1 Cor 8.8 - Food and Spiritual Gifts

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.8 - Food and Spiritual Gifts

1/8

Food and Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor 8:8

JEROME MURPHY-O'CONNOR, O.P.

Ecole BibliqueP O 19053 Jerusalem

Israel

THE LEGITIMACYof eating meat which had been offered to idols wasbut one of the questions posed to Paul by the Corinthians (1 Cor 8:1; cf.

7:1). His response is so subtly argued that a correct interpretation of everyverse is essential if we are to understand not only his position but that of theCorinthians. As translated in the RSV 1 Cor 8:8 appears limpidly clear,"Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat,and no better off if we d o . " In fact it abounds in problems.

Which combination of the rich selection of variant readings is mostlikely to represent the authentic text? Is the verse a citation from the Corin-

thian letter to Paul, or part of the latter's response? Why the shift from thefuture tense in the first part to the present tense in the second part? Within

what framework are perisseu and hystere to be understood? Some ofthese questions are ignored by the commentators who, moreover, adopt

very different positions on the issues they do take up. Hence, it seems ap

propriate to undertake a new investigation of these problems whose signifi

cance for an accurate determination of the complex situation at Corinth is

evident.

It would seem logical to begin with the textual problem but, as will become apparent, assumptions regarding the authorship of the verse have

b itt d t i d t i t i fl i th h i f i t


2/8

1 COR 8 8 293

the significant variants.Opinion on the authorship of the verse is divided. J. C. Hurd, Jr. lists

ten authors who maintain that it is of Corinthian origin.' Others eithermodify the hypothesis,

2or reject it.

3In myopinion, the evidence clearly fa-

vors the view that Paul is here quoting a Corinthian statement. G. Heinncihighlights the switch from the 1st per. pi. in 8 to the 2nd per. pi. in 9

which "de n Wechsel der Redenden genugsam mark ie rt ."4

F. W. Gros-heide,

5and J. Jeremas6 note that the de in 9serves the same function with

respect to 8 as does the alia of 7 with respect to the Corinthian slogan in 1. A perfect parallel to this usage is provided by 1 Cor 6:13 and 18 wherethe Pauline reaction to Corinthian statements begins with de.

7 It should be

noted that 8 also begins with de, which here is best interpreted as the intro-duction to an adversative parenthesis.

8The probative force of these formal

indications is greatly enhanced if we compare 8 with 13. They have incommon the substantive brma and the verbphag, but 13, which is indis-putablyPauline, contradicts 8. No matter which variant is selected, 8 af-firms that eating is always morally neutral; it makes one neither better nor

worse. V 13, on the contrary, insists that under certain conditions eating hasa moral dimension; it can be a sin against Christ ( 12). 9 The perspective of 8, therefore, is opposed to that of Paul, and accords perfectly with theCorinthian slogan in 1 Cor 6:13, " Foo ds are for the stomach and the stom-ach for foods, but God will destroy both one and the other," which is nten-

1 The Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965) 68.2 For C. K. Barrett {The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Blacks NT Commentary;

London Black, 1968] 195) only 8a is a Corinthian citation The remainder of the verse is tobe attributed to Paul

3

H. Lietzmann, An die Konnther I-II(Tbingen: Mohr, 41949) 38; E -. Allo, SaintPaul. Premire pitre aux Corinthiens (EBib; Pans* Gabalda,

21956) 204; J. C. Hurd, Jr., Ori-

gin, 123; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 1484 Der erste Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1896)262.5 Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1955) 1946 Abba Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966)273.7 See my study, "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6: 12-20," CBQ 40 (1978) 391-396.8 BDF, 447.9 Conzelmann (7 Corinthians, 148) claims that 13 is in agreement with 8 He can do

so only because he interprets 8 to mean that Paul "repudiates the direct demonstration offreedom. No work, not even freedom practiced as a work, makes us acceptable before God


3/8

294 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 41, 1979

ded to affirm that bodilyactions (e.g. eating) are morally irrelevant.Onlyone serious objection has been raised against the hypothesis that

8 is a Corinthian statement. Hurd supports the contention of Lietzmannand Alio that if 8 were part of the Corinthian letter it would have been for-mulated otherwise than in the received critical text. I 0 The validity of this ob-

jection is conditioned by the reliability of the received critical text. Thisforces us to an examination of the variant readings for 8bc. If we leaveaside for the moment the particle gar we are confronted bythree readings:

1. oute ean m phagmen perisseuomen, oute ean phagmen hysterou-

metha.

