1 Cor 8.1-9 - Arguments Wrt Food Offered to Idols

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-9 - Arguments Wrt Food Offered to Idols

1/22

Arguments Concerning FoodOffered to Idols: CorinthianQuotations and Pauline Refutationsin a Rhetorical Partido

(1 Corinthians 8:1-9)

JOHN FOTOPOULOSSaint Mary's College

Notre Dame, IN 46556

1 CORINTHIANS 8:1-9 appears to contain several contradictions in Paul'sargumentation concerning food offered to idols that have caused serious difficulties for the interpretation of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1. These contradictions have beenapproached with a variety of scholarly theories, none of which has provided a satisfactory interpretation of Paul's argumentation. In this article, I will argue thatthese apparent contradictions can be sensibly explained by recognizing 8:1-9 as arhetorical partitio containing Corinthian quotations and interspersed Paulinerefutations, thus allowing for Paul's instructions in 8:1-11:1 to be interpreted as acoherent, sustained prohibition of intentional consumption of food offered toidols. 1

1 Joop F. M. Smit ("1 Cor 8,1-6: A Rhetorical Partitio, A Contribution to the Coherence of

1 Cor 8,1-11,1," in The Corinthian Correspondence [ed. Reimund Bieringer; BETL 125; Leuven:Leuven University Press, 1996] 577-91) has previously considered Paul's use of a rhetorical partiti i 8 1 6 Alth h I i t ith S it th t P l b i hi t t t f f d ff d t


2/22

612 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

I. Contradictions in 1 Corinthians 8:1-9 and Previous Solutions

1 Corinthians 8:1b asserts that , "we all have knowl

edge," while v. 7a contradicts this position by stating, ' , "but not everyone has this knowledge." 2 Another inconsistency evidentin the text appears in v. 5a, where there is a "concessive relating to a contingentpossibility" 3 indicated by . . . , "even if there are so-called gods . . . ," which is contrasted in v. 5b with a positive assertion, . . . , "but in fact there are many gods. . . ." Finally, v. 8adeclares, , "food will not bring us beforethe judgment of God," but v. 12b equates consumption of sacrificial food with

sinning "against Christ" ( ), a position reinforced by 10:1-13, which warns that the Israelites tested Christ by eating food offered toidols in the wilderness (cf. 10:7-9) and were struck downan example explicitly given for the idol-food-eating Corinthians (10:11). 4

that are interrupted by interspersed Pauline refutations. A further difference that I have with Smitregards the general order of Paul's ensuing argumentation as it corresponds to the arguments established in the partitio, something that will be treated later in this article. Finally, Smit ('The Rhetorical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:7-9:27," CBQ 59 [1997] 476-91, esp. 479-80 n. 18)identifies 8:7 as the narrano of 8:7-9:27 while asserting that the '"weak brothers' whom Paulintroduces in 7 are completely hypothetical and indefinite." This isunconvincing, however, sincethe content of 8:7 does not fulfill the function of a narratio which is to describe that which has been done and to serve as the basis of the case in disputeand because Smit asserts that the Weak do not exist, a fact that would destroy the foundation of Paul's case. Rather, 8:10a is the narratio of Paul's treatment of the Corinthian dispute concerning food offered to idols, clearly indicating thatthe facts at issue are that the Strong have been seen reclining in a pagan temple precinct eating sacrificial food and the Weak have been led to eat such food as well.

2 So, too, Wendell L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians and 10 (SBLDS 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 68; Wolfgang Schrge,Der erste Brief andie Korinther (3vols.; EKKNT 7;Solothurn/Dsseldorf:Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-ener Verlag, 1991-99) 2.221.

3 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans; Cambridge, U.K.: Paternoster, 2000) 632.

4 Several prominent scholars have argued that the referencesto baptism into Moses andtoIsrael's spiritual food and drink in 10:1-4 indicate that the Corinthians helda magical view of thesacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which the Corinthians believed kept them fromfalling and thus permitted their consumptionof sacrificial food. Sucha magical, apotropaic viewof baptism andthe Lord's Supper, however, is not represented by Corinthian quotations in 8:1-9 orpresent anywhere else in the letter. Moreover, DavidE. Aune ("The Phenomenon of Early Christian 'Anti-Sacramentalism,'" in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays


3/22

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 613

These contradictions and the interpretive obstacles throughout Paul's treatment of food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians have led some exegetes to seek interpretive assistance from Greek and Latin rhetoric. 5 Other scholars have felt itnecessary to advocate partition theories in order to make sense of Paul's argumentation and instructions regarding food offered to idols. 6 Yet other exegeteshave addressed these contradictions by arguing that Paul vacillates from his initial missionary teaching in Corinth regarding sacrificial food as an adiaphoronbecause of pressure imposed on him by the Jerusalem leaders and the newly

Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians8:1-11:1 [WUNT 2/151; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003] 227-33) that in 10:1-13 Paul is presenting a rhetorical exemplum for the Corinthians, using the negative example of Israel's history towarn of the dangers of consuming sacrificial food, since the Israelites, like the Corinthians, hadreceived spiritual gifts including food and drink but later engaged in idolatry by their consumptionof sacrificial food.

