1 Corinthians Working Notes Introduction

Transcription

1 1 Corinthians Working Notes Introduction [These are summaries of the introductions and other material from the footnoted commentaries and texts.] Thisleton, 1 Introduction Background Stuff (Geography, Politics, Culture, etc) Corinth a major trading/commercial centre, mostly because it was situated on the isthmus between Achaia and Macedonia. Goods and human traffic passed through the city from east (Asia) to west (Italy) (and vice versa), and also from north to south (and vice versa) (1-2). Greek Corinth sacked by the Romans in 146BC, but then colonised by Julius Caesar in 44BC. Caesar populated the city with Roman freedmen, military veterans, and urban trades persons and labourers. Corinth became a Roman colonia (poli,teuma). Politically, organised according to a Roman model citizen voters, city council, and annual magistrates (2-3). Implications for first century Corinth: (1) unmistakably Roman, politically, architecturally, culturally, sociologically, etc, even if the city was quite cosmopolitan on account of the commercial character of the city. The Greek influence was substantially less than in other places; (2) a prosperous and selfsufficient city; (3) an ethos of entrepreneurial pragmatism in the pursuit of success [ie worldly and materialistic] (3-4). Much of the civic and higher society life at Corinth was Roman. From Augustus to Nero, 73 Latin inscriptions to only three Greek inscriptions [and note Winter s explanation of Julia Theodora s Greek inscription]. Thisleton, picking up on Winter [esp in Roman Women, Roman Wives], mentions the significance of the head coverings in ch 11. The absence of the veil in public in Roman society indicated sexual looseness (5). However, Greek influence still there. Mentions coinage and the various temples (Poseidon, Aphrodite, Apollo, Demeter, Kore, Asclepios) [However, read Winter on coinage and religion in After Paul Left Corinth] (6). Discusses the architecture of the Corinthian home. Attests to the wealth and sophistication of higherclass life at Corinth, but also provides data about the facilities available for Christian meeting places. The dining room (triclinium) mosaic floor, occupied by couches for reclining. Atrium (hallway) could have held between people alone (fewer in the triclinium because of the couches). Perhaps the Lord s Supper of ch 11 saw the rich reclining in the triclinium while their poorer Christian brethren were left out in the atrium (7). This would have accorded with Roman social convention, those of status and patronage being the first-class diners (who also would have received the best food and wine), while the second-class hangers-on were left in the atrium and fed inferior food and wine (8). The Babbius inscription example of benefaction and self-promotion. The text of the inscription quoted. Name mentioned twice. Inferred that the man (and perhaps the people more generally) felt a deep sense of insecurity (8). 1 Anthony C Thisleton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

2 The Erastus inscription, Perhaps a Corinthian freedman who had become very wealthy in commercial activities. Generally believed to be the same Erastus of Rom 16:23. Christians encouraged to be involved in civic affairs (Rom 13:3; 1 Pet 2:14). Winter argues that Christians did take the role of public benefactors to the secular city. Makes the first mention of Winter s contention that Gallio s ruling in Acts 18 effectively placed Christianity alongside Judaism as religio licita in the city with certain exemptions from imperial religious expectations. If so, the public benefactions of Christians more readily explicable (9). Isthmian Games held in Corinth when Paul was there. City council elected a president for the Games (an avgwnoqh,thj). Another cause of Corinthian prosperity tourism (10-11). 2 Interesting discussion on status inconsistency. [Seems to mean inconsistency within a group of people (eg the church) That is, a great variation of status within the group. Or, it could mean that each person s status was high, medium, or low, depending on who was making the assessment each person s status was ambiguous. Not sure which. Witherington has more to say on this, I think.] A rapid rise in socio-economic status for many in Corinth. The self-made-person- escapes-humble-origins syndrome. Many different bases for status mentioned, including occupational prestige, wealth, education, knowledge, family and ethnic-group position, etc. Suggests that there was high status inconsistency in the Pauline circle. Referring to the self-promoting inscriptions, suggests that there was a huge concern in Corinthian society for high status acquisition. Boasting, self-promotion, social climbing, etc. A person s self-worth dependent on recognition by others of one s accomplishments. In such a sociological climate, Paul s explicit renunciation of status seen as disturbing, disgusting, and provocative. Paul stepped down. He went entirely the wrong way. See esp his description of himself and the other apostles, and his refusal of patronage (together with the reciprocal obligations that went with that) and insistence to work with his own hands and be self-supporting (12-13) [Note Winter s explanation of these things also as Paul distancing himself from the sophistic movement. Paul was an anti-sophist. ] An interesting suggestion that the Corinthian emphasis on applause and success (rather than facts, truth, and rationality) (which is also evidenced by their love of popular rhetoric) arises out of a postmodern-like culture [ie truth relativised as a response to a cosmopolitan, pluralistic society driven by commercial pragmatism.] (14). Moves to discuss rhetoric/declamation. Oratorical displays in public influenced by the pragmatic criterion of becoming a winner in the marketplace. The basic concerns of rhetoric (ie with truth) were sacrificed in the interests of winning applause. Winning approval for self rather than your case. The focus is on the speaker. Thisleton likens such to a modern chat-show host or other media participant (I would also add many modern evangelical preachers!) [The difficulties I have with this analysis is that, firstly, sophism of the kind described here wasn t simply confined to Corinth. Winter shows that many of the sophists who declaimed in Corinth were visitors to the city. They came from other places in order to ply their trade. Therefore, they weren t necessarily culturally pragmatic, or otherwise imbibed with the Corinthian ethos. Secondly, Thisleton seems to be going down the Witherington line that it wasn t rhetoric per se that Paul repudiated; simply the more base instrumental or pragmatic rhetoric. The inference is that, so long as Paul communicated the truth as embodied in the Christian khru,gma, the methodology (ie rhetoric) was immaterial. However, I don t think that s what Winter says. He says, I think, that Paul repudiated sophistic rhetoric altogether. The problem was not that popular rhetoric was inappropriate for the communication of truth-claims; it was that rhetoric generally as an instrument of persuasion was inappropriate for the Gospel. Paul wasn t peddling the Gospel; he was its herald. His job was to communicate it plainly. The Spirit would then communicate the truth of it to the hearers and convict them of their need to respond appropriately. As Paul himself said, he didn t want his hearer s faith to rest in persuasive words and human wisdom, but in the power of God. He didn t want to seduce them with fine-sounding oratory. For me, this leads me also to reject the view that Paul employed deliberative rhetoric when writing his letters. No doubt Paul was trained in

