temple's adjoining dining rooms' (1993: 246 n. 22). 48. Witherington makes no reference (cf. his comment on p. 237) to Fisk 1989 (nor to Brant 1981), who also analyses uses of the term but comes to quite different conclusions. Cf. for example their different comments on Did. 6.3 (Fisk 1989: 58; Witherington 1993: 242). The presence of in place of in a number of (Western) manuscripts at 10.28 casts further doubt on the terminological distinction Witherington wishes to make being understood as such in early Christianity. 49. A difficulty he recognizes: see 1987: 363 n. 23; 1980: 196. 50. Fee 1987: 363. In my view Fee misjudges the extent and the nature of the exemplum in ch. 9. See above and Horrell 1996a: 204-10.

100

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

59). This applies equally to Witherington's proposal. Fisk summarizes the problem:
evidence within chap. 8 suggests strongly that Paul did NOT view those dining in the temple as morally culpable (unless they scandalized someone else), whereas chap. 10 contains a strong warning against the idolatry that occurs around the idol's table in the temple. Paul appears inconsistent. Is dining in an idol's temple allowable, or isn't it? (1989: 62)

It is important to note the vocabulary used in 10.1-22. Paul does not condemn or prohibit but worship of idols (10.14; cf. 10.7; also 5.10-11; 6.9).51 So what is Paul attempting to do in 10.1-22? Part of what he is doing, surely, is giving a further reason why the strong need to be rather more cautious than they might be at present about partaking in at all sorts of occasions. The first reason Paul gives is concern for the weak, and it is this concern that dominates his own practice as described in ch, 9 and that is reiterated most strongly at the end of the whole passage (10.23-11.1). As a second reason, however, Paul warns the strong against complacency, against regarding themselves as immune from judgment and punishment, and against idolatrytheir gnosis is no protection (10.1-14). Thirdly, he warns them against the delusion that they can unproblematically share in opposing spheres of (10.15-22). Paul may also be concerned to show that his seemingly 'liberal' stance on in no way represents a lack of concern about idolatry. Idolatry must always be rigorously shunned for fear of judgment (cf. Brunt 1981: 23). More than this, however, the clear implication of 10.20-21 is that certain occasions are idolatrous: cultic gatherings when things are sacrificed to what Paul calls demons. A Christian cannot share in such occasions and also share around Christ's table. This must surely be Paul's teaching at this pointthis is where he 'draws the line' around the limits of acceptable involvement in pagan 52 life and cults yet what he does not do is define clearly which occa sions he means. When is eating ? In the
51. Cf. Brunt 1981: 20,23,29n. 7; Fisk 1989:63-64. According to Witherington the teaching of 10.14 is explicit: 'Paul does not merely say "do not eat in dining areas adjacent to pagan temple precincts", but "flee the worship of idols" ()' (1993: 247). But the little word 'merely' is rather crucial here and merely (sic) begs the question for Paul did not explictly say such a thing at all! 52. Cf. Borgen 1994: 56 (see further nn. 55 and 61 below).