5 Duane F. Watson, "1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: TheRole of Rhetorical Questions," JBL 108 (1989) 301-18; Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the

Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 126-49, 237-58; Hermann Probst,

Paulus und der Brief: Die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der paulinischen Korinther- korrespondenz (1 Kor 8-10) (WUNT 2/45; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); Gary D. Collier,"'That We Might Not Crave Evil': The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10.1-13," JSNT 55 (1994) 55-75; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 186-230; Abraham J. Malherbe, "Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8and 9," in Paul in His Hellenistic Context (ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress, 1995) 231-55; Gregory W. Dawes, "The Danger of Idolatry: First Corinthians 8:7-13,"CBQ 58 (1996) 82-98; Stanley K. Stowers, "Elusive Coherence: Ritual and Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 10-11," in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack (ed.Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) 68-83;Jol Delobel, "Coherence and Relevance of 1 Cor 8-10," in Corinthian Correspondence, 177-90;Joop F. M. Smit, '"Do Not Be Idolaters': Paul's Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1-22," NovT39(1997) 40-53; idem, "The Function of First Corinthians 10,23-30: A Rhetorical Anticipation," Bib78 (1997) 377-88; idem, "Rhetorical Disposition"; idem, '"You Shall Not Muzzle a ThreshingOx': Paul's Use of the Law of Moses in First Corinthians 9,8-12," EstBib 58 (2000) 239-63; idem,"About the Idol Offerings": Rhetoric, Social Context, and Theology of Paul's Discourse in FirstCorinthians 8:1-11:1 (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 27; Leuven: Peeters,2000); Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians(ConBNT 29; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998) 135-73; Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols.

6 So, e.g., Johannes Wei, Der erste Korintherbrief (Meyerkommentar 7; 9th ed.; Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 211-13; Khiok-Khng Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthi

ans 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic (BIS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 83, 194, 209; Hans-Friedemann Richter, "Anstige


4/22


issued Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). 7 Another group of interpretershas asserted that in his instructions Paul accepts the Corinthians' views in supportof eating food offered to idols as a persuasive strategy so as later to qualify theseviews in his argumentation. 8 Other exegetes, not being able to find a sensibleexplanation for Paul's apparently contradictory instructions on food offered toidols, simply have concluded that Paul is inconsistent in the formulation of hiswritten instructions. 9 Despite these diverse interpretations, as well as previousscholars' use of ancient rhetorical theory for the interpretation of the Corinthianissue concerning food offered to idols, a satisfactory explanation for the contradictory positions that are apparent in 8:1-9 is still wanting. The contradictionsevident in 8:1-9, however, can be sensibly explained by recognizing this unit as arhetorical partitio that contains Corinthian quotations interspersed with Paulinerefutations. By recognizing 8:1-9 as a rhetorical partitio, Paul's instructions in8:1-11:1 can be interpreted as a coherent, sustained prohibition of intentionalconsumption of sacrificial food. We therefore turn to ancient rhetorical theoryand to the function of a rhetorical partitio in order to identify the positions of Pauland the Corinthians that are present in 1 Cor 8:1-9.

IL A Rhetorical PartitioAccording to Quintilian, a partitio is "the orderly enumeration of our posi

tions (propositiones), those of our opponent, or both" (Inst. 4.5.1). He adds that if an orator must prove or refute a number of points, a, partitio is useful, since itindicates what will be said about each subject in orderly fashion (4.5.8). Quintilian indicates that ^partitio can serve both of these purposes, but he concludes histreatment of the partitio by stating that "the primary partitio is between agreedand disputed facts. Agreed facts are divided into those admitted by our opponent

and those admitted by ourselves. Disputed facts are divided into those which areour positions (propositiones) and those which are our opponents.'" Cicero alsostates that the partitio takes two forms, the first of which "shows what we have inagreement with our opponents and what is left in dispute, as a result of this some

7 John C. Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians (London: S.P.C.K., 1965; reprint, Macon, GA:Mercer University Press, 1983) 240-62; C. K. Barrett, "Things Sacrificed to Idols," NTS 11 (1965)138-53, esp. 150; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 190.

8 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 241; Dawes, "Danger of Idolatry," 92.So, too, Chrysostom, Horn. 1 Cor. 20.1-2.

9 Peter D. Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Waterloo, ON: Cana


5/22


definite problem is set for the listener on which they should have their attentionfixed" (Inv. 1.22.31). In the second form of partitio, Cicero adds, "the matterswhich we intend to discuss are briefly set forth in a methodical way" (ibid.). Similarly, Rhetorica ad Herennium maintains that in a partitio (divisio) "we oughtfirst to make clear what we and our opponents agree upon, if there is agreementon the points useful to us, and what remains contested" (1.10.17). Rhetorica ad

Herennium then proceeds to discuss proof and refutation, stating that the "entirehope of victory and the entire method of persuasion rest on proof and refutation,for when we have submitted our arguments and destroyed those of the opposition,we have, of course, completely fulfilled the speaker's function" (1.10.18). SinceQuintilian, Cicero, and Rhetorica ad Herennium all state that in a partitio it is

customary for orators to indicate their own positions and those of their opponents,especially when a number of points must be proved or refuted, Paul's use of a

partitio in 1 Cor 8:1-9 is appropriate to begin his lengthy treatment of theCorinthian dispute over sacrificial food.

