1 cor 4.6 - written bylaws in church

7/28/2019 1 Cor 4.6 - Written Bylaws in Church

1/25

JBL117/2 (1998) 275-298

1 CORINTHIANS 4:6 AND THE POSSIBILITYOF WRITTEN BYLAWS IN THE

CORINTHIAN CHURCH

JAMES C. HANGES

Miami University, Oxford OH 45056

1 Cor 4:6 has generated a long history of controversy. The central issue is

the interpretation ofthe phrase in v. 6b, .1

Specifically,

commentators have wrestled with the difficulty of locating a referent for

. The various attempts to clarify this problem can be described accord

ing to which of two fundamental presuppositions is assumed: either (1) the

present text cannot be interpreted, or (2) the text makes sense as it stands.

I. The Present Text Cannot Be Interpreted

In despair some scholars have decided that defies

interpretation and have labeled the text incomprehensible.2The most radical

hypothesis has been emendation ofthe text. The first modern suggestion ofthis

1The RSV translates the phrase, "... not beyond what is written." The text variants reflect, to

some degree, the difficulties presented by this verse; D, F, G, the Majority Text, and Old Latin

have instead ofd; K2, C^d, D2, the Majority Text, a single manuscript of the Vulgate, and the

Syriac tradition insert the verb . The text is verysecure, and these variations can be easily

accounted for as attempts to alleviate specific problems ofinterpretation which will be described indue course.

2For Hans Conzelmann the phrase is "unintelligible" (1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the

FirstEpistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975] 86, following O. Linton,

"'Nicht ber das hinaus, was geschrieben ist' (1 Kor. 4,6)," TSK102 [1930] 425-56). Also see James

Moffatt (The First Epistle ofPaulto the Corinthians [MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938]

46-47), who eliminates the phrase without accounting for this decision in terms of emendation.

Moffatt illustrates the ambiguity with which this text is often handled. While eliminating the

phrase, he believes the essential meaning of the passage to be clear. Moreover, he recognizes the

use of as certainlya reference to the "Old Testament." He also holds out various other

possibilities, including the possibilitythat the phrase is juridical, or that it is a slogan (and particu

larlya slogan used by one of two sides in a debate). See also Christophe Senft, La premire Eptre

de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 2/7; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1979) 67; however,


2/25

276 JournalofBiblical Literature

sort was byJ. M. S. Baljon (crediting Bornemann),3who has subsequently been

followed by a number ofcommentators.4

The most compelling version of the

Bornemann-Baljon emendation hypothesis is presented byJohn Strugnell.5

He recognizes the fundamental problem with the attempts to refer

to the scriptures, that is, that "reference to scripture is out of place here."6

As the most obvious solution, Strugnell accepts Baljon s major proposition that

the phrase represents a copyist s marginal note explaining a problem in the text

that, in the course ofsuccessive copying, was mistakenly inserted into the text.7

Strugnell acknowledges, however, that the older hypothesis fails to answer

everyobjection. To overcome the remaining problems, Strugnell proposes a

simple but plausible alternative. Ratherthan the multiple steps (all of which

must have occurred at the earliest stage of text reproduction) required by

Baljon, Strugnell translates as "[t]he is beyond what

is written." In this case, the copyist found a sentence for which the context

clearly demanded a negative that had been unfortunately left out. Having

inserted the necessary negative, the scribe simply noted that his insertion went

beyond what was written in the text.8

3J. M. S. Baljon, De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de Corinthirs en de

Galatirs als voorwerp van de conjecturalkritiek beschouwd (Utrecht: J. van Boekhoven, 1884)49-51, in L. L. Welborn, "A Conciliatory Principle in 1 Cor. 4:6," 29 (1987) 321 n. 9, 329

n. 51. Bornemann is mentioned in H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch ber den

ersten Brief an die Korinther (7th ed.; ed. C. F. G. Heinrici; MeyerK 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1888) 121 note.

4Paul Schmiedel, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und die Korinther (2d ed.; HKNT 2/1;

Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1892) 112-13; C. Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe,an der Hand der bisher mit bezug auf sie aufgestalten Interpolations- und Compilationshypothesengeprft (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894); Wilhelm Bousset, Der erste Brief an dieKorinther (3d ed.; Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1917) 2.91, without crediting Baljon; W. F. Howard, "1 Corinthians 4,6: Exegesis or Emendation?"

ExpTim 33 (1922) 479-80, a brief survey article written in support of Johannes Weiss's version ofthe emendation theory; Jean Hring, La premire ptre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 7;Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1959) 35; C. S. C. Williams, "I and II Corinthians," PCB, 956;Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (3d ed.; FRLANT 66; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1969) 115 n. 1; Andr Legault, "Beyond the Things Which are Written (1 Cor. 4:6),"

NTS 18 (1972) 227-31. For lists of commentators, see Legault, "Beyond the Things," 230; and Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 321 n. 9, 329 nn. 51-54.

5John Strugnell, "A Plea for Conjectural Emendation in the New Testament, with a Coda on

1 Cor 4:6," CBQ 36 (1974) 543-58.6

Ibid., 555.7

Baljon (i.e., Bornemann) suggested that originally a scribe saw the MH written above the A

in the word '. The scribe, having inserted the MH into the intended spot, recorded his editorial

deed by writing in the margin, "the MH was written above the A"; see Legault, "Beyond the

Things," 230; Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 555. See also Gordon Fee, The FirstEpistle tothe Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 167 n. 14.8

Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 557. The original text would have been, '


3/25

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6 277

IL The Text Makes Sense as It Stands

The traditional view has ofcourse been that the text makes sense as it

stands. This interpretation has been expressed in several ways. Most often the

referent of is located within the limits ofChristian tradition. Earlyinterpreters such as John Chrysostom and Theodoret believed that Paul here

refers to the words ofJesus regarding self-exaltation and the true leader (Matt

9:35 and Matt 7:1; 23:12).9

There is a substantial bodyo logia on humility versus self-exaltation in the traditions ascribed to Jesus; it is easy to understand

how readily the church fathers could be reminded of these traditions, given

Pauls content. This view has not been seriously promoted by recent commen

tators due to the obvious difficulty in arguing for Pauls knowledge of specific

sayings ofJesus, not to mention his knowledge of the Gospels themselves. A

more common view has been to argue that Paul is referring to the scriptures asa unity. Presented as early as Origen, this view has continued to find propo

nents.10

Attempts have been made to identify specific passages to which Paul

Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor. 15:31-32 or the Case of the Misplaced Lion Fight," HTR 93

(1980) 266; and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Interpolations in 1 Corinthians," CBQ 48 (1986) 85.

Murphy-O'Connor believes that because Strugnell's translation is "undoubtedly correct" his solu

tion is the only possible one. Strugnell's suggestion was preempted in its essentials by J. T. Hudson,

"1 Cor. iv.6," ExpTim 35 (1923-24) 332; Strugnell does not mention Hudson.9 John Chrysostom, In Epistulam 1 ad Corinthos, PG 61.97, lines 11-19; Theodoret, Inter-

pretatio XIVEpistulas sancii Pauli, PG 82.256, Unes 22-39, esp. lines 34-39; cf. Welborn, "Concil

iatory Principle," 323 n. 29; Meyer-Heinrici, Brief an die Korinther, 120. It is important to note that

both Chrysostom and Theodoret understand as a prohibition against vio

lating the Lord's teaching on self-exaltation, and believed the phrase to be integral to Paul's admon

ishment of the Corinthians in the preceding passages. This has continued to be the understanding

of all translators who retain the phrasethat is, "not beyond () what is written" must mean "do

not exceed the limits of (violate) what is written."