2. oute ean phagmen perisseuomen, oute ean m phagmen hysterou-metha.

3. oute ean m phagmen hysteroumetha, oute ean phagmen peris

seuomen.

The witnesses to these readings are:

1. A217.

2. D F G vulgmss Tert Cyrp Ambst Aug Pel; Wtf syr eth Clem Orig Bas

Chrys Chr Thdrt.

3. P46 1739 [1908]B A* (33*) 181-1836-1898 917 1288 vulgos s a h boh

arm.

Only readings 2 and 3 are discussed by Zuntz who claims that reading 2 "is

vastly superior, not only in numbers but in weight. To reject it is impossible,

unless the 4 6 reading can be shown to be intrinsically superior. In fact itis inferi or. , , n In the last analysis his conclusion rests on his understandingof Paul's claim, "In elaborating this thesis Paul could not but begin withthe claim which is under discussion, 'for if we eat, we have no additional

merit';. . . ," 1 2 The vast majority of textual critics and commentators,however, disagree with Zuntz and resolutely opt for reading 3. Unfortu-nately, not all give their reasons for this choice, but it seems legitimate topresume that they agree with Lietzmann, "Der bestbezeugte Text aber lsstsich nur wie oben als Wort des Pis verstehen,. . . , "1 3 In other words, there

are two arguments, the authority ofMSS and Paul's intention. Both sides in

voke this last argument, but an argument that can be used to support dia

metrically opposed conclusions is immediately suspect of subjectivism. In

10Origins 123 Similarly Barrett 7 Corinthians 195


4/8

1 COR 8:8 295

the present instance it is also illegitimate because, as we have seen, it is moreprobable that 8 was not written by Paul.

The partisans of readings 2 and 3 also rely, perhaps unconsciously, on

th impression of security given by the long lists of witnesses that supportthese readings. The majority can hardly be wrong! However, as A. E.

Housman has pointed out, counting manuscripts cannot be accepted as a

substitute for thought,14

and the mechanical approach to textual criticism

has regularly been called into question.15 Undue deference to numbers and

authority of witnesses has led to the neglect of reading 1. Its manuscript

support is minimal, and it has been adopted only by Lachmann.16 Yet it is

precisely what one would have expected the Corinthian men of knowledge

to have said!

17

In consequence, reading 1 is the one best adapted to the context. According to the principles of eclectic textual criticism, this gives it a

strong claim to be the original reading.

This conclusion also receives support from Griesbach's principle: the

reading to be preferred is the one which explains the origin of the other vari

ants. If we assume that reading 1 is the original, readings 2 and 3 appear as

conscious corrections based on the assumption that 8 is a Pauline state-ment. Given the general thrust of 1 Corinthians 8 the assertion oute ean me

phagmen perisseuomen (reading 1) stands out as a complete anomaly.

Copyists who noticed this attempted to bring the statement into closer har

mony with Paul's thought either by switching the place of the negative par

ticle (reading 2) or by transposing the verbs perisseu and hystere (reading

3). With a little ingenuity oute ean phagmen perisseuomen (readings 2 and

3) can be interpreted in a sense that fits Paul's argument. Barrett's explana

tion is far from untypical, "No man is saved because he is an 'advanced'

Christian with liberal views."18

This interpretation, however, is without

foundation because there is no hint that the men of knowledge believed any

thing of the sort. Moreover, as we shall see, the verb perisseu reflects acompletely different perspective. Hence, the objection against the Corin

thian authorship of 8 based on its formulation is without foundation, forthe original text read oute ean m phagmen perisseuomen, oute ean

phagmen hysteroumetha.