III. Paul's Method of Persuasion

Close scrutiny of Paul's letters demonstrates that he was quite adept at using

the conventional devices of ancient rhetoric analogous to those of pagan rhetoricians and moralists in the Greco-Roman world. 10 In particular, the Corinthiancorrespondence reveals Paul as a forceful letter writer who used elements of ancient rhetoric in his writings as a substitute for personal speeches in order toaddress important issues that had arisen in the churches after his departure fromthe city. 11 Although Paul deprecates the use of human rhetoric and his own rhetorical skill in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 1:17, 20; 2:1, 4, 13; 4:20), Dale B. Martin hasargued that it was a common rhetorical device for orators to deprecate their own

10 See, e.g., Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches inGalatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary

on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985);Duane F. Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question," NovT 30 (1988) 57-88; Abraham Malherbe, "Exhortation in First Thessalonians," NovT 25(1983) 238-56; idem, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (LEC 4; Philadelphia:Westminster, 1986); idem, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989);Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation; David E. Aune, "Romans as a Logos Protrep-

tikos," in The Romans Debate (ed. Karl P. Donfried; rev. and expanded ed.; Peabody, MA: Hen

drickson, 1991)278-96.11 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 20-23; Witherington, Conflict and


6/22


rhetorical ability in order to secure the goodwill of the audience and that by sodoing in the Corinthian correspondence Paul was behaving precisely as a skilledorator. 12 Paul's remarks on his manner of persuasion in 2 Cor 10:3-5 seem toreflect more accurately his true rhetorical ability:

, , , , , .

For although we march in the flesh, we do not wage war in the flesh, for the weapons

of our warfare are not fleshly, but are empowered by God to destroy strongholds. Wedestroy arguments and every rampart raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought as prisoner of war to comply with Christ, being ready to punish every insubordination, once your compliance is complete.

In the quotation above, Paul states that the purpose of his letters is to destroy "arguments" (). The word is a philosophical term, 13 in thiscase applied to the Corinthians' sophistic assertions that had been argued to Paulin their correspondence and in person during the apostle's painful visit. In reply to

the Corinthians' , Paul's forceful written mode of persuasion was perceived by the Corinthians as , "weighty and strong" (2 Cor 10:10). In fact, Paul's use of rhetoric was so powerful that it caused fear (2 Cor 10:9) and sorrow (2 Cor 2:4) in some members of the Corinthian church.

IV. A Rationale for Paul's Partitio

In light of Paul's effective use of ancient rhetoric and the widespread rhetor

ical convention of orators establishing their own positions and that of their opponents in apartitio, Paul's use of a rhetorical partitio to make distinctions betweenpositions argued by the Corinthians and the positions that he asserts seems quitereasonable. To be precise, it is my position that in 8:1-9 Paul is refuting a particular group of Corinthian Christiansthe Stronga faction that argued in favor of consumption of food offered to idols against a second groupthe Weakby

12 Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995)47-49.

13 Hans W. Heidland, ", ," TDNT, 4. 284-94, esp. 287; BAG(D), s.v., translates the term in 2 Cor 10:4 as "sophistries" (p. 598). Others note the philosophical,


7/22


quoting important parts of the Strong members' arguments. 14 Some scholars donot believe that there were actual Weak members in the Corinthian church; they hold that this group was simply referred to in this way by Paul as a hypotheticaldevice for the sake of his argument. 15 Margaret M. Mitchell has convincingly demonstrated, however, that the purpose of 1 Corinthians was to address numerous issues over which the Corinthian church was divided, the letter itself being anexample of deliberative rhetoric attempting to persuade a factious community tounite in love. 16 Thus, Paul's partitio in 8:1-9 cites quotations of the CorinthianStrong that they assert in support of their consumption of sacrificial food whilereclining at formal meals, even as the partitio also establishes Paul's differences

of opinion with them. His partitio also attempts to establish the general order for his ensuing argumentation, as & partitio can do. This ensuing argumentation consists of a narratio (statement of facts) 17 in 8:10a and the probatio (proofs), which

14 A large number of scholars refer to those in favor of consumption of sacrificial food as theStrong; however, Paul does not use this term in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 specifically in reference to thoseadvocating consumption of sacrificial food. Rather, he refers to those in favor of such consumptionas those who possess "knowledge" (8:10). The term "Strong," however, is not without merit. It isthe logical opposite of "Weak," a term used by Paul in 8:7, 9, 10, 11, 12 in reference to thoseopposed to the consumption of sacrificial food (e.g., 8:9, ). Furthermore, Paulreminds those in favor of consumption of sacrificial food that God will not let them be tested beyond their strength (10:13), and he ironically asks this same group if they are stronger than theLord (10:22). He also refers to some of the Corinthian Christians as "strong" in 1:26 () and4:10 (), whereas he refers to himself and the apostles in 4:10 as "weak " (). Paul,describing his missionary strategy in 9:22, also declares that to the Weak ( ) he became weak (), so that he might win the Weak (). Moreover, those referred toas the Strong in 1:26 and 4:10 seem to be the same group of people as those who possess knowledge in 8:111:1, that is, higher-status Corinthian Christians. The term "Strong" may seem appropriate to some scholars also because Paul uses this term in contrast to the "Weak" in Romans 14regarding disagreements about eating meat, although this is a different issue from that of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1. Alternatively, some scholars refer to those who advocate consumption of food offered toidols as "gnostics," since this group claims to have "knowledge." The term "gnostic," however, isproblematic, since it is subject to misinterpretation and associations with later, second-century Gnostic movements.