On Matt 9:35, cf. Mark 10:43-44; Matt 18:4; 20:26-27; 23:11; Luke 22:26. On Matt 7:1;

23:12, cf. Luke 6:37; also cf. Luke 14:11; 18:14; 2 Cor 11:7.1 0

Origen, Catenae graecorum patrum 5 (ed. J. A. Cramer; Oxford, 1844) 77, lines 21-25,

cited by Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 325 n. 30. In addition to the examples given byWelborn (p. 326), see also T. C. Edwards, A Commentary on the FirstEpistle to the Corinthians (2d

ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1885) 102; cf. Werner de Boor, Der erste Brief des Paulus an

die Korinther (Wuppertaler Studienbibel; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1973) 86; C. . Barrett, A Com

mentary on the FirstEpistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, 1968) 107 (Barrett interprets the

phrase as an injunction to live in accordance with the scriptures); Gaston Deluz, A Companion to

1 Corinthians (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963) 45; August Strobel, Dererste Brief an die

Korinther(Zrcher Bibelkommentare, NT 6/1; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989) 89 (Strobel, in

understanding the phrase in terms of Deut 4:2, holds essentially the same view). This approach is

also similar to that of H. G. Ewald, Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus bersetzt und erklrt

(Gttingen: Dieterich, 1857) ad. loc., cited by Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 327 n. 42, along

with Frederic Godet, who clearly shows how an understanding of the phrase as "a proverbialmaxim, in use perhaps in the Rabbinical schools" amounts to an injunction to live in harmony with

the tradition including of course the scriptures {Commentary on St Paul's First Epistle to the


4/25


alludes, but no consensus has arisen among those who take this route.11

A varia

tion on this theme is the interpretation by some which makes Paul refer to a

general principle, theme, or "spirit" expressed uniformly throughout the scrip

tures.12

To overcome the difficulties encountered in attempting to locate the referents in the "Old Testament," some interpreters argue that Paul is referring to

the scripture cited in the preceding passages of his letter.13

Morna Hooker has

argued the most widely recognized case for this interpretation, presenting a

twofold explanation: first, interpreting Pauls preceding argument as a refuta

tion of human wisdom, of which the inappropriate preference for a specific

G G Findlay, St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (Expositor's Greek NT 3, New York

Dodd, Mead, 1900) 800, A Robertson and A Plummer, ACriticalandExegetical Commentary onthe FirstEpistle ofSt Paul to the Corinthians (2d ed, ICC, Edinburgh Clark, 1916) 81 For some,

the text variant in D, F, G, the Majority Text and the Old Latin also appears to support the inter

pretation that Paul is referring to the "Old Testament" as a unity by using the singular o instead of

(Godet, Commentary, but cf Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 324 nn 23-24, where precisely

the opposite argument is made, that is, that the shift to particularizes the referent to a single

scripture passage and does not point to the whole) It must be conceded that Paul can refer to the

Hebrew scriptures in a way that seems to indicate his understanding that the scriptures as a whole

speak with a single voice e g, Rom 1 2, scriptures (ai ) contain the promised gospel, Rom

15 4, the scnptures contain consolation, 16 26, the scriptures reveal the long-hidden mystery, 1 Cor

15 3,4, the gospel events take place "according to the scnptures", Gal 3 22, the scripture ( )

includes all persons under the dominion of sin11

Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 324-25, esp n 25, citing Hugo Grotius's argument that

Paul refers to Deut 17 20 Following Grotius is Hermann Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on St

Paul's Firstand SecondEpistles to the Corinthians (Clark's Foreign Theological Library 20, Edin

burgh Clark, 1851) 79 Cf Findlay, Corinthians, 800 "it is superfluous to look for particular pas

sages intended " The argument is based on being Paul's regular formula by which to

refer to the scnptures, see, e g, C F G Heinnci, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an

die Konnthier (Berlin Wilhelm Hertz, 1880) 140-41, Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther I, II(3d

ed , HNT 9, Tubingen Mohr-Siebeck, 1931) 19 Fee also notes the difficulties with this approach

(Corinthians, 169) Most allow for several possibilities, e g, Barrett, Corinthians, 106-71 2

Similar to Ongen' s concept (n 10 above), the "Old Testament" is understood as the

boundary withm which life is to be lived, see A Stanley, The Epistles ofSt Paul to the Corinthians with Critical Notes and Dissertations (2d ed , London John Murray, 1858) 73 "the general

spint of manypassages " See Welborn, "Conciliatory Pnnciple," 325 n 29, for additional refer

ences It must be noted that Paul generally refers to the scnpture only in terms ofa specific passage

when using the verb form (Rom 117,2 24,3 10 [aflonlegium], 4 17,

8 36, 9 33, 11 26, 15 3, 9-12, 21, 1 Cor 1 31, 2 9, 2 Cor 8 15, 9 9), (Rom 3 4,

9 13,10 15,11 8), (Rom 12 19,14 11,1 Cor 119,3 19, Gal 3 10,13,27),

(1 Cor 10 7), (1 Cor 9 9,14 21), (1 Cor 15 45),

(2 Cor 4 13) See also n 10 above1 3

Fee, Corinthians, 169 n 22 This was one ofthe two options that Calvin had allowed for in

interpreting 4 6 "The phrase, 'beyond that which is wntten, ' can be explained in two ways, as refer-

nng either to what Paul has wntten, or to the scnptural proofs which he has adduced" (trans J W

Fraser in The FirstEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians [Calvin's Commentanes, Grand


5/25


teacher(fostered by false teaching) is a sad expression; and, second, trying to

show that what Paul has in mind is his gospel, as the fulfillment ofthe scrip

tures, which he has preached to the Corinthians.14

In this way, Hookercan

argue for a type ofsemantic encapsulation; that is, since Pauls gospel (the

preaching ofthe cross in contrast to human wisdom) is the fulfillment of thescriptures (as his preceding citations illustrate), in the context ofhis argument

in chaps. l-A, Paul can warn the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written.15

Another way ofexplaining Paul's referent in terms of the authorityof

Christian tradition is to argue that Paul is referring in some way to himself. P.

Wallis argues that refers to at the beginning ofv. 6. The

implication is that Paul refers to what he has just written, by way ofexample,

regarding himselfand Apollos: . . . ,

' ' .16

Avariant ofthis approach is to understand the phrase as a

reference to Pauls own teaching, eitheras a reflection ofsomething Paul himselfhas espoused or as Pauls rhetorical appropriation ofan opponents accusa

tion. Heinrici argued that Paul has appropriated a slogan used against him by

14Morna Hooker, '"Beyond the Things Which are Written': An Examination of1 Cor. IV.6,"

NTS10 (1963-64) 128-30. Hooker simply assumes that Paul refers to scripture; the only question

here is whether the scripture referred to is a passage other than one ofthose found in the present

letter.15

Hooker casts Paul's problem in terms of the exaltation above others of particular individual

leaders, that is, factionalism based on personal loyalties ("'Beyond the Things,'" 128). This is theissue behind thefirst clause. The second refers to the resulting circumstances ofconceit, which

have arisen from the cause presupposed in the first ' clause, viz., false teaching resulting in fac

tional loyalties. Hooker further argues that the point being made by Paul has to do with the foolish

ness of human wisdom and that this theme has been dealt with by the scriptural citations in the

preceding sections. Paul is concerned with active opponents in Corinth who are teaching false doc

trines (building with rubbish upon his foundation [3:11-13]). Hooker refers the first ' clause in

4:6 to 3:10-20, claiming that the "things written" are the scriptures cited in this earlier passage (p.