The first clause of 8 poses two problems. Should we read the future

14

M. ManiliiAstronomicon (ed A. E. Housman; London: Richards, 1903) I, xxxiii.15

See most recently J. K. Elliott, "Plaidoyer pour un clectisme intgral appliqu lacritique textuelle du Nouveau Testament," RB 84 (1977) 5-25.

16 Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (Carolus Lachmannus recensuit Philippus


5/8


parastesei or the present panstsil Is paristmi to be given the meaning "to

place beside, to present" or "to bring before (a judge)"? Weiss19

and

Godet20

are the only authors to prefer the present tense.21

They feel that it is

more appropriate to a general maxim. However, copyists may have felt thesame, and this would explain why the original future tense was replaced.

Alternatively, it is possible that the copyists were influenced by the present

tense of the two verbs in 8bc. This latter fact makes it difficult to conceivewhyanyone would have substituted a future tense in 8a Hence, parasteseihas certainlythe best claim to be the authentic reading.

Opinion is sharply divided on the meaning of panstmi in 8a. Themajority take one of the basic dictionary definitions, "to place beside, to

prevent," but because this does not make sense when taken literally, theyresort to paraphrase to convey the idea that food is not a guarantee of divine approval, e.g. "Food will not commend us to God" (RSV, WV)\"Food cannot bring us in touch with God" (JB); "Ce n'est pas un alimentqui nous rapprochera de Dieu" (BJ, TOB). With typically English understatement Robertson-Plummer note that "'Commend' (AV, RV) is perhaps a trifle too definite for panstmi.9922 In fact there are no linguistic parallels that would justify this translation.23 A survey of this interpretation of

the verse shows that exegetes begin with the assumption that Paul is the

speaker, and then proceed to interpret panstmi as if it were symstmi.24 We

have seen that the initial assumption is unjustified, and so we are not re

quired to pass judgment on the legitimacy of rewriting a text in order to

bring it into line with the commentator's expectations.

19 Der erste Korintherbrief (MeyerK, Gottmgen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910, re

printed 1970) 229 120Commentaire sur la premiere pitre aux Corinthiens (Neuchatel Monnier, 1965 re

print) II 23-2421 Among contemporary versions the NAB alone prefers the present tense, "Food does

not bring us closer to God "22 The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC, Edinburgh Clark, 1911)17023

As Lietzmann has pointed out (An die Knnt her I-II, 38)24 The authority always cited for the meaning "to bring close to God" is R Reitzen-

stein, "Rehgionsgeschichte und Eschatologie," ZNW 13 (1912) 19-20 He writes, "Richtig

deuteten einzelne Schreiber, die fur paristsin das allgemeiner bekannte synistsin, Aber

warum sagt Paulus dann nicht synistsin oder syntsP Ich denke, weil es graduelle Unterschiede dabei nicht gibt, er aber will von einem Naherbringen oder Fernerlassen reden, hyste

roumetha und perisseuomen haben ihm wesentlich rumliche Bedeutung " He adduces no evi


6/8

1 COR 8 8 297

Hence, we are left with the alternative:25 "Food will not bring us before(the judgment seat of) God'." This meaning ofparistmi is considered possible by Arndt-Gingrich26 and Barrett,27 and is accepted by Heinrici28 andWeiss.29 It is explicitly rejected by Godet as "beaucoup plus tranger aucontexte."30 In fact the opposite is true ifwe envisage 8 as a statement directed against the "weak" members of the Corinthian community. This assumption is not onlyjustifiable but necessaryif we are to reconcile the position ofthe men of knowledge in chap. 8 with their attitude in 1 Cor 6:12-20.There, as I have shown elsewhere,31 the men of knowledge claimed that thebodyand its actions are morally irrelevant. The intention of the person isall-important and cannot be contradicted by corporeal behaviour. Actions

do not weigh in the balance against motives. Since no physical activity hasany moral significance, everything is permitted (panta exestin: 1 Cor 6:12;10:23). If this principle explains the attitude of the men of knowledge towards sex, it equally well accounts for their attitude towards eating (cf.6:13). They did not need the arguments developed in 8:1, 4, 8 to convincethemselves of the legitimacy of eating meat offered to idols. It is even improbable that it would have occured to them that there might be a problem.The eating of such meat can have become an issue only through the protestations of the weak who had adopted an agressively critical stance.32 Theyhad accused the men of knowledge, not merely of being in error, but ofacting in bad faith.33