15 Hurd, Origin, 143-48; Gordon D. Fee, " Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8-10," Bib 61 (1980) 172-97, esp. 176; Gooch, Dangerous Food, 68.

16 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 20-68, 184-92. Mitchell demonstratesthat 1 Corinthians is filled with numerous rhetorical techniques and topoi mirrored in pagan political speeches urging factions to unite for the common advantage of Greek cities. For a thorough discussion of the existence of actual divisions between the Strong and the Weak in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1,see ibid., 126-49,237-58; also Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 188-91.


8/22


are laid out in 8:10b11:1, roughly corresponding to the order of the CorinthianStrong quotations and Pauline refutations from 8:1-9 (see the table on the following page).

The general order for Paul's treatment of the dispute over food offered toidols in his ensuing argumentation as it corresponds with his partitio is established as follows. 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 raises the Strong's position that all haveknowledge, corresponding to 8:10-9:27, in which Paul argues against this position by treating the effects of knowledge on the Weak and using the example of his renunciation of apostolic freedoms in order to save the Weak. 1 Corinthians8:4-7 raises the content of the Strong's knowledge about the nonexistence of pagan deities represented by their cultic statues used in support of consumptionof food offered to idols, corresponding to 10:14-22, in which Paul argues againstthis by asserting that the pagan deities do, in fact, exist as demons and that theconsumption of sacrificial food at the table of demons constitutes idolatry.1 Corinthians 8:8a raises the Corinthian Strong's position that food will not bringthem before the judgment of God, corresponding to 10:1-13, in which Paulargues against this by demonstrating that Israel came under God's judgment foreating sacrificial food in the wilderness. Finally, 1 Cor 8:8b raises the Strong'sassertion that the Corinthians are better off socially by eating food offered to idolsand worse off socially by abstaining, corresponding to 10:23-11:1, in which Paulargues that the Corinthians can eat food in social situations where the food is notknown to be sacrificial food, such as from the macellum and at private meals inhomes hosted by pagans, as long as they show concern for the Weak. It should benoted that Paul has committed what Quintilian considers to be a serious mistakefor an orator, since Paul does not treat the issues in his probatio in the sequentialorder that they are addressed in his partitio (8:4-7 corresponds to 10:14-22, while8:8a corresponds to 10:1-13). It seems, however, that Paul's error was a common

mistake for orators; Quintilian's disdain for such an error (Inst. 4.5.28) indicatesthat it did occur in practice. Nevertheless, in J*mVspartitio he presents the Corinthian Strong positions, establishes his points of disagreement with them, and laysout the general order for his treatment of the dispute in his ensuing argumentation, just as a partitio should do.

V. The Presence of Corinthian Quotat ions in 1 Corinthians

There is a large scholarly consensus that in 1 Corinthians, at least in a fewverses of the letter, Paul quotes Corinthian positions or slogans. Many scholars


9/22


GENERAL ORDER OF PAUL'S PARTITIO IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8:1-9

AND THE CORRESPONDING ARGUMENTATION IN 8:10-11:1

Sections of Paul 's Partitio

A. 8:1-3 Strong's position assertingthat they all have knowledge andPaul's refutation stressing the arroganteffects of their knowledge.

B. 8:4-7 Content of the Strong'sknowledge about the nonexistence of pagan deities represented by their cultstatues used in support of consumptionof sacrificial food, and Paul's refutations that not all have this knowledgeand that there are many gods and lords.

C. 8:8a Strong's position that food will not bring them before the judgment of God.

Corresponding Sections of Paul 's Argumentation

A. 8:10-9:27 Paul's argument aboutthe effects of the Strong's knowledgeon the Weak and his example of renunciation of apostolic freedoms in order to save the Weak.

B. 10:14-22 Paul's argument that thepagan deities do, in fact, exist asdemons and that the consumption of sacrificial food at the table of demonsconstitutes idolatry.

C. 10:1-13 Paul's argument that Israelcame under God's judgment for eatingsacrificial food in the wilderness.

D. 8:8b-9 Strong's assertion that theCorinthians are better off socially by eating food offered to idols and worseoff by abstaining, and Paul's refutation warning the Strong that their liberty toeat can become an obstacle for the

Weak.

D. 10:23-11:1 Paul's argument thatthe Corinthians can use their liberty toeat food socially if the food is notknown to be sacrificial food from themacellum and at private meals inhomes hosted by pagans as long as they show concern for the Weak.

have pointed to Paul's use of the ("and concerning") formula as evidenceof Corinthian quotations being cited in the letter. 18 Mitchell, however, hasdemonstrated that in ancient Greek literature simply serves as a topicmarker introducing a subject that both the author and the reader already know. 19

Therefore, Mitchell has concluded that Paul's use of the formula in1 Corinthians may or may not indicate issues raised by the Corinthians in their

letter to Paul. Paul could have become aware of these issues by means of oral


10/22


communication. 20 Nevertheless, whatever the source of the issues in 1 Corinthi-ans that were relevant to the Corinthian church, indicates that these are

issues about which both the Corinthians and Paul are familiar "from some ele-ment of their shared experience." 21 Mitchell carefully emphasizes that her research "does not prove that the topics under were not mentioned in theCorinthian letter, but merely that they need not have been so introduced." 22

Although the formula in and of itself does not demonstrate thesource of Paul's subject matter in 1 Corinthians, whether oral or written, Paulhimself cites at least one Corinthian quotation that he obtained from a letter thatthe Corinthians had written to him, 23 which he introduces with the formula. In 7: la Paul refers to the issue about which the Corinthians wrote ( ) and then cites their position in 7: lb, , "it is good for a man not to touch a woman." After the Corinthian quo-tation, Paul states his refutation of their position: , "But because of sexual immoralities, each man should have his own wife and each woman shouldhave her own husband." In addition to this occurrence, it seems that in severalplaces in 1 Corinthians Paul quotes Corinthian positions and then proceeds torefute them, as he does in 7:1, by using an adversative such as or .