129). Throughout, Paul is concerned to distinguish the kind of wisdom in which the Corinthians

take pride from the wisdom of God. Because these false teachers were adding something to the

"simple gospel" that Paul had preached (a gospel that was, in his mind, the fulfillment of the scrip

ture) these teachers were, in essence, adding their own teachings (human wisdom) to the scriptureitself(p. 130).

1 6P. Wallis, "Ein neuer Auslegungsversuch der Stelle 1. Kor. 4,6," TLZ75 (1950) 506-8.

Wallis has proposed a clever solution, but one that has been accepted by few others (e.g., Erich

Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulusan die Korinther, Erste Teil, Einfhrung undAuslegung der

Kapital1-7 [THKNT 7/1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975] 147). He repunctuates the

phrase as , producing an independent maxim, (similar to the well-

known ), which he translates, "Nicht zu viel" (p. 507). The consequently

refers back to , as mentioned above. Wallis thus attempts to retain the text and salvage a

meaningful interpretation. The general sense of this interpretation is actually not much different

from others, given the context and Paul's concern for exaggerated evaluations ofindividual leaders

in the church. Moreover, despite Wallis's refusal to admit the full phrase as a maxim, the is

understood as an undeniable indicator of the form. Cf. on Wallis, Welborn, "Conciliatory Princi


6/25

280 Journal of Biblical Literature

opponents who misrepresent his teaching, claiming that he goes far beyond the

scriptural tradition.17 Others have argued that the phrase is a Gnostic slogan

that Paul has turned back on its advocates.18

In the end, no single solution to the difficulty presented by 1 Cor 4:6 has

gained a solid consensus. Nor is any hypothesis without problems. On the onehand, the emendation theories, here exemplified by Bornemann-Baljon and

Strugnell, arose in response to the failure of those theories which attempted to

make sense out of the received text by assuming a reference to the OT or to

some form of the Christian tradition. To this degree these radical hypotheses

have been justified; in Pauls context the purpose of a reference to scripture

(either as an allusion to the Jewish scriptures or as a reference to immediately

preceding citations of scripture) is far from clear.19 Had Paul wished to refer to

his own, just-penned words, he would have most probably made reference by

means of a different formula.20

Moreover, Paul does not refer to the scripturein this way elsewhere.21 The most concise criticism of these attempts is given by

Strugnell: "a reference to Scripture would be irrelevant at this point in Pauls

argument."22

On the other hand, Strugnell s own emendation theory serves as a response

to the specific criticisms leveled against the Bornemann-Baljon version of the

emendation hypothesis.23 Even so, Strugnell s simplified version has won but

17 Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben, 141. Welborn ("Conciliatory Principle," 328) citesHeinrici (Der erste Brief an die Korinther [MeyerK 5.7; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1896] 148), calling this the most plausible explanation of this type. For criticism of this view, see

Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief XMeyerK 5.10; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1910)102-3.18

Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 327-28 n. 45, citing Wilhelm Ltgert, Freiheitspredigt

und Schwarmgeister in Korinth (Gtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1908); see also Lietzmann, An die

Korinther, 19 (arguing that, because the letter is a private one, it is unlikely that Paul would have

quoted opponents); see also F. F. Bruce, I 6- II Corinthians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1971)48-49.19 It has proven especially difficult to show the referent of Paul's supposed allusions to scrip

ture; see Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 322, 324-25; Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation,"

555. If Paul's previous citations are targeted, the argument inevitably becomes weighted down in

defense of an exegetical scheme, itself open to criticism, designed to integrate these citations and

the parallel phrases in 1 Cor 6:b (e.g., Hooker, "'Beyond the Things '" 128-30).20

Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben, 148, suggesting ().2 1

Not as ("the things") but as (ai , included by Welborn, "ConciliatoryPrin

ciple," 326) or ; see n. 10 above.2 2

Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 555 (emphasis his).2 3

Ibid., 556: "Can we not sap the force of these objections and remove all grounds for hesita

tion?" For specific criticism of Bornemann-Baljon see J. M. Ross ("Not Above What is Written: A

Note on 1 Cor 46," ExpTim 82 [1971] 215-17), who rejects the emendation theory on the groundsthat it lacks any positive evidence, either specifically for the case being argued or forotherinstances

within the New Testament, and on the improbabilitythat such an error could have entered the tra


7/25


few adherents and has itselfnot gone unchallenged.24

More fundamentally, in

spite of Strugnell s improvement of the theory, the greatest problem for those

who promote emendation of the text is not the development of a viable theory

but rather whether recourse to emendation is required at all.

III. Making Sense ofthe Text

in Terms ofthe Wider Cultural Context

While still accepting the basic presupposition that the text is sensible, a

different approach has been to argue that Pauls referent is not to the scripture

but to certain elements rooted in Hellenistic culture. Recently two important

hypotheses have been proposed. The first is B. Fiore s proposal that Pauls

phrase is an allusion to the common experience of school children who are

taught to write correctly by tracing over paradigmatic figures supplied by their

teachers.25

In this context the allusion amounts to an injunction to "trace the

pattern" correctlythat is, Paul and Apollos as examples of proper harmony

rooted in the possession of correct wisdom and understanding. The obvious

advantage of this proposal is the ease with which it fits Pauls rhetorical strategy

in dealing with the problems in Corinth.26

The weakness of this explanation is

linguistic. According to Fiore s sources, the most common terminology associ

ated with this phenomenon centers around the verb and the tech

nical term , neither of which is ever used by Paul. If this image

insufficient time for the multiple steps required bythis version of the emendation hypothesis to have

been played out. Moreover, the wording of the supposed gloss is itselfimprobable; both the MH and

the Awould have been articular. Finally, rather than explaining where the MH had been improperly

placed, Ross argues that the corrector would have explained where it should have been written.

Strugnell believes that his scenario deals adequatelywith each ofthese objections.2 4

For criticism ofStrugnell, see G. D. Kilpatrick,"Conjectural Emendation in the New Tes

tament," in New Testament TextualCriticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honourof

Bruce M. Metzger(ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 349-60, esp. 356-60. In

his commentary, Fee simplydismisses the emendation theories as being too clever to be probable(Corinthians, 168; cf. Wallis, "Ein neuer Auslegungsversuch," 507).

2 5. Fiore, The Function ofPersonalExample in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib

105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986) 165-66.2 6

But cf. D. W. Kuck, who gives qualified agreement (Judgmentand CommunityConflict:

Paul'sUse ofApocalyptic JudgmentLanguage in ICorinthians3:5-4:5 [NovTSup 66; Leiden: Brill,

1992] 213). The verb can be metaphoricallyextended to refer to the imitation of an

archetype or rhetorical figure (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isoc. 4.711B). Fiore's credit of H.