3 rhetoric, and even used it in the appropriate settings (ie his use of forensic rhetoric at his trial). However, to have employed rhetoric in his letters (which Witherington and others tell us were read aloud in the assembly) would have been hypocritical. Witherington et al may want to draw a distinction between evangelism and edification (ie communicating to unbelievers and believers respectively), but either way Paul is wanting to see faith imparted to his hearers not by seducing them with fine-sounding words but by telling them plainly what God s will is for their lives. There is no need, or justification, for seduction and manipulation in such activity.] (15). Getting onto the Christian Community at Corinth Preaching the Gospel in Corinth very strategic huge city, very important in the ancient world, large numbers of people (both in general population and many tourists, visitors, etc), large Jewish community (swollen, perhaps, by the edict of Claudius the expulsion of Jews from Rome (more about that later) (Paul would have started preaching in the local synagogue when he first got there), and the tremendous potential for the Gospel to spread from there on account of its trade connections (17). 3 Paul would also have had plenty of work as a tentmaker (leather-worker) (eg awnings, tents, clothing, sails). He had come to stay and his economic independence would not have made him a burden on his new converts and saved him from a position of financial dependence and hence of feeling obliged to offer some privilege to his benefactor or patron [and, I might add, cause him to be confused with the sophists] (17). Paul rejected sophistic oratory, or to aspire to the status of a professional rhetorician, because he did not want to market the gospel as a consumer commodity designed to please the hearers and to win their approval. It was not to be treated as a commodity offered in a competitive market place by manipulative rhetorical persuasion. To have done so would have been to rob it of its power to save and transform those to whom it was proclaimed (21). [The interesting application of this is to ask how we, today, use secular techniques to sell the gospel. Do we consciously avoid the easy, culturallydesirable mode of communication, as Paul did, or do we compromise the integrity of the message and the basis on which it is received by employing market strategies?] [Was Paul s concern that the integrity of the Gospel itself would be compromised by sophism, or that: (1) the focus would shift from the Gospel to himself as the virtuoso rhetorical performer; and (2) that conversions would be skin-deep only, arising not by the supernatural work of the Spirit and the (unadorned) word, but by the seductiveness of the rhetorical vehicle? I m inclined to think that these reasons are more to the point.] As one writer puts it, Paul deliberately preached without eloquence in order not to empty the cross of power (21). That writer goes on to say that the Gospel of a crucified God cannot be preached elegantly only in weakness (22). Paul disowned the protective veneer of rhetorical manipulation and adopted a communicative strategy entirely at odds with the confident self-promotion of the sophist or pragmatic rhetoricism who played to the gallery (22). Note 114 on p 22 mentions the book reference for Bullmore s work [currently available at Moore only on microfiche, I think.] Acts 18 and 1 Cor 16:19 indicate that Paul stayed for 18 months in Corinth in the home of Aquila and Prisca/Priscilla. The latter couple were fellow leather workers. Probably of Jewish origin who came to Christ in Rome, but were then expelled from Rome in 49AD as a result of the edict of Claudius. The emperor closed down a Roman synagogue because of disturbances centering on the figure of Christ. Aquila and Prisca probably went directly to (the Roman colony of) Corinth and set up shop in this city of considerable commercial opportunities. The suggestion is that they lived in a loft above the shop,

4 and that Paul slept downstairs in the shop itself. The shop would have given Paul many opportunities to share the gospel (ie with customers, etc) (23). 4 Paul s working in a menial trade may have led to the charge that he was weak (1 Cor 4:10-13) in the sense of socially inferior or unimpressive. His work would have been arduous, hot, uncomfortable, and demanding. His was not the ideal associated with the professional wise man, rhetorician, or established speaker-as-performer. Many at Corinth would have liked Paul to have turned professional to be like the sophists. However, for Paul apostolicity did not entail a lofty stance based on prestige, but a pointing to the cross and sharing in its shame and humiliation as God s chosen mode of self-revelation. [God reveals himself through the humble things, the things that are of no account, to confound and repudiate the pretensions of men.] (23-24). Different accounts of Paul s social status in Corinth. Some suggest he was a middle-class tradesman, others that he lived a life of harsh poverty. If Paul refused support while in Corinth, it was probably due to the particular circumstances (sophism, elitism, social climbing, self-promotion, etc) (25). As to the social status of the Corinthian Christians, Judge argues that they were a mixed and socially diverse group. Paul says in the letter that not many were influential or of high status etc (1:26). Furthermore, there is clear evidence of internal stratification within the church. The suggestion is that the majority of the Christians were from the lower classes, including slaves, but that there were a few influential members who came from the upper classes. Winter speaks about the terms used in 1:26 as referring to the ruling classes from which the rhetors and sophists came (26-27). 