In 6:12a and 6:12c there is another generally accepted Corinthian quotationthat is quoted twice by Paul, , "All things are permissible for me," followed by two interspersed Pauline refutations in 6:12b, ' , "but not all things serve common advantage," and in 6:12d, ' , "but I will not be ruled by anything." Thissame Corinthian position is again quoted twice, in 10:23a and 10:23c, 24 as , refuted once more by ' in 10:23b and a newinterspersed Pauline refutation in 10:23d, ' , "but not allthings build up." Thus, all of the Pauline refutations of the Corinthian quotation begin with the adversative .

Present in 6:13a-b is another Corinthian quotation,

2 0 In 1 Cor 1:11 Paul states that he has information that has been communicated to him orally by Chloe's people. Paul probably also had oral information from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, the apparent carriers of 1 Corinthians, that supplemented the content of the letter.

21 Mitchell, "Concerning ," 256.22 Ibid.23

The Corinthians' letter was written in reply to Paul's previous letter (a.k.a. Corinthians A;see 1 Cor 5:9). Paul's previous letter had given the Corinthians instructions prohibiting social relations with those who were sexually immoral The Corinthians had interpreted Paul's instructions


11/22


, ,"Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, and God will destroy bothone and the other." This cannot be Paul's position, since the maxim indicates a

belief that the physical body will be destroyed, a belief in conflict with Paul'sclearly stated view that the physical body will be changed in the twinkling of aneye and will put on imperishability and immortality (15:51-53). Jerome Murphy-O'Connor has demonstrated that this Corinthian quotation is refuted in 6:13c-14in a Pauline response that displays similar parallelism, , , "But the body is not for sexualimmorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." 25 Once again Paul begins

his refutation with an adversative .Finally, in 6:18b there is another clear Corinthian quotation,

, "Every sin which a personmight commit is outside the body." This must certainly be a slogan of theCorinthians, since Paul states that the Corinthians' bodies are members of Christand that their bodies cannot be used for sexual immorality (6:15-17). Thus they are to glorify God in their bodies (6:20). Therefore Paul, consistent with theabove Corinthian quotations, in 6:18c begins to refute this Corinthian position

with an adversative , stating ,"but the sexually immoral person sins against one's own body."

These examples suffice to demonstrate the probability that Corinthian quotations are present in 1 Corinthians and that Paul regularly refutes them with anadversative followed by his own arguments. This too, as will be shown below, isthe general method by which Paul refutes Corinthian Strong quotations present in8:1-9. Therefore, the use of and the clear identification of some Corinthian quotations in 1 Corinthians strengthen the case for the presence of quota

tions in 8:1-9. Nevertheless, some exegetes deny that Corinthian quotations arepresent in 8:1-9, considering their identification with the placement of quotationmarks to be an interpretive gloss. 26 Frederik W. Grosheide, anticipating a potential objection to the identification of Corinthian quotations in 1 Corinthians 8,states, "The objection that Paul does not indicate that he is quoting is removed by the consideration that everyone in Corinth would naturally know what they had

written and thus would recognize their own words." 27 Certainly it would be

2 5

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20," CBQ 40 (1978) 391-96, esp. 394-95.

2 6 D k N D i d Di Th Dil f S ifi i l F d C i h (JSNTS


12/22


preferable for exegetes if Paul had consistently used a clear introductory marker such as before quoting all Corinthian positions. Several times in1 Corinthians, however, Paul quotes the Scriptures or refers to beliefs or practicesin the Corinthian church that he expects the Corinthians to understand withoutprior introductory markers or explanations. In 2:16 and 5:13, for example, Paulquotes Isa 40:13 and Deut 17:7, respectively, without any introductory formulas.He is also comfortable quoting a maxim or saying in 4:6, "Nothing beyond whatis written," without introductory markers and without identifying the source of the maxim, fully expecting the Corinthians to understand its meaning. The apostle also engages in a midrashic interpretation in 10:4, where Christ is referred toas the "rock" without introduction or further explanation. Finally, Paul is capable

of using the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead as a rhetorical proof in15:29 without introduction or explanation. Thus, it is quite plausible that Paulexpects the Corinthians to recognize their positions which he quotes from their letter to him without the presence of introductory markers since he also refers toScriptures, beliefs, and practices in 1 Corinthians without providing such introductory markers or explanations. Furthermore, Paul's use of apartitio, a rhetorical device intended to present the respective positions of opponents as well as of the orator refuting their case, makes the identification of Corinthian Strong quota

tions in 8:1-9 especially appropriate, thus providing a sensible explanation for thecontradictory positions evident in the argumentation.