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

101

light of ch. 8 he does not seem to mean all occasions when are eaten in the temple precincts (contra Fee, Wright, Witherington et al). A simple temple/private home distinction does not seem to be what Paul enunciates (and if he had meant this surely it could have been more clearly and directly stated). There are good reasons for this: temples and their precincts were extensively used for a wide range of purposes and gatherings in the Roman empirereligious, political, social and economicand were central to social life.53 Moreover, meals in the home often had a religious dimension too; the sacred and the secular cannot be so neatly divided.54 Perhaps this is in part why Paul does not give a clear answer as to precisely which settings or gatherings are acceptable or unacceptable. Fisk rightly observes, The issue in 10.1-22 is neither what one eats (idol meat or other) nor where one eats it (temple, home, etc.) Rather, Paul is concerned about the nature of the meal' (Fisk 1989: 63). Paul does indeed want to warn the strong Corinthians against participation in pagan sacrificial cultic celebrations, but this does not amount to a ban on , nor necessarily on activities at the temple.55 1 Cor. 10.1-22 does not, then, contradict ch. 8, though it does state that certain occasions on which would be eatennamely pagan cultic sacrificesare pro hibited, whether participation offends other Christians or not. However, in view of chs. 8-9, 10.1-22 does not contain the dominant focus of Paul's ethical instruction here. Witherington is misleading to suggest that Paul's teaching here can be summarized as a concern 'about the venue of eating such meat' (1994: 42). The issue to which Paul gives most attention in 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1 (though he draws an absolute line in
53. See esp. Stambaugh 1978; also Willis 1985a: 7-64; and on the Egyptian cults at Corinth, Smith 1977. 54. Cf. P. Oslo 157, P. Yale 85 (quoted in Horrell 1996a: 145-46); Gooch 1993: 1-46; Martin 1995: 183. 55. This conclusion is not perhaps as surprising or unlikely as many New Testament studies might suggest, nor would it necessarily make Paul highly 'unusual' or remarkably 'un-Jewish': see Borgen 1994 for evidence that there was greater diversity among both Jews and Christians with regard to participation in pagan cults than is often assumed. Borgen (p. 48) writes, 'Various Jews and various Christians drew the boundary differently with regard to sports, cultural activities, meals and with regard to being present where idols were placed and polytheistic worship was performed'. Cf. also Sanders 1990: 281-82; otherwise Winter 1990: 218-19. Taking up the issue of boundary definition and agreeing with Borgen on the point cited above is Sanders 1997: 69-70.

102

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

10.1-22) is that of eating or not-eating when the only reason for abstaining is the interests and concerns of others. These primary concerns emerge again in his own summary of the whole passage (10.23-11.1). 1 Corinthians 10.23-11.1 In 10.23 Paul begins to recapitulate and summarize his argument.56 He begins by twice citing the Corinthian slogan 'all things are lawful', , quoted already in 6.12. As with the opinions Paul cites in 8.1 and 8.4, he does not negate or oppose this slogan, but quali fies it by insisting again (10.23 is closely parallel to 8.1) that there are more important values, higher priorities, which must inform ethical practice. It is not a matter only of whether one has the freedom, or the right, to do something (), but of whether it is for the com mon good (; cf. 12.7: ), whether it builds up the community (). These values are fundamental to Paul's understanding of Christian ethical practice, which is essentially a relational, communal matter and is not primarily about an individual's own rights or benefits.57 Indeed, as the concise imperative of v. 24 declares, it is an ethic oriented fundamentally to 'the other', and to the benefit and support of the other rather than of the self. This ethic is grounded, for Paul, in Christology. Richard Hays suggests that there are 'two fundamental norms to which he [sc. Paul] points repeatedly: the unity of the community [we should perhaps add: as the body of Christ] and the imitation of Christ' (1997,41).58 These basic principles of Pauline ethics are thus summarized in vv. 23 and 24: the unity and well-being of the community (... ) and the imita-

56. Cf. Hurd 1965: 128: 'Closer comparison reveals that the whole of 1 Cor. 10.23-11.1 is a point by point restatement and summary of the argument of 1 Cor. 8 and 9'. See also Watson 1989: 312. 57. Cf. the uses of and elsewhere in 1 Corinthians: 3.9; 14.3-5, 12, 17, 26. Hays (1997: 57 n. 27) points out that this language refers to 'the edification of the community as a whole'. 5 8. Wright ( 1991: 135) also points to the christological basis of the argument here: 'Underlying it all is the same principle which Paul articulated in Philippians 2.1-5, and for which he drew up the "lordly example" of Christ in Philippians 2.5-11: one must gladly give up one's rights for the sake of the unity of the body of Christ.' See further Hays 1994.

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?