Schlier's article appears to be mistaken; I do not see anywhere on pp. 32-33 that Schlier mentions

this pedagogical technique (Fiore, Function of Personal Example, 173 n. 24; cf. H. Schlier,

"," TDNT2.32-33). Ofcourse, Paul's use of the preposition does not suggest obvi-

ouslythe idea assumed by Fiore, nor does it suggest the compound . This hypothesis is

defended in greatest detail byJohn T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of


8/25


were so ready-at-hand that Paul could assume the allusion to be easilyunder

stood by the audience, the question arises as to why he would choose to phrase

it in such a roundabout way, avoiding any ofthe usual technical language associ

ated with the practice to which he alludes.27

The second recent proposal we should mention is Welborn s.Here as well,

the key becomes proper identification ofthe rhetorical context of1 Corinthians

1-4, on the basis of which clues to the interpretation ofthe elliptical phrase in

4:6 may be identified. Its elliptical quality(i.e., the missing verb) and the use of

the article in this type of construction indicate a maxim, or what is often

described as a "slogan."28

Welborn looks to the philosophical topos of self-conceit, focusing on the

key word (1 Cor 1:10-12; 3:3-4; 3:21; 4:8ff), which is found also

among the rhetoricians, orators, and political historians in the context of thethreat to concord.29

For example, in the case of Philos discussion of the discord

caused by Macro because of his disregard for the famed Delphic Maxim, both

the principle Paul argues for and the word are used.30

Welborn con

cludes that Paul is doing something analogous to what philosophers and rhetori

cians do when they attempt to resolve political strife between rival factions. Both

Fiore and Welborn rightly assume that if we can locate the proper context for

the phrase we can then say something about its meaning

and significance. More specifically, Welborn describes Pauls efforts in terms of

the goals ofthe institution ofarbitration in Greek political life.

31

2 7Note that the author of 1 Peter, recognized for his superior Greek, apparently knows the

technical language; see 2:21. As Fiore admits in his note, there are no parallels for this formulation

in the sources for this practice.2 8

That the phrase has the features ofa maxim has been recognized by most scholars who try

to make sense of the present text, e.g., Hooker, "'Beyond the Things,'" 132; and Welborn: "[t]he

words are evidently a proverb, or a principle in proverbial form. This is the

only satisfactory explanation ofthe introductory article and the elliptical sentence structure." It was

Paul who "gave it the character ofa maxim" ("ConciliatoryPrinciple," 322,345); cf. C. F. D. Moule,

An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 110-11,3; Edwards, Corinthians, 102; Meyer-Heinrici, Briefan die Korinther, 120; Godet, Commentary,

217; Findlay, Corinthians, 799-800; Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief 102; Robertson and Plum

mer, Corinthians, 81; Wallis, "Auslegungsversuch," 507-8; Ross, "'Not Above What is Written,'"

217; Fascher, Korinther, 146-47. Welborn's argument that the maxim must be of broad cultural

currency (not local) because the letter is intended for the whole church, thus it is expected to be

common knowledge, seems somewhat arbitrary, since, if the maxim was known only within the

local church, we should not expect it to be less accessible than slogans such as in

6:12 and 10:23 (pp. 332-33).2 9

Welborn, "ConciliatoryPrinciple," 340-41: "We mayhope . . . to find the keyto Paul's per

plexing phrase, , in the literature on concord."3 0

Philo, Leg. Gai. 69; also cf. Demosthenes 19.314 (also 59.97); Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.25; Ps.Plato, AL. 2 USE; Plutarch, Cic. 887B; Philo, Leg. Gai. 86.

3 1Welborn "Conciliatory Principle " 343 Arbitration usually resulted in the submitting of a


9/25


Welborn identifies the rhetorical genre of 1 Corinthians 1-4 as a -

,32

through which Paul attempts to dissuade the Corinthians

from factionalism. Specifically, Paul's argument takes the form of a

, a deliberative discourse generallyused bypolitical types to reconcile

opposing parties. It is essentiallyan appeal forunity.33 Welborn shows how well

Paul s rhetoric and use ofimages reflects this type ofdiscourse.34

Paul recog

nized the effectiveness ofthis principle in cases offactionalism, and "[i]t was

[he] who abstracted the admonition from its context and gave it the characterof

a maxim."35

Welborn s hypothesis is the most detailed and is veryplausible. It has the

advantage ofrecognizing the problems that develop when the "scripture" (ora

particularscripture text) is made the referent, and ofproviding a positive pro-

inscribed (here citing M.N. Tod, InternationalArbitration Amongst the Greeks[Oxford: Claren

don, 1913] 152-54). In this context Welborn proposes to find language similar to that used in 1 Cor

4:6, citing an oath to which two disputants (Magnesia and Smyrna) swear (p. 344). The text cited

(OGIS from 242 BCE; abbreviations of epigraphical publications conform to those used in SuppL-

mentum Epigraphicum Graecum) supports the idea that a written document is encapsulated in the

principle; the verbal parallel is found in the equivalent phrase, (cf. SIG3 712 from

101-2 BCE, Unes 15-18).3 2 That is, a genre suited to counseling or giving advice.3 3 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 334-35; for examples, see 335-56.3 4 This includes Paul's "building metaphor" (Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 336-39).3 5

Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 345. Ofcourse, the admonition is, in general terms, to

return to a state ofharmony and to refrain from factionalism. Paul's use of this phrase conforms to

the classic description of the nature and function of maxims in rhetoric found in Aristotle (Rh.

2.21). Aristotle himself shows that the form Paul uses is appropriate to the designation of maxims

( and , 2.21.13). According to Aristotle, the speaker should always

try to use the hearers' presuppositions in order to express his own views about these ideas in gen

eral terms (2.21.15). Consequently, the maxim is a general statement () limited to the

sphere of human actions (), a statement about what should be chosen or what should be

avoided ( , 2.21.2). Paul's phrase also seems to conform

to Aristotle's principle that a maxim should express the common wisdom of experience and that,

where it is necessary to clarify an obscure maxim, the speaker should supplement it with anexplanatory sentence (2.21.8-9, 14). IfWelborn is correct, the second clause performs this

function in 1 Cor 4:6. One clarification must be made, however; Aristotle's definition ofa maxim

describes it as either the premise ( ) or the conclusion () ofan enthymeme with

out a syllogism (see 1.1.11). In other words, a maxim makes a positive statement about human

action (2.21.2). Paul's use of the maxim appears to be more a command

than a statement about the best course ofaction. However, Aristotle also cites explicitly the famed

Delphic Maxim as an example, a phrase that not onlytakes the form ofa command but was so inter

preted in antiquity(a command from the god to knowone's proper place; see Ps. Plato, AL. 1 124A;

E. Wilkens, "Know Thyself in Greek and Latin Literature" [diss., University ofChicago, 1917]

21-22; cf. Philo, Spec. Leg., 1.263-65). To be in line with Aristode's understanding ofthe form and

function of maxims we must understand this form of maxim as the expressed answer to the understood question, What is best for us human beings to do? In this case, the maxim itself becomes an

elliptical slogan well known enough to the hearers that they can easily supply the understood


10/25


posai that fits the context of Pauls argument, allowing the phrase to stand as it

is in the text without resorting to theories ofemendation. However, despite the

progress Welborn has made in understanding this difficult phrase, several

problems with this hypothesis remain.