VI. Corinthian Strong Quotations and Pauline Refutations in 8:1-9

Paul begins his instructions concerning consumption of food offered to idols with the topic marker (v. la). This topic marker signalsthat sacrificial food is an issue about which both Paul and the Corinthians areaware. Mitchell remarks, "by the way in which he names the disputed matter,Paul already enters into the debate on someone's terms." 28 These terms are aCorinthian quotation cited by Paul as he begins his partitio, which enumerates thefirst position of his antagonists: , "We knowthat we all have knowledge" (v. lb). Some scholars assert that the Strong's quotation begins with , 29 while others argue that the quotation includes

2 8 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 237 n. 288.2 9 So Hurd, Origin, 69; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New

York: Harper & Row, 1968) 187; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 140;


13/22


14/22


not indicate anywhere in the text that he accepts the view that all have knowledge, but rather immediately refutes the Corinthian Strong's position in the following verses, w. lc-3 and again in v. 7a. 36 Thus, v. lb is the claim of the Strongthat all have knowledge, a claim rebutted by Paul in a tripartite refutation in vv.lc-3:

(1) , Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

(2) ' , If someone thinks to know something, one does not yet know asone should.

(3) , ' If someone loves God, that one is known by him.

In this tripartite refutation, Paul does not simply qualify the idea that all of the Corinthians have knowledge; he flatly denies it (v. 7a) and asserts that knowledge puffs upthose claiming to have knowledge really do not know as they should. "Knowledge" is an issue raised throughout 1 Corinthians as something

about which the Corinthians are confident but which Paul modifies or refutes.37

Although Paul praised the Corinthians for their knowledge in the exordium of 1 Corinthians (1:5), he also castigated some of the Corinthians for their arrogancein 4:18 (), 4:19 (), and 5:2 (). In 5:2,a case of sexual immorality was reported among the Corinthians, but they, in turn,responded arrogantly to this behavior. It is no surprise, then, that Corinthianknowledge also made the Strong arrogantly assertive regarding their freedom toeat food offered to idols. That vv. lc-3 is Paul's refutation of the previously

quoted Corinthian Strong position (8:1b) is further supported by P4 6

, the singlemost important textual witness for 1 Corinthians, which contains an adversative in v. lc , reading .

Paul again employs a topic marker in 8:4a, -, "Concerning, then, the eating of food offered to idols," to resume theStrong's quotations in v. 4b-c. These quotations 38 express the content of the

, (Interpretatio 1 Cor. 216). For moreon irony, see Quintilian Inst. 9.22.44; 6.2.15; 8.6.54.36 Willis, Idol Meat, 68; Gardner, Gifts, 22.

37 ll


15/22


Strong's knowledge ( ) that is used to support their consumption of sacrificial food (v. 4b-c):

(1) No idol exists in the world.

(2) No God exists but one.

The content of the Strong's knowledge asserts their belief that the pagan godsrepresented by cult statues have no real existence in the world (v. 4b), a notionsupported by their belief that only one God truly exists (v. 4c). These assertionsare important points for the Corinthians, since in Greco-Roman formal mealsportions of sacrificial food were often placed before statues of pagan deities who were believed to be fellow participants in the meal. 39 With this Corinthian theological assertion, the Corinthians could justify their consumption of sacrificialfood in the presence of pagan statues, since the deities represented by theseimages had no real existence.

Wendell L. Willis has rightly argued that the knowledge expressed in thetwo clauses v. 4b and v. 4c is developed further in v. 5a with serving as

explanatory conjunctions for the content of Corinthian knowledge in v. 6.40

Verse 5b stands as a parenthetical Pauline refutation of v. 5a. 41 In v. 5a, the Corinthians articulate their assessment of their pagan religious environment's belief inmany gods and lords as a "concessive relating to a contingent possibility" 42 for the sake of argument as indicated by . . . , "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or whether on earth." Thus, theCorinthian Strong argue by using a positive assertion in v. 4b-c that the pagandeities do not have real existence, and by using a hypothetical position for the

sake of argument in v. 5a that also considers the possibility of the existence of pagan deities.

Grosheide, Commentary, 188; Barrett, First Corinthians, 191; Fee, First Corinthians, 370-71;Gooch, Dangerous Food, 62-63; Schrge, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2. 221; Witherington,Conflict and Community, 188; Richter, "Anstige Freiheit in Korinth," 562-63; Otfried Hofius,"'Einer ist GottEiner ist der Herr': Erwgungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Bekenntnisses 1Kor 8:6," in Eschatologie und Schpfung: Festschrift fur Erich Grer zum siebzigsten Geburt

stag (ed. Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter; BZNW 89; Berlin: de Gruyter,1997) 95-108,esp. 99-101.

39 See David Gill,Greek Cult Tables (New York/London: Garland, 1991); Fotopoulos,Food Offered to Idols, 162-69,174-78.


16/22


The Strong's position quoted in v. 5a is interrupted by a Pauline refutation in v. 5b . 43 This refutation, indicated as an anacoluthon, corrects the CorinthianStrong's assessment that pagan gods and lords are only so-called, having no real

existence, which Paul indicates by . Paul disputes the Strong's position, which they asserted in v. 5a, with in v. 5b as a point in his par-titio that will be developed further and fully refuted in his probatio(proof/argument) of 10:19-22, where idols depicting pagan deities are equated

with demons. 44 Paul states that the so-called gods and lords whom the Strong donot believe exist do, in fact, exist. It is because these so-called gods and lords truly exist (as demons) that the Corinthians are not to eat food offered to idols.