59

103

tion of Christ ( ). In . 25 Paul turns to more specific and practical conclusions, dealing first with the issue of meat purchased in the market and second with invitations to meals from unbelievers. In the first case the Christian is free to buy and consume anything sold in the market without feeling the need to raise questions about it. Paul justifies this advice with a quotation from scripture, Ps. 24.1. While this verse was used in rab binic literature 'to justify the use of benedictions over food' (Barrett 1982: 52), Paul seems to use it here as a scriptural basis for declaring all foods sold in the market place 'clean' and acceptable for the Christian (cf. Mk 7.14-20; Acts 10.14-15; Rom. 14.14).60 In the case of invitations to meals hosted by unbelievers, Paul allows the freedom to go, 'if you wish' ( ), and to eat whatever is served (v. 27). Although 10.1-22 certainly makes clear that pagan cultic sacrificial gatherings are not included in this permission, it is not necessarily to be assumed that the only invitations Paul has in view here are those to a private home (as most interpreters do; see Schrge 1995: 468 n. 523). On the contrary, it is likely that invitations to various kinds of social and celebratory occasions in the temple restaurants are included.61 The only reason given here for 'not eating' is if someone62 points out that the food has been offered to an idol (). Then one should abstain, for the sake of the other person's ; that is, not because you yourself are in danger from such food, but out of concern for the well-being of the other. The rhetorical questions that follow in vv. 29b-30 have puzzled commentators for years.63 However, Duane Watson's (1989) analysis of the use of such questions in ancient rhetoric has shown that the lack of direct answer to the questions need not be problematic. Certainly
59. NA 2 7 lists in the margin by this verse Rom. 15.2 and Phil. 2.4, both pass ages where the paradigm of Christ's self-giving is expounded; see further below. 60. Cf. Barrett 1982; otherwise Tomson 1990: 205-206. 61. Cf. Borgen 1994, esp. 55-56; Martin 1995: 183; Schrge 1995: 468-69,461. Schrge suggests, 'Zudem pat dann auch die Zurckhaltung ( ) besser, weil die Grenze des Erlaubten hier eher zu verschwimmen droht' (p. 469). 62. There has been much discussion as to whether the * someone' Paul has in mind here is a believer or an unbeliever. I think the evidence just tips in favour of a believer; see Horrell 1996a: 147 with n. 109; similarly Schrge 1995: 469-70. 63. Schrge describes v. 29b as 'sehr schwierig', but insists that the difficulty of the questions does not justify the hypothesis that they are a secondary interpolation (Schrge 1995: 471 with n. 537).

104

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

Paul has already shown that the Christian way, as he embodies it, may indeed require the limitation of one's own legitimate freedom, for the sake of others and for the gospel (9.19-23), and an abandonment of rights which one could justifiably enjoy (9.4-18). Watson suggests that here the questions 'allow Paul to progress in his argumentation from the specific examples of 10:23-29a to the more general principles of 10:31-1 i.V.64 Paul's first general principle, in the conclusion to the passage as a whole (10.31-11.1), does perhaps concede the importance and force of these questions. The Christian's calling, in whatever they do, is indeed to glorify God and not to please people (v. 31). But this also implies, of course, that Christian living is not primarily about exercising one's legitimate freedom and enjoying one's rights, but about glorifying God. Next Paul reiterates his basic conviction, so central to this whole passage, that one should avoid causing offence or stumbling either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God (v. 32).65 Just as Paul believes that he does, so they too must seek to please others rather than seeking their own benefit, in order that others may be saved (v. 33). And the concluding sentence urges imitation of Paul, revealing also that he regards his own practice as an imitation of Christ (11.1). Notable in this concluding section is the lack of any reference back to 10.1-22. All the reiterations and repetitions relate to chs. 8 and 9 (cf. Hurd 1965: 128-31). Wolfgang Schrge suggests that after making clear the necessary limits, especially the rejection of participation in pagan cultic meals (in 10.1-22), Paul turns back in the conclusion to the more fundamental statements of ch. 8 and summarizes and clarifies these with concrete examples (1995: 461). This concluding section also raises wider questions concerning Paul's ethics and practice. For example, what does Paul understand by the 'imitation of Christ', and how central or otherwise is this to his ethics here and elsewhere? And how does Paul's exhortation to be without offence () to both Jews and Greeks (10.32; 9.2021) relate both to his insistence in 1 Corinthians that the gospel is precisely an offence to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1.23) and to his blunt and angry confrontation with Jewish Christians whom he hardly seems concerned to please (Phil. 3.2; Gal. 1.8-10; 5.1-12 etc.)? These questions will be taken up briefly in the conclusion that follows.