First ofall, Welborn never actually identifies the referent of .While I agree with both Fiore s and Welborn s descriptions of the rhetorical

context (Paul is trying to overcome factious behavior in Corinth) and acknowl

edge the appropriateness ofthe use ofthe maxim in this context, I regret Wel

born's failure to take the logical step that the examples cited imply, that is, to

postulate a prior, foundational document (the referent of ) to

which Paul and all ofthe Corinthians are parties.36

Heinrici had suspected that

such a document (a "community rule") could explain Pauls referent, but he felt

that the evidence for such a hypothesis was lacking.37

It is interesting to note

that Welborn s best examples are derived from the legal-political arena, where

the resolution of conflict results in the formalization ofthe resolution in a treaty

that is usually published as an inscription.38

For example, Welborn argues that

the advice not to go beyond what is written is "commonly applied by philoso

phers and statesmen to those who threaten to arouse discord. Sometimes the

principle takes the form of an exhortation to abide by the established laws."39

The example ofapplication to "established laws" would seem to imply that this

referent was a written document of some kind. The analogy of arbitration, in

everycase cited, involves the presupposition of a prior document, oath,

40

or

3 6This is, in fact, Welborn's viewthat is, there is no Corinthian document to which Paul

refers; he has instead abstracted a principle from the rhetorical context ofdiscussions ofconcord

and the practice ofarbitration, in the form ofa maxim, to make a point in his argument against fac

tionalism. IfPaul is alluding to the principle ofunityas a common topos in this type ofcontext and

not to a specific document to which refers, then in actuality Welborn's hypothesis

leaves the reference to "things written" just as unanchored as it becomes in those hypotheses which

postulate a reference to scripture(s).3 7

Heinrici referred to this hypothetical document as a Gemeindestatut (community rule)

(Erste Brief an die Korinther, 149n; cf. his earlier suggestion, "die Erinnerung an geschriebeneNormen des Gemeindelebens" [Das erste Sendschreiben, 140]). This possibility was held out also

by Moffatt (Corinthians, 47), E.-B. Allo (SaintPaul: Premire ptre aux Corinthiens [2d ed.; Ebib;

Paris: Gabalda, 1934] 73), and Reginald St. John Parry (Commentary on First Corinthians [CGTC;

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926]), who suggested that the phrase referred to a

contract and was being used in a technical sense, "not to go beyond the terms*' of the agreement

(pp. 78-79).38

Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 341-44.39 In addition, Welborn goes on to say, "When the conflict lies between cities, or when estab

lished laws do not apply, the factions are exhorted to submit to other written documents such as

treaties of peace" ("Conciliatory Principle," 341).

40 Even Welborn's comments about the use of this principle in cases where the referent is not

to a specific written document concede that when the principle is used in such cases it is used in

f l h W k i i d h h h h d l i


11/25


treaty to which the opposing factions are mutually accountable. The arbitrator,

or the orator in making his plea for unity, exhorts the parties to honor their

agreements, that is, not to go beyond what is written.

Second, Welborn's analogy does not quite fit the Corinthian context

because the parallels cited presuppose that conflict has already occurred andbeen resolved; the parties are being asked, in the present, to return to a former

state ofmutual loyalty. In the Corinthian letter, Paul gives no indication that he

is facing a problem of factions at Corinth that he had already resolved on a pre

vious occasion. If this is the case, then we should not, as Welborn does, expect

Paul to be referring to a previously formalized agreement from which the

Corinthian factions have since deviated.

Moreover, Welborn's hypothesis fails to actually locate the maxim with

respect to anything more than a general agreement in principle; no real verbal

parallels are cited for the particular form of the exhortation Paul uses in 1 Cor4:6 in the examples given.

41This is not to deny that Welborn has convincingly

established philosophical and political parallels to the rhetorical context in

which Paul cites the maxim. It is to saythat the maxim itselfdoes not seem to be

borrowed from such parallels. In the end Welborn appears to agree with this

point, arguing that the phrase itselfis Paul's own abstraction. The problem here

is that if this were the case, then it would be difficult to call the expression a slo

gan or to account for Paul's rhetorical purpose in using it, unless it was some

thing already known to the Corinthians. It is more likelythat Paul is borrowing

this maxim from common currency for use in his present argument.I would suggest that the whole force of Welborn's argument points in the

direction first indicated by Heinrici, that is, to a prior, written document that

was known to all parties involved. If Paul is abstracting a principle from the

context of discussions of concord as well as the processes of the institution of

arbitration and applying these by means ofthe maxim "not beyond what is writ

ten" to a factious situation for which there has been no previous resolution to

which the parties are accountable, the maxim makes little sense. However, if

Paul is referring to a "written" document, perhaps a foundation document or

chartersimilar to those we find in numerous leges sacrae, the use ofthe maximmakes perfectly good sense.

political documents but also, in cultic contexts, to forestall confusion and disagreements, and that

these oaths were routinely inscribed in public documents. For example, for an oath sworn by

sacred participants in public cult, see the great lexsacra from Andania, IG 511390 (92 BCE) lines

l-6a; 8; 26b-28; SIG3

671A (160-159 BCE) Unes l-5a; IG 127

515 (end of the second centuryBCE)

Unes 89-95 (an oath of the , the supervisors of the festival activities). Consequently, the

presupposition of a "fixed" referent for the maxim is not avoided byWelborn's suggestion regarding

the use ofoaths ("Conciliatory Principle," 341).4 1

Welborn argues that the phrase "has a specific function and characteristic form in each of

the contexts" ("Conciliatory Principle," 345), but he does not supplyanyexamples using


12/25


IV. The GreekLeges Sacrae as an Interpretive Context

It is easy enough to establish that Pauls letter presupposes a body of

knowledge that he shares with the Corinthian readers. This knowledge includes

teaching that the apostle himselfhad imparted to the newly founded church. In

the Corinthian situation, Paul uses the technical terms for the handing down of

tradition, and , with reference to previous instruction.42

In 1 Corinthians 11, Pauls correction ofcurrent practice presupposes deviation

from previous instruction or; Paul is here commanding them

( . . . , 11:17) to return to a previously agreed order

(see 5:9-13; 15:1-11; chap. 15). Of course, this is not the only kind of presup

posed instruction for which we have evidence in Pauls letters. 1 Thessalonians

consists largely of reminders of things that the members of the congregation

supposedly know well.

43

For example, in 4:1-2 we find Paul encouraging hisreaders to live in accord with what they have already received ()

from him, things that are later referred to as "commands" (). We

know from both literary and inscriptional sources that ,

, and are technical terms regularly used for the specific regula

tions of the cult. For example, Dionysios of Philadelphia claims to have

ref ormed his own household cult because Zeus had revealed specific

to govern the new institution. The same terminology is used in

the cultic bylaws of the guild of Zeus Hypsistos and in the bylaws ofthe Anda

man mysteries for the regulations to be followed by participants.44

As we see inthe case of 1 Cor 11:17, when issuing commands about cultic matters, Paul can

4 2In 1 Cor 11:2 Paul praises the Corinthians,

, a textbook example ofthe technical use of these terms. Ofcourse,

1 Cor 15:3-8 is perhaps the most often mentioned example. In 11:23, we also have a classic exam

ple of the use of the two complementary technical terms used for the receiving and passing on of

tradition. Paul can use other expressions to refer to instruction already presupposed by his readers;

for example, in 1 Cor 4:17 (assuming this to be genuine, as Conzelmann does [Corinthians, 92-93])

Paul refers to his "ways" ( . . .

[], ). Here, as Conzelmann clearly

points out, Paul's "ways" are his teachings, as the verb ) indicates.4 3

W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New

Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1983) 114-15.4 4

The first definition found in LSJ is a militarycommand, citing Xenophon, Hell. 2.1.4. For

the cultic commands given to Dionysios of Philadelphia, see SIG3

985, lines 3-4, 12, 34, 42-^4,

50-51, 57-59 (late second or early first centuryBCE). Note in lines 57-58:

. This passage clearly unites the ideas oftradition and instructional author

ity. 1 Thess 4:11 also presupposes an ongoing teaching relationship regarding how one is to live

properly, . Here Paul only reminds the Thessalonians of authoritative

instructions of which they are already aware. For the in the cultic bylaws ofthe guild

ofZeus Hypsistos; see P. Lond. 2710, Unes llb-12a (Egypt, late Ptolemaic period). The text for the

cultic bylaws of the Mysteries of Andania is IG 51

1390, lines 40-43 (92/91 BCE); also cf. SEG


13/25


use , along with a string of imperatives (11:28, 33-34), just as we

find in the Greekleges sacrae (the published bylaws or proceedings of civic and

private cults). Paul also uses the technical term for command, .45

He reminds the Corinthians that he has customarily issued commands in all the

churches he has founded.46 In 1 Cor 11:34 he promises to set in order theremaining cultic matters left unresolved in his immediate, written instructions.