16:15 says that Stephanas household were the first converts in Achaia. Stephanas very soon became a co-worker of Paul. At this very early stage, Paul baptised Stephanas and his household (1:16). Gaius and Crispus were also early converts. Crispus probably the same mentioned in Acts 18:8 as the avrcisuna,gwgoj. The latter two were esteemed men and financially prosperous. Gaius is a Latin name, suggesting high status. His house would have been large enough to enable him to offer hospitality to Paul and for gatherings of the church. These three men, then, were people of high rank, esteem, and wealth, who were destined to assume leadership roles of various kinds as Paul s co-workers (27-28). Generally agreed date for Paul s 18 month ministry in Corinth is March AD50 to late Sept AD51. The disturbance which resulted in the charge before Gallio provides a fixed point in dating the chronology of Paul s ministry (28). Winter on the implications of the Gallio affair. He argues that Paul s ministry among the Jews in Corinth resulted in a breakaway group involving the prominent figures of Titius Justus and Crispus. This was seen as a humiliating loss and the establishment of a rival synagogue. The Jews sought to prevent this new messianic sect from obtaining the same privileges that they enjoyed as a religio licita in the empire (ie immunity from prosecution for promoting un-roman religion, or for not partaking in the imperial cult, etc). The effect of Gallio s ruling that it was an internal Jewish affair and didn t concern him not only meant that the Jews failed to obtain the desired ruling, but that Christianity had effectively obtained the status of religio licita in Corinth. Christians were henceforth exempted from the annual obligation to worship the emperor and his family. This had implications for a number of aspects of 1 Corinthians [which are presumably mentioned in After Paul Left Corinth yes, re 1 Cor 8-11 on eating meat offered to idols] (30). Paul went to Ephesus after leaving Corinth with Aquila and Prisca. He left shortly thereafter for Antioch, but Aquila and Prisca remained in Ephesus, where they met and instructed Apollos. Apollos went to Corinth, while Paul found his way back to Ephesus, where he stayed for quite some time. In the summer of AD53, Apollos returned to Ephesus from Corinth with news. In response to this, Paul may have written the letter of 1 Cor 5:9 (which predates 1 Cor itself). 1 Cor itself was then probably written in early :8 clearly indicates that the letter was written from Ephesus, and that the time of

5 5 the year was spring. If Paul left Corinth in Sept 51 and wrote the letter in spring 54, then we re looking at about 2½ years for the development and expansion of the church in Corinth and the emergence of the problems which Paul addresses in the epistle. The visit of Apollos during this period was no doubt a contributing factor in the development of these changes/problems, but there was certainly no divergence of vision between Paul and Apollos (3:5-9; 16:12). Rather, the problem had to do with the response of some within the church to the respective ministers style [ie as Winter makes clear, a preference for Apollos rhetorical prowess over Paul s weak speech.] (32). Occasion for Writing On a historical level, Paul responds to: (1) oral reports of discords and splits brought to Paul by Chloe s people (1:11). These are likely to be Chloe s business agents or responsible managerial slaves acting on Chloe s behalf. They may have belonged to the church at Ephesus, but enjoyed regular links with Corinth [ie in their business travels, presumably] and probably shared in the worship of the Christian community there; (2) the letter of enquiry that the Corinthians wrote to Paul (peri. de. w-n evgra,yate.) [Note Winter s contention that peri. de. always refers to a matter arising from the Corinthians letter, extending to Apollos in ch 16.]; (3) The wish of a number of Corinthians that Apollos visit them again. Apollos didn t want to go, because his presence and ministry style had brought about a discord and contempt for Paul. Paul advises the Corinthians that he plans to visit them himself, but that he may have to send Timothy to them in the meantime (16:10-11); (4) Better news may have come through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17-18), which would have amplified the report of Chloe s people (32-33). On a theological level, Paul writes to bring about a reversal of value systems. In response, predominantly, to the issue of discords and splits, Paul places the community as a whole under the criterion and identity of the cross of Christ. The stress is on grace and that all stand on an equal footing under the cross. [Thisleton seems to want to play down the emphasis on ecclesiology that many make. The letter, he says, is a reproclamation of grace and the cross. He says that, in this sense, the central themes of Romans are no less central here and more explicitly applied to various areas of life.] (33-34). [On the subject of why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Winter argues very simply that a number of things cropped up after Paul left Corinth. The letter can t be explained by just one, overarching theme, like of which the Corinthians hadn t quite divested themselves.] Thisleton definitely wants to find some overarching coherence and unity in the epistle. He concedes that it is correct to see that a wide range and complexity of problems arose which required urgent pastoral and theological address. However, there is coherence and unity to be found. On the other hand, the occasion for writing cannot be reduced to one problem like disunity in the church. A whole range of issues present themselves which may reflect differing outlooks on the part of specific groups. Nevertheless these practical issues [a]ll are placed in the light of the cross, of divine grace, of the Lordship of Christ, and of a respect for the other that builds the whole community in mutuality and love. Much redefinition and code switching is entailed in the dialogue (34). Hurd s break-up of the material in the letter (34ff). Mentions Mitchell s concerns about seeing peri. de. as invariably alluding to a topic raised in the Corinthians letter to Paul. Shows a clear openness to the view that Paul employed deliberative rhetoric in writing the letter, and that this offers an alternative explanation (ie to Hurd) for the mood or tone of objections and counterarguments in the letter [Hurd argues that Paul s tone differs according to whether he s responding to their questions or to reports about the church from others hardly surprising.] (36).