64. Watson 1989: 313; see further pp. 310-18, summarized on p. 318. 65. Note the parallel with the groups listed in 9.20-22; cf. Hurd 1965: 130.

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? 105 Conclusion Fundamental to Pauline ethics, in this passage at least, is a christologically patterned orientation to others. Ethics is not about the actions or decisions that an individual justifies on the basis of theological prin ciples, but is about the common good, about building up the Christian community. The contrast is sharply drawn in ch. 8, where the theolo gical principles that could legitimately justify partaking of (vv. 4-6) are supplanted as a basis for action by the relational con cerns rooted in Christ's self-giving love. Each member of the com munity is an for whom Christ died; each is a member of the body of Christ, and to cause anyone to stumble is therefore to sin against Christ (vv. 11-13). It is these concerns that should determine one's actions. Murphy O'Connor's analysis is in some ways similar to that argued here, but he is too psychologically speculative about the Corinthian Christians and also underplays the christological basis of the practice to which Paul calls the Corinthian 'strong'. He writes,
The Strong had Paul's support on the level of objective truth, but it stopped there. He could not accept the cold speculative reasoning which dominated their approach. Stripped to its essentials his objection was that their strictly rational logic failed to take into account the complexity of real life.66

Paul's objection, I suggest, is hardly summarized adequately as a prag matic appreciation of 'the complexity of real life'. It is based on the conviction that in certain situations even practices that can be justified and legitimated by unquestionable theological principles should be renounced out of concern for others, a concern rooted in an orientation to the interests of the other which for Paul is essentially an imitation of Christ. In essence Paul argues here that Christian ethics are founded 67 not upon theological principles but upon a christological praxis. The
66. 1978b: 558. According to Murphy O'Connor both strong and weak are challenged and criticized by Paul; their 'behaviour betrayed self-centered superiority and fear respectively' (p. 568). The contemptuous superiority of the Strong was opposed by the spiteful malice of the Weak' (p. 556). The Weak had to change. Their aggressivity was in its own way just as destructive as the lack of concern of the Strong' (p. 568). However, I cannot see in the passage the criticism of the weak which Murphy O'Connor claims, nor is his colourful presentation of the Corinthians' psychology justified by the text. 67. I use the term 4praxis' here not to imply action which precedes or is indepen dent of Reflection', but rather because the christological pattern here is fundamentally