As 1 Cor 9:14 makes clear, Paul is only doing what the Lord had done before

him.47

Even more relevant to the present discussion is the fact that Paul clearly

shows no aversion to issuing written instructions to his churches. To be sure,

what Paul writes in his letters is supplementary to his previous instruction,

which is usually described as something Paul has given orally.48

However, Pauls

letters contain specific instructions, which also refer to previous writ ten

instructions, in addition to whatever instruction Paul may have imparted orally.The most obvious example is his juridical opinion in 1 Cor 5:3-5.

49Not only

does Paul use written instructions in the present context, but we also know that

this pattern has a history. In 5:9, 11 Paul refers to previous written instructions

regarding inappropriate associations.50

Examples of written instruction, in

including matters ofa cultic nature); I.Magnesia 50, Une 23 (matters ofreligious concern are "com

manded," , by the Magnesians; here the sending of sacred envoys, , to consult

an oracle). Cf. Plutarch, Is. et Os., E, 9-10, Stephanus p. 354.4 5 Cf. LSAM 9 (= CIG 3599), line 30 (Ilion, second centuryBCE). As Gerhard Delling's

TDNT article makes clear (", .," 8.27-48, esp. 34-35), the word is used in the NT particu

larlyfor cultic instructions: for example, the instructions for the fabrication of the Temple by Moses

(Acts 7:44); Jesus' missionaryinstructions to the disciples (Matt 11:1); Paul in reference to instruc

tions from the Lord (1 Cor 9:14); Paul in giving his detailed instructions on the collection (1 Cor

16:1); the Torah was the result of the action labeled by this verb (Gal 3:19). Delling further argues

that this capacity for issuing commands rests in Paul's apostolic authority(p. 35). None of the stan

dard lxica points out the emphasis on this term in the Leges Sacrae, e.g., IG 51 1390, lines 8, 25,

32,80; I.Pergamon255, lines 16,20.46 (1 Cor 7:17).4 7

4 8 Cf. Gal 1:9; 5:21; 2 Cor 7:3; 13:2; 1 Thess 3:4; 4:6. With regard to the present context,

Paul's repeated uses ofwords for oral deliverymust be noted: 1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2:4, 6, 7, 13; 3:1.

Although it may appear at first that in 1 Cor 4:6 Paul could be referring to oral instructions similar

to those referred to in the examples just mentioned, the clear indication of"something written" in

4:6 remains extremely difficult to assimilate to these references.4 9

"What is plain is that Paul is resolved upon a judicial act of a sacral and pneumatic kind

against the culprit" (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 97). In 5:3-5 Paul pronounces judgment on an indi-

vidual member of the church with the confident expectation that his written decision will be car

ried out. On this, see Adela Yarbro Collins, "The Function of'Excommunication' in Paul," HTR 73

(1980)251-63.5 0

This reminder of other categories of inappropriate associates in his present response(1 Cor 5:9-11), in addition to the primarilyat issue, proves that these various categories

were actually included in his earlier instructions about avoidance along with on the same


14/25


addition to Paul's references to even earlier instruction of various sorts, appear

to represent the foundational instruction that Paul customarily left to his

churches. In principle, since Paul regularly provided his churches with written,

authoritative instructions in his letters, there is no reason to assume that his

foundational instructions could not have been preserved as a written docu

ment.51

This type of document is, in fact, something we might expect to find in

the context of Pauls churches if we give some attention to the usual practices of

contemporary cult groups, among the membership of which many of Pauls

converts might have formerly been counted. We certainly have precedent from

Pauls Jewish experience for such community self-regulation, at least with

respect to cultic law and practice.52

As we have already noted, the possibility that refers to some

kind of document orlegal contract has been noted by scholars, especially thoselike Heinrici, who tried to understand the earliest Christian communities in

terms of their cultural context. In fact, references essentially synonymous to

Pauls phrase are commonly found in the documentary records of various cult

groups of all periods5 3

The use ofthe verbal form held a firm place

5 11 emphasize "in principle" with specific reference to the kind of assumed umqueness rep

resented by R Sohm's programmatic judgment, "Das Kirchenrecht steht mit dem Wesen der

Kirche in Widerspruch," by which he systematically precluded any possibility that the earliest

could have appropriated any form of binding "cultic law" from Hellenistic culture

(Kirchenrecht I Die geschichtlichen Grundlagen [Systematisches Handbuch der Deutschen

Rechtswissenschaft 1, Munich/Leipzig Duncker & Humblot, 1923] 1)5 2

Both the author of Luke-Acts and Josephus assume that the Jewish cultic community is

self-regulating Acts 18 12-16 portrays the Roman governor Gallio's unwillingness to involve him

selfm disputes over cultic matters ofconcern onlyto the Jewish population With respect to wntten

documents, Josephus (Ant 12 148-53) records the wntten grant from Anhochus 3 to Zeuxis,

governor of Lydia, establishing a Jewish military colony m Lydia and Phrygia and granting it self-

regulation in religious matters (between 212 and 205 BCE, see Paul R Trebilco, Jewish Communi

ties m Asia Minor [SNTSMS 69, Cambndge Cambndge University Press, 1991] 5-6), see also Ant

14 186-267,306-23,16 160-78, Philo, Leg Gai 311-16 However, Trebilco (Jewish Commu

nities, 10-19) does remind us that Jewish nghts to self-regulation were not automatic and needed

constant defending5 3

With regard to the nature ofthe content ofthe instructions to which Paul may be referring,

specific parallels will be pointed out m the concluding section of this essay It is sufficient here to

point out that the issue of factionalism and divisive behavior is also a concern of the founders of

otherGreek cultic institutions We have only to mention again the cultic bylaws of Dionysios of

Philadelphia, which clearly show the founder's fear of deceit ( [lines 16-23], especially as it

can be expressed through the use drugs and potions) and conspiracy ( [lines 22, 29])

Moreover, Dionysios's invocation ofAgdistis, the protector ofthe household, asks her to engender

th e proper disposition of obedience among the initiates (lines 51-54)initiates who will have

sworn an oath to maintain a proper attitude toward the association (lines 22-23) Dionysios's regulations reveal that the roots of factionalism and division are a concern for voluntary associations of

all types Paul's pnor instructions, presupposed in the letters to the Thessalonians and Philippians,


15/25

Hanges: 1 Cornthians 4:6 289

in the technical language of sacred documents as the common way of referring

to the present text or to previously written regulations.54

In the early fourth century BCE we find the publicly inscribed regulations

relative to the benefactions of the priestess of Artemis of Miletus referred to as

.55 Other similardocuments reveal that (, used whenthe "things written" are being contradicted) and the adverbial

phrase () are functionally interchangeable. For exam

ple, in a third-centuryBCE inscription containing the foundation of rites by a

certain Epicteta ofThera,56

we find the phrases (lines 34,

62, 93) and () (lines 49, 85) both referring to confor

mance to the inscribed regulations ofthe cult, without any functional semantic

distinction.57

A second-century Asian inscription prohibits anything more than

what is prescribed in the regulations from being distributed from the offerings

ofthe cult: [] ... .5 8

There is

also some evidence that at times these phrases can be used to refer to docu

ments otherthan the immediate text in which theyoccur. For example, in a text

from the third centuryBCE dealing with the ruler cult of Antigonos Gonatas we

find a reference to another set oflaws presupposed by the present text, [

] []... .5 9

The participial phrase and the finite verb are

used in the leges sacrae in contexts analogous to Pauls in 1 Cor 4:6. For exam-

in other cultic communities, it would not be surprising to find evidence that at least a basic collec

tion ofPaul's foundational instructions were in written form.5 4

AdolfSchlatter, Paulus: Der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther

(Stuttgart: Calwer, 1956) 153-54; it seems clear that Schlatter can onlybe citing SIG3

1106, lines

133-35, but this is not the citation listed in his text.

s5

380-379 BCE; SGDI5496; LSAM 45 Une 10.5 6

SGDI 4706; IG 123

330; LSCG 135. The foundation is made on behalfof her husband and

her deceased son. Cf. also LSAM 34, line 9 (Magnesia, from the cult of Sarapis, second century

BCE).5 7 That is to saythat these two phrases conform to the linguistic definition ofsynonymity: viz,

words or phrases are considered to be synonymous when, in a specific collocation, one may be sub-

stituted for the other without changing the meaning of the sentence. See John Lyons, Semantics(2

vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1977) 242,292.5 8

LSAM 70, fines 8-9. + the accusitive = "contraryto" (Herbert W. Smyth, Greek

Grammar [rev. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1956] 1692.3a;

cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1 43).5 9

The reference must be to an earlier law, since no such regulation as the one in question is

found in the present text, LSCG 106, line 4 = IG 125

1008. Cf. []

[ ] [] [] []

[] [] [] , [] [] ("But if

anyone should dare to annul something which Diomedeon has arranged, violating the sacredobjects as well as the forefathers on whose behalfit is inscribed on the altar and on the stele, those

who are kin ofDiomedeon are not to allowit") (LSCG 177 [Cos, 300 BCE, lines 130-137]). The text


16/25


pie, in the cult bylaws ofthe Andaman mysteries we find the legal pronounce

ment, .60

In line 5 of this text

the terms and rst appear.61 Based on the clause

[] (lines 94b-95a), we can conclude that

and are actually synonymous.62 This is made moreevident by the equivalent use of (line 25) and

(line 81b). The text also makes clear that these latter two phrases

are both synonymous with (lines 43b-44a). The

use ofthe phrase or its equivalent,

, in the Andanian bylaws is clearly a warning against the violation of

the regulations prescribed in the inscription itself. This is clear because nega

tive consequences are entailed: that is, the transgressor is liable for damages.63

In this respect Pauls use of the preposition in the phrase

appears to be functionally equivalent to

and to .64

That Paul is prohibiting the violation of

something written is unanimously held to be the sense of the phrase by inter

preters who try to make sense ofthe present text.65

6 0IG5

11390, lines 81b-82a. Similar phrases appear in line 110,

; also cf. LSCG 166, line 27, [ ]; IG 129

194, line 29

(Eretria, earlythird centuryBCE); IG 125

107, lines 2-5 (los, second centuryBCE); IG 125

126, lines

6-7 (Paros, second centuryBCE).6 1 The Andanian cult bylaws are clearly described as a in the closing legal pro

nouncement ofthe document, - (lines 192-94).6 2

Cf. also ' (LSCG 177, line 117). In the Andanian text, the formula

(lines 43b-44a, 101b-102a, 110) and (lines 58b-59a)

are simply"shorthand" forms of . That which is written is the con

tents ofthe . This point is clearly illustrated in the bylaws ofthe Philadelphia cult already

mentioned; here (SIG3

985, lines 57-58).6 3

In the case of line 110, since the liability concerns two classes of transgressors (the slave

and the free man) two penalties are prescribed: scourging for the slave and a fine for the free man

(lines 110b-lll).6 4

Both formulas prohibit certain actions and imply negative consequences ifneglected;

see

n. 60 above.6 5

This is certainly the implication with Welborn; see pp. 284-85 above and nn. 36-40. It is

true that and are not easilyinterchangeable. However, can have the sense of going

beyond limits; this is certainly the consensus where 1 Cor 4:6 is concerned. This sense of plus

the accusative has a long history: for example, in Plato's Respublica the preposition is used to pro

scribe "producing children beyond one's means of supporting them" (372C); to describe the height

and strength ofa ship captain "surpassingall those on board" (488A-B); or to describe that which

"surpasses all things in beauty" (509A). For a laterexample, we need lookno furtherthan Lucan of

Samosata. Lucan can use this construction to describe Alexander's rascality as "surpassing even the

Cercopes, and Eurybatos" (Alex. 4.12); to excel with respect to certain characteristics is also

expressed in this way, e.g., Rh. prae. 13.12; 15.6; 23.18; 17.6; 9.8; Pro imag. 7.4-5. Lucan uses plus the accusative to describe "going beyond accepted limits" (Pro imag. 9.7; 29.2); to "surpass in

age" (Alex. 41.11); to "exceed in size" (Pro imag. 10.8); "to be excessive" (e.g., the idiom


17/25


These prohibitions from the leges sacrae share with Pauls warning in

1 Cor 4:6 a well-known and fundamental legal principle that considers "what

has been written" to be inviolable.66

This legal principle is not foreign to Jewish

traditions; it is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:19) referring to the

Torah.67 Here the violation of the written code is defined in terms of "specific

commandments []."68

Conzelmann correctly points to this with refer

ence to the legal principle that the written laws cannot be added to or sub

tracted from.69

Our point here is simply that, despite the complicated nature of

Pauls relation to Jewish law, we can assume that his Jewish background would

not have precluded his familiarity with this legal concept.

In certain cases the prospects for amending a written law can be very

intimidating; to propose an amendment that was judged to violate the intent or

content of the written code could result in severe penalties. For example, DioChrysostom, in his comments about some of the outstanding lawgivers of the

past, cites with approval the law code enacted by Charondas of Thuria which

contained an article dealing with the revision of the law code itself. While it

allowed for revision theoretically, the process guaranteed a limited number of

amendment proposals. According to this law, anyone who proposes an amend-

[Rh. prae. 18.5; Pro imag. 21.4]). Also cf. -1 -

, -1 . . . (I.Priene 174, lines 27-29 [second centuryBCE] = SIG3

1003).6 6

The fundamental principle is found in the Crito, which argues that to disobeyvalidlyenacted laws of the state is to attack the proper authorityof the law itself, in a sense to damage the

laws of the state. See A. D. Woozley's analysis of Socrates' reason for not escaping the verdict of the

court in Law and Obedience: The Argumentof Plato'sCrito (Chapel Hill: Universityof North Car

olina Press, 1979) 19-25, 30-32,126. Of course, this principle is presupposed by the

(the legal indictment for proposing an illegal or unconstitutional measure); see HarvyYunis,

"Law, Politics, and the Graphe Paranomon in Fourth-CenturyAthens," GRBS29 (1988) 361-82. If

the reconstruction is sound, the passage

[][] [] [] [...] may also provide an exam

ple that comes veryclose to Paul's phrase in form and content (I.Ephesos 10, lines 30b-32 [second-

third centuryCE]). Cf. LSAM45, lines 6-7, . The same idea must

have occurred to the copyists behind K2, C^d, D2, the MajorityText, a single manuscript of the Vul-gate, and the Syrian tradition, where is inserted.

6 7Hans Dieter Betz, "Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt (Mt 5,17-20)," in

Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufstze II(Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992) 119-20; originally

published in Verifikationen: Festschrift fr Gerhard Ebeling zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. E. Jngel, J.