6 6 de Boer s view that Paul wrote the letter in stages. He receives initial reports from Chloe s people and takes up his pen to write. Then Stephanas et al arrive with the Corinthians letter. Paul responds to their questions, but as he is reading the letter Stephanas et al interject with comments (or Paul stops reading to ask the men for amplification). This reconstruction, for example, may well explain why Paul doesn t deal with the serious matter of pornei,a until chapter 5. Perhaps he had already written chs 1-4 when Stephanas et al arrive and bring him the report (38). Again stresses that the unifying theme of the epistle is a reproclamation of the different value system of grace, gifts, the cross, and the resurrection as divine verdict, criterion, and status bestowal within the new framework of respect and love for the less esteemed other. Glorying in the Lord and receiving status derived from identification with the crucified Christ lead to a new value system demonstrable in a wide array of life issues (40). Speaks about the rhetoric question (41ff). [Definitely feels that if Paul renounced it, he did so because it was no longer a vehicle for communicating truth. Rhetoric, or at least popular rhetoric (the way is possibly left open by Thisleton for other forms of rhetoric), was about applause and self-promotion and entertainment. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the communication of the gospel, which was all about truth. I m not persuaded that this is the real explanation for why Paul was anti-sophistic. I think Paul wanted to turn away from any presentation of the gospel which might seduce the listener and bring about faith on some other basis than the work of the Spirit in and through His word.] Repeats Witherington on the subject of letters being read aloud to the congregation, and not read privately as today. Therefore, Paul would have been aware of the oral and aural impact of what he wrote (so it is said) [and, therefore, by implication he would have fashioned his letter accordingly]. So the reading of the letter was a way of Paul extending his apostolic presence into the community even when he was absent (44). In passing, Thisleton says that there were at least four letters written to Corinth: the previous letter (1 Cor 5:9); 1 Cor; the severe letter (2 Cor 4, 9, which may have been written in place of his intended visit (1 Cor 16:5); and 2 Corinthians. There are lots of different permutations and theories (eg that the severe letter is actually 2 Cor 10-13) (45). Seems to support the view of Eriksson that Paul chooses forms of communication that engage with the addressees in more than cognitive, intellectual ways. He thus speaks well and does not despise the exploration of certain rhetorical conventions. He addresses not only the mind, but also the heart and the will (50). [There is surely a difference between saying something with feeling (ie to communicate the depths of one s own feelings to the addressees in a spontaneous, unthinking way), and to deliberately manufacture emotion and purposefully weave it into the speech in order to bend the audience to one s will. In the former, the feelings or emotion is not manufactured, but just a natural expression of the speaker s disposition. In the latter, the emotion is a device that is employed as a strategy to seduce or manipulate the hearers. Paul undoubtedly spoke with feeling on a number of occasions in the epistle, but I m not at all convinced that he contrived such feelings and employed rhetorical devices in order to wrap his hearers around his finger and to seduce them into doing what he required. Surely he simply appealed to their own consciences on the matter and left it to themselves to judge what was right. His appeal was, primarily, to the mind and to reason and to truth and to Scripture. To have played puppeteer with his readers would have been quite unloving and contrary to all that we know of Paul. On the one hand, Thiselton wants to say that Paul humbled himself, took on the role of a menial servant who worked with his own hands, and bucked the system by moving down the social ladder. On the other hand, he wants to say that Paul employed rhetoric in his letters spoke well. This surely would have been a contradiction. To have spoken well would have been to promote himself and his own rhetorical prowess and to have identified himself with the wealthy, self-seeking sophists after all.