106

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

basis for action is not (theological, monotheistic) knowledge, but 68 (christomorphic) love (8.1-3). This, perhaps, is essentially what Paul means by his being , 'in the law of Christ' (9.21). Schrge writes, 'The law of Christ is the command to love. However, in the light of 11.1 this must be seen more precisely in the sense of conformity to Christ' (1995: 345; cf. Gal. 6.2).69 Particularly in Protestant exegesis there has been a tendency to underplay or deny the importance of imitatio Christi in Pauline thought.70 But here, of course, the passage concludes with the explicit call to imitation (11.1), imitation of Paul which is in turn imitation of Christ. We must surely relate this back to ch. 9, where Paul has spelt out at length the nature of his personal example and where we find precisely the pattern of renunciation of an unquestionable right for the sake of others and for the gospel. Paul's assertion that, though free, he has enslaved himself to all ( , 9.19) recalls the language of Phil. 2.7 ( ), as does the phrase 'humbling myself ( ) in 2 Cor. 11.7, another pass age where Paul is speaking of his practice of proclaiming the gospel 'free of charge' ().71 That well-known passage in Philippians is introduced with the exhortation 'let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others' (Phil. 2.4, NRSV). Christ's attitude of self-giving and self-emptying is an attitude to be imitated.72 The example of Christ is also used in Rom. 15.3 to support the assertion that each should seek to please their neighbour and not themselves, 'for Christ did not please himself. Here in 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul
about the shaping of action and relationships in community. 68. Cf. Hays 1997: 46: 'the fundamental norm of Pauline ethics is the christo morphic life'. 69. See further Hays 1987; 1997: 27-28; Furnish 1990: 155. 70. See, e.g., Michaelis, TDNT 4: 668-73; and the comments of Kurz 1985; Hooker 1990: 7, 36 n. 21, 47 n. 7, 90-93. Recent studies of Pauline ethics seem more inclined to appreciate this important theme: see, e.g., Matera 1996: 174-83; Hays 1997: 31,41. Castelli 1991 is much more suspicious and critical of the theme of imitation in Paul, regarding it as a discourse of power which functions 'as a call to sameness with its implicit indictment of difference' (p. 116). 71. Hays (1997: 42) states that 9.19-23 'bears a striking structural similarity to the Christ hymn of Philippians'. On the parallels between 2 Cor. 11.7 and Phil. 2.78, see Dautzenberg 1969: 222, 225. 72. See Hurtado 1984; Kurz 1985; Stanley 1984; Wolff 1989; Hays 1997: 28-31; against Martin 1983. Cf. also 2 Cor. 8.9, on which see Horrell 1995b.

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

107

demonstrates that this ethical imperative has priority over the theolo gical or scriptural justifications which otherwise might legitimate a particular practice. In 1 Cor. 9.9, as Richard Hays correctly observes, Paul cites Scripture but then 'follows a course opposed to what the texton his own readingrequires' (1989: 166). Hays continues, 'What this extraordinary fact demonstrates is that Paul allows the imitatio Christi paradigm (renunciation of privilege for the sake of others) to override all particular ethical rules and prescriptions, even when the rule is a direct command of scripture' (1989: 225 n. 36). We should also add, 'and even when the rule is a direct instruction of Jesus' (9.14-15).73 In this particular situation Paul clearly believed that the imperative of the gospel demanded from him the setting aside of his right to material support from the church, and demanded from the strong Corinthians the willingness to set aside their to eat . It should not be thought, however, that this is the be all and end all of Pauline ethics. 1 Cor. 10.1-22 shows that there are other considera tions to be taken into account. Concern for others is certainly not the only necessary basis for ethical decision-making. Avoidance of idolatry, like the avoidance of sexual immorality, is an absolute imperative which is not to be compromised even if people happen to be overtolerant (cf. 1 Cor. 5.1-13). The strong's right to eat with impunity is limited by factors other than a Christ-like concern for the interests of others, and 10.1-22 shows (albeit without clear and unambiguous definition) where Paul draws the line. Here though, interestingly, another aspect of Pauline Christologythe of believers in the body of Christis prominent. Pressing questions about Paul's consistency are raised by his asser tion that he seeks to please everyone and to cause no offence to Jews, as well as Greeks and the church of God (10.32-33; 9.19-23; cf. Richardson 1980). It hardly needs to be pointed out that Paul else where causes great offence to Jews and to Jewish Christians, and shows no sign of amending his behaviour or standpoint in order to please them. Indeed, he insists that he is not seeking to please people (Gal. 1.10; 1 Thess. 2.4). A full answer to this complex issue cannot be
73. See further Horrell 1997; cf. Schrge 1995: 310: 'Man kommt nicht um die Erklring herum, da selbst ein verpflichtendes und nicht in die Beliebigkeit abzuschiedendes Gebot des Herrn seine Grenze am Dienst der Verkndigung des Evangeliums findet*.