In this perspective the translation "Food will not bring us before (thejudgment seat of) God" appears perfectly appropriate. The men ofknow-ledge deny that they are in any danger ofincurring the wrath of God, and inorder to drive this point home offer a concrete criterion. Merelyto say thatthey were not committing an indictable offence in God's eyes could havebeen dismissed as wishful thinking, because verification lay in the future.

Hence, they needed to provide a contemporarytest of their position. This is

25 Conzelmann (/ Corinthians, 148, n. 21) rightly rejects Godet's suggestion (/ Corinthiens, II. 21) thaipanstmi is used here as a technical term ofsacrificial language.

26 BDF,663.27 1 Corinthians, 195.28 1 Konntherbnef, 262.29 1 Konntherbnef, 229.30

Corinthiens. II, 21.31 "Corinthian Slogans," 391-396.32 Cf R Jewett Paul's Anthropological Terms A Study of their Use in Conflict Set


7/8


why we get the shift from the future tense in 8a to the present tense in 8bc where the verbs perisseu and hystereo appear.

At this point we have to recall that the Corinthian community was

strongly influenced by Paul despite all its failures. Most, if not all, of its errors were the result of misunderstandings related to the way in which he hadpresented the gospel. Now, if we except Phil 4:12, 18, Paul invariably uses

perisseu in reference to the spiritual goods of the New Age, to the pointwhere F. Hauck is entirely justified in terming it "an eschatological catchword."

34 The resonances ofhystere are not as univocal but, out ofthe seven instances in Paul, two reflect the eschatological orientation ofperisseu:those who do not know Christ lack the glory of God (Rom 3:23) and spiri

tual gifts (1 Cor 1:7). This latter text is particularly illuminating becauseperisseu is also used with respect to charismata (1 Cor 14:12; 2 Cor 8:7).

The importance that the Corinthians attached to charismata needs noemphasis. Such gifts were of divine origin (1 Cor 12:6). Consequently, theycould be used as a tangible test of one's standing before God. Is it reasonable to expect (argued the men of knowledge) that God would give suchgifts to those with whom he was displeased? On the contrary, he would bemore likely to withdraw them. This interpretation, of course, is hypothetical, but it is not entirely gratuitous. It is suggested by the Pauline usage of

perisseu, and remains within the category of divine approval/disapprovalclearly insinuated by 8a.

35Moreover, it enables us to retain the literal

meanings ofperisseu and hyster, and thus renders unnecessary the recourse to paraphrase that characterizes contemporary translations.

Even though the men of knowledge ate meat that had been offered toidols, their spiritual gifts were in no way diminished. Conversely, abstentionfrom such food did not produce any increase in spiritual gifts. Hence, idol-meat was morally neutral.36 One can detect a polemic sneer in the fact that

the reference to abstention is placed first; the weak did not show any signsof being better off in terms of spiritual gifts. And so, puffed up with knowledge (v 1), the strong went their contemptuous way (v 10).

34TDNT 6 (1969) 59.

35 M. Coune ("Le problme des idolothytes et l'ducation de la syneidsis," RSR 51

[1963] 508) offers a different definition of the context ofperisseu and hystere, but his solu

tion is vitiated by the assumption that Paul is the speaker.36 Gar is found after oute (v 8b) in a number of witnesses (D E F G L ). Even if it is not

authentic, it accuratelydefines the relationship between 8a and 8bc.


8/8

^ 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 8.8 - Food and Spiritual Gifts

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 8.8 - Food and Spiritual Gifts