The content of the Strong's knowledgethat no pagan deities truly exist and

that God is oneis further argued and supported in v. 64 5

by the continuation of their quotation, which was conveyed to Paul as a confessional formula: 46

' , ' '

But for us there is one God, the Father (v. 6a)From whom are all things and for whom we exist (v. 6b), And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (v. 6c)Through whom are all things and through whom we exist (v. 6d).

This confessional formula stands as a shared tradition common to both Pauland the Corinthians 47 with having been drawn from the Shema of Deut6:4. 48 It seems likely that Paul himself had transmitted this confessional formulato the Corinthian church during his time in the city, 49 also beingemployed by Paul in Gal 3:20 and Rom 3:30. 50 Consequently, the Corinthians

argue their position in support of the consumption of food offered to idols on the

43 Willis (Idol Meat, 86) calls v. 5b "Paul's own qualification."44 So, too, Eriksson, Traditions, 156; Merklein, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2.186.45 Hofius, "'Einer ist GottEiner ist der Herr,'" 99-101; Richter, "Anstige Freiheit in

Korinth," 562-63.46 Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 144) calls v. 6 a "formula of confession," which has phrasing

that has not been chosen byPaul and content that is notPauline. Other scholars refer to v. 6 as apre-Pauline orPauline creedal statement. For example, Schrge (Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2.241) writes, "Paulus will durch das Zitat der urchristlichen Formel keine weltanschauliche Theseber die Existenz nur eines Gottes vortragen."

47 C l 1 C i thi 144 38 E ik T diti 154


17/22


basis of their monotheistic belief in the one God, the Father, and the one Lord,Jesus Christ, who created all things and through whom they exist. Richard A.Horsley has demonstrated that enlightened theological knowledge used to sup

port the freedom to eat foods that were not kosher was quite common in Hellenistic Judaism, 51 something analogous to the Strong's support of their assertion of their freedom to eat sacrificial food by recourse to their knowledgeable Christianmonotheism.

In v. 7, Paul expresses his implicit acceptance of the content of the Strong'sknowledge, yet rejects their conclusion that consumption of sacrificial food ispermitted. The Pauline refutatio begins in v. 7a with the adversative emphatically correcting the assessment of the Strong that have the knowl-

edge expressed in w . 4-5a and v. 6 that is claimed to support their consumption of sacrificial food. 52 Paul does not reject the entirety of the theological contentexpressed in the Strong's quotations, but he bluntly refutes the notion that all of the Corinthians have the knowledge that they allege: ' , "But not everyone has this knowledge." Some Corinthiansthe Weakdo not have this same knowledge and are so accustomed to idols that they stillthink of sacrificial food as having been offered to a supernatural being having realexistence, thus defiling their (v. 7b-c) by their consumption of it. 53

Lack of knowledge, weak moral consciousness, and consumption of food offeredto idols lead some of the Corinthians, the Weak, to be defiled.In v. 8 there are two further quotations of the Corinthian Strong. The first

quotation is , "Food will not bring us before the judgment of God" (v. 8a). In this context the word means"to bring before the judgment," rather than meaning "commend to." 54 In this quotation the Corinthian Strong assert that the consumption of sacrificial food has nospiritual consequences for them. This Corinthian belief may stem from their view that physical actions have no moral significance or from their experience that noCorinthian Christians have suffered spiritual consequences from eating sacrificialfood. Although many scholars see v. 8a as a Corinthian quotation, 55 the difficulty

5 1 Richard A. Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians8-10," CBQ 40 (1978) 574-89.

5 2 Merklein, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2. 192.5 3 Fee, First Corinthians, 379-80; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 639.5 4 Wei, Erste Korintherbrief 229; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Food and Spiritual Gifts in

1 Cor 8:8," CBQ 41 (1979) 292-98, esp. 296-97; Fee, First Corinthians, 382 n. 34. Barrett (FirstCorinthians, 195) considers this meaning to be acceptable.

55 For a list of past scholars who see v. 8 as a Corinthian slogan, see Hurd, Origin, 68. To this


18/22


lies in ascertaining whether the Corinthian position ends with v. 8a or if it continues into v. 8b-c. 56 If v. 8a is not a position of the Strong but is the position of Paul,then Paul believes that sacrificial food is morally neutral. 57 But if it is Paul's position that any kind of food, including sacrificial food, will not bring the Corinthians before God in judgment, then why should Paul instruct them that eatingsacrificial food amounts to idolatry, which brings God's wrathful judgment (10:1-22)? Rather, in 10:1-22 the apostle vividly demonstrates from Israel's history andfrom the meaning of pagan cultic meals that the consumption of sacrificial foodconnotes partnership with the pagan gods, who are demons. Thus, food, particularly sacrificial food, has tremendously negative implications for a person's relationship with God. Hence, from Paul's perspective, consuming food offered to

idols is certainly not an adiaphoron. We conclude, therefore, that it was only theCorinthian Strong who believed that sacrificial food would not bring them beforeGod in judgment based on their "knowledge" about the real existence of theFather and Jesus over and against the nonexistence of pagan deities represented by their cultic statues.