108

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

attempted here, though the following points are perhaps worth making. First, it is clear, as we have already noted, that factors other than a christologically patterned self-giving for others also play a part in Pauline ethics. The case of , as has often been pointed out, is one where for Paul the question of eating or not-eating (except in cultic sacrifices) is a matter of indifference; it is an adiaphoron. The only reason to abstain in this situation is out of concern for others. Other actions are for Paul quite clearly wrong and intolerable, what ever the reaction of others. Secondly, it is perhaps not too simplistic to say that Paul's harshest criticism is often directed towards those judaizing Christians who in his view seek to impose additional require ments other than faith in Christ upon Gentile converts, or seek to exclude them from full with Jewish Christians (Gal. 2.1121). It is the right of all converts to be full and equal members of the community which Paul so vehemently defends.74 Indeed, the unity of the community as one in Christ is basic to his ethical concerns, and not least in 1 Corinthians. Thirdly, it is not insignificant that it is apparently the strong of the community whom Paul is urging in 1 Corinthians 8-10 to act with the interests of the weak in mind.75 Paul seeks to become weak in order to gain the weak, and urges the strong to do the same, even though this very practice and exhortation are and remain a cause of offence to the strong (Martin 1990: 117-24; Horrell 1996a: 199-235). Similarly in 2 Cor. 8.9-15 it is those who in Paul's view have a present abundance (v. 14) who are challenged to follow Christ's example and become poor that others might be enriched, and that there might be equality (see Horrell 1995b). This is an important consideration, for while the imitation of Christ's self-giving may be a valuable ethical paradigm, it may also become an ideological tool for sustaining oppression and injustice, as for example in 1 Pet. 2.18-3.6, where the socially weakwomen and slavesare urged to bear unjust suffering in silence and submission, in explicit conformity to the example of Christ (see further Corley 1994). It can become the basis for a psychologically and socially damaging pattern in which Christians, especially those who are already weak and vulnerable,
74. This means, of course, the community as defined by Paul's convictions as to what 'membership' entails, and hence Paul also vehemently and aggressively defends his own apostleship and authority (e.g. 2 Cor. 10-13; Gal. 1.1, 11-12 etc.). 75. Theissen 1982: 121-43; Martin 1995: 69-86; Horrell 1996a: 105-109, 14250, 155-57.

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

109

believe that they have no 'rights', no right to assert their own needs or their own value, and sense that imitating Christ is akin to imitating a doormat. Such an ethic is the worm-like humility and self-abasement that Nietzsche so despised. If one is inclined, as I am, to believe that there is contemporary value in Paul's presentation of imitating Christ, then one must be equally and acutely aware of the dangers of such a paradigm. The imitation of Christ's self-giving, in the renunciation of rights and concern for the interests of others, is not, then, the only basis for Pauline ethics. It is certainly not a complete or coherent foundation for Christian ethics, nor is it without its dangers. Yet I suggest that it is close to the heart of what for Paul is an authentically Christian ethic, a way of living that is patterned primarily by the self-giving of Christ. For, as Paul shows in 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1, there are times when the demands of such christological praxis override theological principle, scriptural warrant and even dominical command. What remains unclear from Paul is precisely which situations call for such Christlike renunciation of one's own freedom or rights, and which areas of conduct are rightly the subjects for such flexibility. Paul obviously believed that his own conduct could be offered as an example of the imitation of Christ, which was in turn to be imitated by others. We, like the Corinthians, might wish to be somewhat suspicious, certainly critical and cautious, in assessing how justified such a claim might be. 76 But after all, whether he meant it or not, Paul did urge his readers to 'judge for yourselves what I say' (1 Cor. 10.15).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, CK. 1971 1982 Barton, S.C. 1996

<

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black). Things Sacrificed to Idols', in Essays on Paul (London: SPCK): 40-59.