7 7 Paul makes such a big deal about not doing that, that I can t imagine him doing anything that might have compromised that resolve. To have engaged in any rhetoric would have been fraught with risk.] Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 2 Introduction and Chapter 1 Introduction The book is an attempt to gather all the relevant extant material about life in the first century Roman colony of Corinth in an effort to understand what happened to its Christian community after Paul left Corinth. Winter wants to argue that many of the problems Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians were culturally determined responses to aspects of life in Corinth (x). Argues that the role of cultural conditioning in the ongoing life of the Christians has either been ignored or underestimated in explaining the reason for their subsequent difficulties, which are reflected in the letter of enquiry to Paul and the first-hand reports that Paul received about the church. The other area (ie apart from culturally conditioned responses to situations) that Winter examines is that of social change in the city after Paul s departure (x). The examples he cites in the intro are a severe grain shortage, the shifting of the Isthmian Games back to their original site [where?] after almost a century in Corinth [I thought it was a case of the Games going back to Corinth], the introduction of a new federal imperial cult for the province of Achaia centred in Corinth, and (possibly) also the withdrawal of the provision of kosher meat from the official market (xi). Mentions that the social, cultural, and religious background of Corinth was primarily Roman in Paul s day (xii). Chapter 1: The Enigma and the Cultural Setting of 1 Corinthians Raises the pertinent question why, if Paul spent at least 18 months in Corinth (Acts 18:11), had he not dealt with some, if not all, of the critical issues he addressed in the epistle. The enigma of the chapter s title is that he responded to so many important matters only when they were raised by the Corinthian letter or report from Corinth. He was assiduous in his instruction of the Christian communities (1 Cor 15:10). He had also delivered apostolic traditions to the Corinthians while he was in the city (11:23; 15:1-4). How, then, could it be that the Corinthians had so many questions about significant matters and were failing in a number of seemingly fundamental ways? (1). The Corinthians wrote to Paul about six matters on which they lacked clarity (7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 14:1; 16:1; 16:12) [Winter taking the peri. de, markers are referring to the matters in the Corinthian letters]. The latter two, the collection and the matter of Apollos return, could only have arisen after Paul departed. However, one would have thought that the others would have arisen before, eg the buying of meat in the marketplace which had already been offered up in the pagan temple. This and the other matters are dealt with in 1 Cor as though the Christian community had not encountered them while he was there (2). The letter of enquiry was, it would seem, written with the consent and approval of all the members of the church. Different members were responding in different ways to certain issues (eg 8:10), and not everyone was comfortable with what other members were doing. So, despite the division over teachers, the church came to a consensus about asking Paul for apostolic rulings on critical issues because they possessed no previously delivered tradition (2). 2 Bruce W Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

8 Some were certainly not keen to have Paul back and had a preference for Apollos (4:18; 16:12). Nevertheless, they felt the need to seek judgment from him on certain matters and appeared to have done so readily. They were in uncharted waters on crucial issues relating to their life and work (2). 8 On the other matters Paul deals with in the epistle ie those the subject of first-hand reports and not those that the Corinthians felt the need to write about to Paul the divisions in the church, the incestuous man, the practice of vexatious litigation against fellow Christians, the eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse with prostitutes at private banquets, the veiling of men and the unveiling of wives, abuses at the Lord s Supper, and hedonistic conduct Paul makes no mention of any specific apostolic tradition delivered at Corinth except for the institution of the Lord s Supper and the content of the gospel (3). Why? Maybe he was repeating tradition but just didn t say that this was what he was doing. However, the fact that he does mention the fact of delivering tradition in the two places mentioned suggests that this is not the likely explanation (see 11:2). In that verse he says that they had maintained his tradition in all things (3). Winter s contention is that Paul had not dealt with many of the problems reflected in 1 Corinthians during his stay there because either they had not arisen at all during his stay, or had done so in a way different from that in which they were now encountering them (4). In 3:3, 5, Paul charges the Corinthians with walking in a secular way and behaving like other men. Arguably, then, Paul was responding to problems which were created by the influence of secular ethics or social conventions on the new Christian community. They may have crept into the church imperceptibly and grown with the passage of time. Others were a rapid reaction to a problem which arose unexpectedly and were resolved almost unthinkingly on the basis of the cultural or legal mores of this Roman colony. They were sometimes judged to have required no specifically Christian answer hence the argument for cultural responses by the Corinthian community. These culturally accepted ways of doing things had a preconditioning effect on everybody. These Christians had lived from possibly from childhood in a Roman colony which was proud of its customs and considered itself to be culturally superior to those in the Greek cities of Achaea (4). As to social change, life in the Roman colony was never static or tranquil something which Winter says is often wrongly assumed in Corinthian studies. He suggests that this social volatility was particularly acute because it was a Roman colony. It was governed by Roman law, and so any changes in that or any other important area of life in Rome could rapidly affect Corinth. Corinth was proud of its status and benefited greatly from its privileged position with Rome. It had turned its back on its Greek heritage (4-5). Gives the example of the creation of a provincial or federal imperial cult in c AD54. From then on, this was celebrated annually in Corinth (see the ref to the gods of the earth in 8:5). Corinth would have been very open to the observance of this cult. It was another way the city could demonstrate loyalty to the emperor. This, says Winter, was a new external factory that had a considerable impact on the Corinthian Christians (5). Also speaks about the Isthmian Games, another social change that may have disorientated the Corinthian Christian. The Games were moved from Corinth to the nearby site of Isthmia in either the early 20s or 50s. On that occasion, the president of the Games hosted an inaugural dinner for all the citizens of Corinth. At subsequent games the president followed this precedent and gave multiple civic dinners to those who had Corinthian citizenship (ie Roman citizens). 1 Cor 8:9 speaks of the right (evxousi,a) to eat in an idol temple. This may well have been connected with the Games, the temple being that of Poseidon s at Isthmia. Weaker brothers didn t know whether they should avail themselves of this right and join the strong at the dinners (5-6). Also mentions the grain shortages, which may be the referent for the present distress of 7:26), given that avna,gkh is linked with the word for famine in literary sources (6).