Does the Corinthian quotation continue into v. 8b-c, or is v. 8b-c the positionof Paul? If v. 8b-c is the Strong's position, then it seems to contradict their prior advocacy of consumption of sacrificial food, since the maxim as it appears states,

, , "We areno worse off if we do not eat, and we are not better off if we eat." C. K. Barrett'ssolution rightly suggests that v. 8b-c includes Paul's "correction of the Corinthianposition." 58 In this case, the Strong expressed their position as , , "We are worse off if we do not eatand better off if we eat," while the double stands as Paul's correction of their assertion. The social and economic advantages of the consumption of sacrificialfood ("we are better off if we eat") would have been expressed by the Strong over

against the disadvantages of abstaining from sacrificial food ("we are worse off if we do not eat"). Paul, however, disputes the Strong's notions in his partitio by stating that they are not better off for eating and they are not worse off for abstaining. This reconstruction is especially likely in light of v. 9, which is clearly Paul'srefutation of the Strong's position. 59

Verse 9 serves as Paul's refutation of the Strong's assertion that they are better off socially if they eat and worse off if they abstain. Paul's refutation functions

56

For a review of the various solutions regarding v. 8, see Horsley, "Consciousness andFreedom," 577-79; Willis, Idol Meat, 96-98; and Fee, First Corinthians, 381-84, esp. 383 n. 39.

57 H d O i i 123 Willi Id l M 97 G d Gif 48 54 S i "Rh i l Di


19/22


as a warning concerning the Strong's position in v. 8, the having adversativeforce: , "Beware that this liberty of yours does not become a stumbling block to the Weak." It is , "this liberty of yours," which wasexpressed by the Strong in regard to the social advantages of eating sacrificialfood, that has become the spiritual downfall of the Weak. The Strong's liberty toconsume sacrificial food, which has resulted in the Weak's downfall, is antithetical to Paul's conduct, which does not make use of liberty () but takes carenot to put an obstacle () in the way of the gospel (cf. 9:12ff.). Paul hasused the word in v. 9 ironically in order to show the Strong that the useof their so-called liberty has negative consequences. 60 He warns them with theadmonition . 61 Horsley comments that "Paul's autobiographical argument concerning 'freedom' in chap. 9, in which he further explains his instructions of 8:13, is aimed directly at this 'freedom' and 'authority' of the enlightenedCorinthians." 62

VII. Reconstruction of Corinthian Strong Positions and PaulineRefutations

After this brief exegetical survey, I suggest a probable reconstruction63

of the Corinthian Strong's arguments in favor of sacrificial food consumption thatare quoted by Paul in his partitio of 8:1-9 and are countered by Paul's interspersed refutations as follows:

Strong's Quotation: .

We know that we all have knowledge.

Paul's Refutation: , , , ' .

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If someonethinks to know something, one does not yet know as

6 0 Smit, "Rhetorical Disposition," 482.6 1 Schrge, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2.261.62 Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom," 580.63 Richter's reconstruction of the content of the Corinthians' positions ("Anstige Freiheit

in Korinth," 563 n. 5) seems to be the closest to my independent reconstruction, but with severaldifferences. Richter does not include as Corinthian positions in 8:4b, in 8:5a, or,


20/22


Strong's Quotation:

Strong's Quotation:

one should know. But if someone loves God, that oneis known by him.

. . . .

We know that no idol exists in the world and that noGod exists but one. For even if there are so-calledgods, whether in heaven or whether on earth...

Paul's Refutation: .

As in fact there are many gods and many lords.

' , ' ' .

But for us there is one God, the Father, from whomare all things and for whom we exist, and there is oneLord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things andthrough whom we exist.

'' . , .

But not everyone has this knowledge. Since some areso accustomed to idols until now, they eat this food asfood offered to idols and their moral consciousness,

being weak, is defiled. . , .

Food will not bring us before the judgment of God. We are worse off if we do not eat, and we are better off if we eat.

, . .

Paul's Refutation:

Strong's Quotation:

Paul's Refutation:


21/22


VIII. Conclusion

The numerous contradictions present in 1 Cor 8:1-9 have made the use of

ancient rhetorical theory an appropriate heuristic tool for the elucidation of Paul'sargumentation. Paul's use of a partitio, a commonly utilized rhetorical device inwhich orators establish their own positions and the positions of their opponents,also makes the presence of Corinthian Strong quotations in the text quite understandable. This assertion is further reinforced by the presence of Corinthian quotations at other places in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. Thus, the presenceof Corinthian quotations in 8:1-9 interspersed with Pauline refutations allows fora sensible explanation of the contradictions that are evident in the text. Moreover,the rhetorical-critical solution presented in this article makes various scholarlytheories unnecessary which view Paul's instructions on sacrificial food as vacillating, inconsistent, careless, or containing positions that he does not truly acceptin order to be qualified later. The Corinthian Strong quotations and Pauline refutations raised in the partitio of 8:1-9 also serve to establish roughly the generalorder for Paul's ensuing argumentation regarding sacrificial food in the proof section of 8:10b11:1. By recognizing the presence of Corinthian Strong quotationsand interspersed Pauline refutations in 8:1-9, Paul's instructions in 8:1-11:1 canbe interpreted as a coherent, sustained prohibition of the intentional consumptionof food offered to idols.


22/22

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically 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 specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright 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 previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

1 Cor 8.1-9 - Arguments Wrt Food Offered to Idols

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 8.1-9 - Arguments Wrt Food Offered to Idols