* "All Things to All People": Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19-23', in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT, 89; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr): 271-85.

76. Castelli 1991 is deeply critical of the notion of imitation in Paul's letters, and raises important questions about the use of power implied in such rhetoric (see above n. 70). However, a nuanced critique of Paul on this matter would have to take more account both of the extent to which it is the socially strong whom he calls to imitate his self-lowering, and of his legitimation of diversity in unity (1 Cor. 12.4-31).

110

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)


* "Yes", "No", "How Far?": The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults', in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in his Hellenistic Context (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 30-59. 'Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1 Cor. 810 to an Understanding of Paul's Ethical Thinking', SBLSP 20: 19-33. 'Rejected, Ignored or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul's Approach to the Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity', NTS 31: 113-24. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
4

Borgen, P. 1994

Brunt, J.C. 1981 1985 Castelli, E.A. 1991 Collier, G.D. 1994

"That we Might not Crave Evil": The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10.1-13', JSNT55: 55-75.

Conzelmann, H. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia; 1975 Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Corley, K. 1994 Peter', in E. Schssler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures. II. A Feminist Commentary (London: SCM Press): 349-60. Dautzenberg, G. 'Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht: eine exegetische 1969 Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 9', Bib 50: 212-32. Fee, GD. 1980 ' Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8-10', Bib 61: 172-97. 1987 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns). Fisk, B.N. 1989 'Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behaviour and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)', Trinity Journal 10: 49-70. Furnish, V.P. Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon Press). 1968 'Belonging to Christ: A Paradigm for Ethics in First Corinthians', Int 44: 1990 145-57. Gardner, P.D. 1994 The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian: An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 8-11.1 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America). Garrison, R. 'Paul's Use of the Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9', in The Gracco1997 Roman Context of Early Christian Literature (JSNTSup, 137; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 95-104. Giblin, CH. 1975 'Three Monotheistic Texts in Paul', CBQ 37: 527-47.

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?


Gooch, P.D. 1993 Hays, R.B. 1987 1989 1994 1997 Hring, J. 1962 Hooker, M.D. 1990 Horrell, D.G. 1995a 1995b 1996a

Ill

Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 5; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press). 'Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ', CBQ 49: 26890. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press). 'Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians', ExAuditu 10: 31-43. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth Press). From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Review of Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its Context by Peter D. Gooch, 77546:279-82. 'Paul's Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology*, Epworth Review 22.2: 74-83. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Review of The Corinthian Body by Dale B. Martin, JTS 47:624-29. ' "The Lord commanded... But I have not used": Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor. 9.14-15', NTS (forthcoming). 'Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10', CBQ 40: 574-89. The Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK).

1996b 1997 Horsley, R.A. 1978 Hurd, J.C. 1965 Hurtado, L. 1984

'Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2.5-11 ', in J.C. Hurd and P. Richardson (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 113-26. Instone Brewer, D. Corinthians 9.9-11 : A Literal Interpretation of "Do not muzzle the ox" ', 1992 NTS 38: 554-65. Kurz, W.S. 1985 'Kenotic Imitation of Paul and of Christ in Philippians 2 and 3', in F.F. Segovia (ed.), Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 103-26. Malherbe, A.J. 'Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 1994 9', in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 231-55.

112

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)


Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press). The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press). Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). ', ', TDNTl: 898-919.

Martin, D.B. 1990 1995 Martin, R.P. 1983 Matera, F.J. 1996 Maurer, C. Meeks, W.A. 1982 Merklein, H. 1984 Michaelis, W.

' "And rose up to play": Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10.122',.AWri6:64-78. 'Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes', ZNW15: 153-83.