9 Then he mentions the matter concerning the meat offered in the marketplace. He opines that special provision was made for the Jews to have access to kosher meat (ie meat not offered to idols) in the marketplace. He then suggests that the Gallio ruling may have extended that privilege to Christians. However, perhaps this provision was subsequently withdrawn by the Corinthian Council, in response to anti-semitic expressions in Rome (Acts 18:2) (6-7). 9 All these changes took place after Paul left Corinth, which explains why he could not possibly have dealt with them while he was there. So, Winter will go on to explore the problem of Christians giving culturally determined responses to ethical issues and their reactions to social changes in Corinth (7). As to the cultural and social background of Corinth, Corinth was utterly laid waste effectively dismantled as a Greek polis by the Romans in 146BC (7). It remained a ruin for 102 years. When the Roman colony of Corinth was founded in 44BC the whole of the site was laid out fresh according to the Roman town-planning grid. New buildings were constructed and the architectural design was clearly Roman. Even the Greek temples underwent Roman-style modernisation (8). Overall, the intention was to stress discontinuity with the past and, therefore, to emphasise Rome s triumph over the original inhabitants. Therefore, Corinth began de novo in 44 BC (9). Corinth s control over the biennial Isthmian Games provided another means by which the city could act as a pro-roman focal point in Achaean life (10). Corinth was a Roman colony and not simply a restoration of a Greek city (11). It was not simply a Greek city with a Roman façade. It was conceived of, and deliberately laid out as a thoroughly Roman colony. This was true architecturally, but it also reflected an ideological outlook which provides important evidence of Corinth s culture in Paul s day (11). The coins issued in Corinth were in Latin and conformed to Augustan monetary denominations (11-12). The official inscriptions were also in Latin (not surprisingly, given that it was a Roman colony) (12). Winter mentions that a revival of classical Greek culture took place throughout the empire in the next century. This was instigated by the emperor Hadrian. He implemented a strong Hellenisation programme. However, in the first century, the cultural and social identity was clearly Roman (12). Potters names on pottery were Latin, and children were given Latin names, especially those born of freedman who, therefore, were freeborn Roman citizens. Paul mentions 17 Corinthian Christians in his epistle, and eight of the names are Latin: Aquila, Fortunatus, Gaius, Lucius, Priscilla, Quartus, Titus Justus, and Tertius. These Latin names don t necessarily indicate Roman citizenship, but at the very least they provide important evidence of the influence of Romanitas (14-15). The literary evidence also indicates a Roman ethos in the early days of the Christian community. An often overlooked point is that there was a major cultural shift in Corinth in the next century [see above on Hadrian s Hellenisation programme]. It is a mistake to look at second-century evidence of Greek culture and assume that this was also true of the first century (15). In the time of Paul, Corinth adhered to Roman law and customs. It did not adhere to the ancient (Greek) laws and customs (19). Winter refers to the Argive petition as evidence for this (19-20). He says that the petition provides confirmation for Corinth s loyalty, preference for, and adherence to Roman customs and laws at the end of the Julio-Claudian Principates (20). The implication of this is that it is inappropriate to search for ethics, customs, etc in ancient classical Greek or Hellenistic eras rather than in the late Republic and early Roman period. It was Roman influences that played the role in shaping life in Corinth for more than a century (20). There were other Roman colonies in Achaea, but Corinth was the provincial and cultural capital. It was the centre of Romanitas in the province and the spearhead of its penetration into that same province (21).

10 10 Of course, Corinth wasn t populated only by Roman citizens. [It was, Thisleton says, a cosmopolitan city.] However, those Greeks who came to city did not change the predominant cultural complexion of the city. Rather, the Romanitas of the city changed them. Roman ways offered much in the way of sensual comforts warm houses, baths, soft new fabrics, jewellery, and rich food. Also there were great benefits in obtaining Roman citizenship. It was the means by which one moved upwards socially, whether one was poor or rich. Therefore, while there certainly were ethnic minorities in Corinth, the dominant and transforming cultural influence was Roman (22). Winter then deals with the possible objection that Paul uses non-roman ethnonyms in the letter. He uses the terms Ivoudai/ou and [Ellhnej in 1:22 to refer to the ethnic dichotomy in the ancient world. The latter term is usually translated Greeks. Winter argues that the word is actually a synonym of e[qnh. There are other scriptural examples of this, and the context of 1 Cor suggests that Gentiles is the appropriate translation. The alternative, given the subject matter of chapter 1, is that [Ellhnej refers to the students of the orators (23). However, Winter proposes that the word be translated as Gentiles throughout 1 Cor. He cites Romans as another example. In Rom 1:13-16, Paul describes non-jews as both Barbarians what the Greeks called all non-greeks (including Romans) and [Ellhnej. He never uses the term ~Rwmai/oi in his letters (24). The other possible problem is that Paul wrote this (and all his letters) in Greek. He probably could have spoken Latin (Acts 21:37, 40), but Corinth was likely multi-lingual, with only some speaking Latin. Furthermore, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman empire in the first century. Latin was the language of the elite. Given the way in which the church appeared to defer to the few with social rank and status [or some of the problems that Paul has to deal with generally], it is unlikely that Paul would have chosen to write his letter in the language of the elite (25). Corinthian scholars have suggested a range of explanations for what happened after Paul left Corinth. Gnosticism is one explanation. Another is overrealised eschatology (Thisleton) [and, I think, Fee] (25). Others suggest that the problem was that Paul himself changed (became more theologically mature and therefore more cautious in what he said to the Corinthians) (26). Winter s thesis is that the problems arose because of secular ethics and social change. The Christians were cosmopolitan (ie citizens of the world) in the purest form in particular, citizens of Roman Corinth. They reacted to some issues that arose after Paul left on the basis of the learnt conventions and cultural mores of Corinthian Romanitas. Other matters arose on account of social change (eg famine, the Games, etc) (27). Winter says that many of the issues that Paul deals with in the letter reflect aspects of first-century life generally. As a literary source it provides the best composite witness of its day to life in a Roman colony in the East (28). [I must say that the suggestion that Paul was dealing with the effects of cultural conditioning and social change is much more persuasive and sensible that positing one, single reason for everything (eg Gnosticism or overrealised eschatology). The latter seems to me to be simplistic, reductionistic, and another example of theological abstraction how can we systematise the letter so that it yields some single, dogmatic explanation for all the contents? An artificial exercise, I think.] Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists 3 Introduction Is Paul Among the Sophists? is a question that would have been asked of Paul in his role as a public speaker in the first century. It would have been thought appropriate for any itinerant speaker in the early Roman empire, such was the interest in, and status of, the virtuoso orators who dominated much 3 Bruce W Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002 (2 nd Ed)).