', , ', TDNT4: 659-74. Mitchell, ., 1989 'Concerning in 1 Corinthians', 31: 229-56. 1991 Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition ofl Corinthians (HUT, 28; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr). Murphy O'Connor, J. 1978a Cor. Vffl,6: Cosmology or Soteriology?', RB 85: 253-67. 1978b 'Freedom or the Ghetto (1 Cor. Vin,l-13; X,23-XI,1.)\ RB 85: 543-74. Richardson, P. 1980 'Pauline Inconsistency: 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14', NTS 26: 347-62. Robbins, V.K. 1996 The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London: Routledge). Sanders, E.P. Jewish LawfromJesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press). 1990 Sanders, J.T. 'Paul between Jews and Gentiles in Corinth', JSNT65: 67-83. 1997 Schrge, W. 1995 Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12-11,16) (EKKNT, 7.2; Zrich: Benziger Verlag: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Sellin, G. 'Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes', ANRW, .25.4: 2940-3044. 1987 Smith, D.E. 'The Egyptian Cults at Corinth', HTR 70: 201-31. 1977 Stambaugh, J.E. 1978 'The Functions of Roman Temples', ANRW, . 16.1: 554-608. Stanley, D. 1984 'Imitation in Paul's Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to Jesus

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?

113

and to his Own Christian Foundations', in J.C. Hurd and P. Richardson (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 127-41. Theissen, G. 1982 Tomson, P.J. 1990 Watson, D.F. 1989 Weiss, J. 1910 Willis, W.L. 1985a 1985b Winter, B.W. 1990 1994 The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (ed. and trans. J. Schtz; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions', JBL 108: 301-18. Der erste Korintherbrief (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS, 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). 'An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9', JSNT 24: 33-48. 'Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism1 Corinthians 8-10', TynBul 41: 209-26. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Witherington, B. 1993 'Not so Idle Thoughts about EIDOLOTHUTON\ TynBul 44: 237-54. 1994 'Why not Idol Meat? Is it what you Eat or where you Eat it?', Bible Review 10.3: 38-43, 54-55. 1995 Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Wolff, C. 1989 'Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus' Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul', in A.J.M. Wedderburn (ed.), Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 145-60. Wright, N.T. 'Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8', in The Climax of 1991 the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 120-36. Yeo, Khiok-Khng 1994 'The Rhetorical Hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 8 and Chinese Ancestor Worship', Biblnt 2: 294-311. 1995 Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-cultural Hermeneutic (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Zuntz, G. 1953 The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University Press).

114

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

ABSTRACT This article offers a coherent reading of a complex and difficult passage (1 Cor. 8.111.1). It is argued that Paul accepts as legitimate the 'right' of the strong to eat idolmeat and does not rule out participating in activities at the temples, but offers his own example (in chapter 9) as a Christ-like pattern of the giving up of legitimate rights in the interests of others. He calls the strong Corinthians to imitate him in imitation of Christ (11.1). Paul agrees with the theological principles cited by the strong in support of their right (8.1-6), but argues that Christian ethical conduct is founded not upon such principles, but upon a Christological praxisa pattern of action shaped by the self-giving of Christ.

Kim Paffenroth THE STORY OF JESUS ACCORDING TO L Using stylistic, formal, and thematic criteria, Paffenroth reconstructs a preLukan source (L) for much of the unique material in Luke 3-19. This source portrays Jesus primarily as a healer and teller of parables, a portrayal very different from that of the suffering Son of Man in Mark, the aphoristic teacher of Wisdom in Q, or the depiction of Jesus as universal saviour that Luke himself prefers. This source is quite primitive, probably earlier than Mark, perhaps as early as Q, to which it is quite similar in form, if not content. Dr Kim Paffenroth is Visiting Assistant Professor, Program of Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame, Notre Darne, Indiana. cl 35.00/$58.00 ISBN 1 85075 675 9 JSNT Supplement Series, 147 200 pp.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

S-ar putea să vă placă și