11 11 of the public and intellectual life of the cities in the East. The purpose of Winter s book is to explore in what sense Paul (and Philo) were among the sophists. (1). Much discussion of the Pauline corpus has centred on his [supposed?] indebtedness to ancient rhetoric for an understanding of how he wrote. However, no attention has been paid to how his letters enhance our understanding of the first century sophistic movement in Corinth. Generally, the NT documents are an important source of information about the social world of the first century for the ancient historian (2). How did Paul, the Hellenised Jew and Christian apostle, relate to the sophistic tradition both in secular Corinth and in the Christian community which he established in the Roman colony? (3). A sofisth,j originally referred to an ancient wise man. By the first century, it referred to those rhetoricians whose ability in oratory was such that they could both secure a public following and attract students to their schools. Bowersock defines a sophist as a virtuoso rhetor with a big public reputation. The movement had its roots in the second half of the fifth century BC. The history of the growth of the movement is somewhat sketchy, but by the first half of the first century AD the Second Sophistic was flourishing. Philo, in his own day, could observe that the sophists were winning the admiration of city after city, and drawing well-nigh the whole world to honour them. (4). Three branches of rhetoric: judicial [forensic?], deliberative, and epideictic oratory. Their art (te,cnh) was claimed to be the mother of all other arts and sciences. Consequently, young men were sent to the sophists to be educated by means of model speeches delivered in the classroom and also by observing the public declamations of their teacher (4). The sophists taught rules on style, and the management of the voice and body. The first and second centuries AD saw the sophists continue to combine the activities of declaiming in public and teaching students their skills [the former being the means of obtaining students for the latter, I believe] (5). The training provided by a sophist was seen as essential preparation for a young man wishing to enter into professional and political life. Senators, forensic rhetoricians and councillors, as well as civic and provincial ambassadors and officials of the imperial government all came from the sophists schools. Parents expected the sophist to make public speakers of their sons, for they judged that this form of education was most useful in producing leaders accomplished in the great art of persuasion whether it be in the legal courts or the council or political assembly of their city (5). Winter follows others, most notably J Munck, in positing a rhetorical and/or sophistic background [distinction between these two terms?] as the cause of tensions between Paul and the Corinthian church. Munck argued that chs 1-4, which deal with bickering and divisive elements, simply reflects the Hellenistic milieu of the sophistic movement (9). He says that the Corinthians identified their new faith as a kind of wisdom. Its leaders were teachers of wisdom and they were the wise men who had drawn on that wisdom (10). Mentions Bowersock s work on the Second Sophistic (1969). Munck s study was written prior to this important work, and so doesn t quite succeed in showing that the strife (e;rij) and jealousy (zh/loj) of 1:11 and 3:3 were sophistic. Other studies have failed to properly account for the church s questioning of Paul s leadership after his departure and the resistance of many to his return. There is also the matter of the sophistic language which the Corinthian detractors and Paul used in the controversy (10-11). Liftin s work also mentioned. He argues that 1:17-31 is Paul s apologia against the Corinthians criticism that his preaching failed to measure up to Graeco-Roman eloquence. Says that it is a very important study, but does not sufficiently probe the influence of the sophistic movement on the thinking of the Christian community, which is the wider issue at stake in the Corinthian letters (11).

12 12 Also mentions the work of Betz, Pogoloff and Mitchell (12). Winter believes that the sophistic movement provides the background for the problems in the church discussed by Paul in 1 Cor 1-4, 1 Cor 9, and 2 Cor His aim is to show that: (1) the stife and jealousy of 1:11 and 3:3 are related to the sophistic movement; (2) Paul s modus operandi in 2:1-5 has been formulated in the light of the conventions of sophists coming to a city and operating in it; (3) Paul offers a substantial critique of the movement in 1 Cor 1-4; (4) Paul s own ministry was critiqued by those trained within the sophistic movement using its canons in 2 Cor 10-13; (5) Paul, in answering his opponents in 2 Cor 10-13, does so in categories that show that he is arguing with Christian orators or sophists who are now within the Christian community in Corinth (13). Introduction to Part II (the Corinthian Sophists) Here, mentions that unnamed Jewish-Christian orators were connected with the Corinthian congregation for an unknown period during the fifties (after Paul had visited and taught there for 18 months). [Winter, if I recall, believes that the Corinthians wanted the Apollos, not Paul, to return to them, but when he refused (wise man!), they obtained other Christian rhetoricians. These rhetoricians then denigrated Paul according to sophistic standards. These are the men, and this is the critique, to which Paul responds in 2 Cor There, I think, Paul engages in covert allusions, demonstrating his own rhetorical ability but at the same time rejecting it and rebuking those who think that the boasting and self-promotion of the sophists is totally inappropriate for gospel ministry. Paul in fact inverts the boasting conventions to show up the absurdity of it all.] Mentions that Paul himself was trained in Greek rhetoric (112). Ch 8: Paul and Sophistic Conventions Chapter will argue that Paul deliberately adopted an anti-sophistic stance and defended his churchplanting activities against a backdrop of sophistic conventions, perceptions and categories. Paul s converts formulated a sophistic convention of discipleship which, in turn, exposed the church to the inevitable problems of dissension and jealousy associated with that secular movement. The problem was aggravated to some extent by the modus operandi of Apollos, who arrived subsequently to Paul s departure (141). Paul critiques the sophistic tradition in 1 Cor 1-4. This critique angered at least some in the congregation, namely those who are wise by the world s standards (1 Cor 3:18). Along with other anti- Paulinists in the church, they had become puffed up in the face of Paul s inability to return to Corinth at that point (4:18-19). In fact, despite the congregation s loyalty to different teachers, it as a whole had been persuaded to invite Apollos to return an invitation that Apollos rejected for the present (16:12). Subsequently the church appointed men with Greek rhetorical training to teach the congregation. It seems that these teachers had access to Paul s critique of the sophistic tradition, because they ridiculed his performance as a public speaker by drawing on categories from his own apologia and critique of the sophistic tradition found in 1 Cor 1-4, 9. Their criticisms can be recovered from 2 Cor 10:10 and 11:6, and are supplemented by an allusion to Paul s allegedly sophistic attitude towards money (2 Cor 12:16-18). Munck s thesis is regarded as substantially correct (142). On Paul s anti-sophistic coming (1 Cor 2:1-5), Winter reviews the various views about what the passage means. Some say Paul was simply rejecting the grand style of rhetoric, or the epideictic branch of oratory, while others argue that he renounces all the technical rhetorical devices in his gospel presentation. Technical rhetorical language dominates the passage (144). When a sophist came to a city for the first time, he would give a sample of his eloquence by delivering a lecture/declamation. This was often advertised in advance. If they managed to impress, the young

13 13 men of the elite would then offer themselves as students, and so the sophist would establish himself in paideia. He might then be able to appeal to a wider group, declaiming to additional groups for which the audience would pay. The sophist might then establish himself in politeia as well: the city might choose to grant citizenship to the sophist. The sophist, through paideia and politeia, might then obtain high honours for himself (and money). The city would then expect the sophist to reciprocate by providing benefactions to the city and making himself politically useful by serving as a spokesman of an embassy to a proconsul or the emperor for obtaining concessions or resolving inter-city rivalry (145). A good sophist would demonstrate his rhetorical prowess with an extempore oration (delivery of a written speech was of lesser worth). Furthermore, presence (u`po,krisij) was an essential criterion (declamations were delivered standing up). An unbecoming appearance and a weak voice were fatal to the aspirations of a sophist (146). Therefore, when a sophist came to a city he was expected to observe certain conventions and by such means establish his reputation as a speaker. The initial speech would usually begin with an introduction an encomium (a formal, high-flown expression of praise) to the city designed to encourage a favourable response to the declamation as a whole. The performances could take place in a large lecture hall or theatre. There might be a general invitation extended to the public, or a personal invitation to attend a private lecture. The sophist was on trial, for the citizens who heard him determined his success or failure in the city, the possibility of the latter being high (147). But an enhanced reputation and pecuniary gain were the fruit for those who were successful. Paul deliberately rejected these conventions when he came to Corinth (147). Important rhetorical terms appear in 2:1-5. pi,stij ( confidence, conviction, proof ) had three dimensions to it. First, h=qoj ( character ) was considered the most effective means of proof. It was about speaking in such a manner that the speaker appealed to the audience. They found him to be of good character and hence credible. The speaker had to project a sympathetic image of himself as a likeable and trustworthy person. The next pi,stij was pa,qoj, which was about playing on the feelings of the audience. There were 10 such pa,qh, the aim of all being to play on the hearer s emotions. The final proof was avpo,deixij (used by Paul in v 5) a clear proof. [The reasoning/mind part.] A process of reasoning that leads from things perceived to something not previously perceived (149). Therefore, ethos was bound up with the speaker, pathos with the [emotional?] effect of the message on the hearer, and apodeixis with the arguments and contents of the message itself. By means of these three pisteis (proofs or techniques), the orator sought to persuade his audience. Other rhetorical terms in 2:1-5 (on top of pistis and apodeixis) are power (du,namij). Aristotle defines rhetoric as the power of discovering the possible means of persuasion, and eloquence as the power of speaking. Then there is peiqw, (actually a noun), which often appears in definitions of rhetoric (the art of persuasion ); and u`peroch. (v 1) is also used by Aristotle to describe the superiority men feel based on race, power, and moral virtue, and also observes the superiority of the eloquent man over against the incompetent speaker in the matter of oratory. [I wonder also about lo,goj and sofi,a. Does not Winter translate the former as rhetoric here?] Winter says that even those who neglect the sophistic background of the Corinthian situation concede that there is a constellation of rhetorical terms and allusions here (150). Paul also speaks about his coming to a city in 1 Thess 2. Paul wrote the letter from Corinth, and describes his entry (ei;sodoj) to the city of Thessalonica (150). He describes it in an antithetical way ( not but ). Succinct negatives are followed by two strong adversative statements referring to his own ethical conduct by contrast, as well as a series of negative comments exonerating his behaviour over against the conduct of others (151). The gospel message, he said, did not arise from error, nor were there impure or immoral motives on his part. Nor did he aim to beguile his audience with