Wallman, W. Werbeck; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1982); Eng. trans., "The Hermeneutical Princi

ples of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17-20)," in Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Phila

delphia: Fortress, 1985) 46-47 (note "Sentence[s] of Holy Law," in 5:19). See also Ep. Arist.

308-11; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1 $42; Did. 4.13; Barn. 19.11.68 Betz, "Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien," 120 (Eng. 47).69 (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 86 n. 14); cf. Rev 22:18-19 and

Did. 11.1-2. Also cf. Deut 4:2; Prov30:6; Eccl 3:14; Gal 1:8-9 (Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A

Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,


18/25

292 JournalofBiblicalLiterature

ment to the written laws would be required to place his neck in a hangman's

noose while the proposal was being debated. If the proposal passed the pro

poser could remove his neck from the noose, if it failed he would be hanged on

the spot (12.17.1-2).

In the Greek context we find numerous examples of"laws against abrogation ofthe (written) laws."

70According to Plato, Socrates believed that to break

the law ofthe state is to act unjustly; Plato personifies the laws of Athens, which

then begin to speak to Socrates as if they could suffer damage from his disobe

dience. One of the reasons the personified Athenian Law gives for Socrates'

obedience is the existence of a specific law that declares court decisions to be

binding; and since Socrates had agreed to obey this particular law, he is thereby

obligated to abide even by an unfavorable verdict.71

This general legal principle applies in cultic regulations also. The most common way this principle is expressed in cultic law is by a statement that the laws

authoritywill endure for all time, for example, -

.72

The idea that the written law is inviolable is expressed also

by the common practice of depositing copies ofthe law in a temple.73

Just as in

the civil law code, the authority of cultic law can be defended by penalties, as we

see in a first-century BCE cultic inscription from Mylasa, in west-central Caria,

"And it shall be lawful for no one to annul this regulatory decree, but if this

should not be the case and someone attempts to do this, the one proposing the

amendment, having been defeated in court, shall repayto the priests of Zeus . . .three-thousand drachmae."

74In the foundation inscription ofBrea, the punish-

7 0Eberhard Ruschenbusch, in : Die Fragmente dessolonischen Gesetzes

werkes mit einer Text- und berlieferungsgeschichte (Historia 9; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966), citestwo examples from literary sources: Dio Chrysostom 80.6 (2.224 Arn.) and Gellius, Nodes Atticae

2.12.1.71 Cri. 50c; cf. Woozley, Law and Obedience (n. 66 above).72 IG 51 1390, lines 192-94; also cf. LSCG 158, lines 4-5 (Cos, third century BCE; a more

elaborate statement from the Asklepieion,

). Foradditional parallels, see I.Pergamon II, no. 251, lines 41-43 (a

second-centuryBCE lexsacra passed by the Boule and the Demos permanently committing the

priesthood ofthe cult of Asklepios to the family ofthe founder, Archias [Pausanias 2.26.8]); I.Per

gamon II, no. 255, lines 17, 29; SIG3

867, lines 32-34 (Ephesus, mid-second centuryCE).7 3

I.Magnesia 98 = SIG3

589 lines 64-65 (197-196 BCE); LSAM28 = CIG 3062, lines 18-19

(Teos, from the reign ofTiberius); LSAM53, lines 35-40 (Miletus, from the end ofthe first cen

tury; here multiple copies are deposited in several locations); JG129

194, lines 33-34 (see note 60

above). This presumes a principle similarto the principle oftemple asylum.7 4

LSAM 62, lines 10-11: [] [ ], , [

][] [ ][ . . . ] . . . . Also see

JG51

1390, lines 180-94 (Andania); I.Priene 201, lines 7-20; also 202, lines 14-15. Plato's Athenianproposes an article ofcultic law that prohibits the proposing ofhymns or dances otherthan those

publicly commissioned for a specific deity on penalty of expulsion from the religious festivals of the


19/25

Hanges: 1 Cornthians 4:6 293

ment for proposing an inappropriate amendment to the law is confiscation of

property.75

These few examples are sufficient to show that Pauls phrase

bears a certain functional resemblance to the kinds of"internal self-

reference" common to Greekleges sacrae.76 Moreover, these parallels, takentogether with the implications ofWelborn's examples (all ofwhich point to

some form ofpresupposed, usually written, precedent standing behind exhor

tations designed to overcome factionalism), offer support forHeinrici s original

suspicion that Paul may be referring here to a community rule orbylaws.

There is at least one additional indication in his letter that the source of the

maxim quoted byPaul may be a rudimentary, Christian lexsacra. In 1 Cor6:12

and 10:23 Paul adapts foruse in his argument the formula "it shall be lawful for"

( + dative).77

It is generally accepted, especially since the work ofJ. C.

Hurd, that Paul is quoting a "slogan" used bythe Corinthians, which may actu

ally have its origin in Pauls own preaching.78

The least that we can say is that the

phrase represents something with which Paul presupposes the Corinthians to be

familiar.

As to the significance of this formula, it must be admitted that it occurs in

a wide variety ofcontexts. It can mean that an action is possible orwithin the

capacityofthe person in question.79

At times this formula can express what is

7 5 A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester: Manchester Uni

versityPress, 1964) Appendix 2, p. 229; Graham writes elsewhere "similar provisions are very com

mon in all decrees" (p. 60). Also see pp. 20-26, and for Cyrene and Naupactus, pp. 38-45.7 6

See n. 66 above.7 7

Schlatter has argued that the maxims in 1 Cor 4:6 and 6:12/10:23 belong together. To

is a reminder to the Corinthians provoked by the same misapprehension of free

dom in Christ that lies behind the slogan () . Schlatter derives this misuse from a

Jewish principle that distinguishes the individual's obligation from freedom on the basis of the spe

cific relevance of the law; that is, where there is specific guidance, one is under obligation, but

where the law does not apply, one is free to act according to one's own moral judgment. Once the

concept of "freedom from the law" was introduced, there existed no more grounds for personalobligation to any"canon" ofany sort (Paulus: Der Bote Jesu, 198-99; but cf. Kuck, Judgment, 19).

7 8J. C. Hurd, The Origin ofICorinthians(NewYork: Seabury, 1965). Hurd lists twenty-four

commentators known to him who accept the phrase () (6:12; 10:23) as a quota

tion. Since Hurd, we can add also R. Kempthorne, "Incest and the Body of Christ: A study of

1 Corinthians VI. 12-20," NTS14 (1967-68) 574; de Boor, An die Korinther, 113; Fee, Corinthi

ans, 251; D. F. Watson, "1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric," JBL

108 (1989) 303. Hurd also outlines the basic arguments for this conclusion (pp. 120-21; cf. also 123,

278-79). For the limitations of Hurd's analysis, see M. M. Mitchell, "Concerning in

1 Corinthians," NovT 31 (1989) 234, 240-42, 244-45, 250, 255. Mitchell cautions that only 1 Cor

7:1 explicitly refers to written questions from the Corinthians.

7 9 W. Foerster, "," TDNT2.560-61. This seems to be the sense in 4 Mace 1:12; 17:7;outside of the biblical tradition (Foerster denies that this sense is found in the NT [p. 560]), see,

X h A 7 1 21 A i t tl Rh 1401b 26 T l " " 11H i N


20/25


fitting or proper in a given situation.80

We also find many instances in which the

possibility ofan action is determined by some kind of higher ethical or material

power or by established law.81

With respect to Pauls phrase, E. Fuchs has

located the interpretive context in discussions of freedom, especially as they are

found in Epictetus.82 However, in spite of the fact that Pauls argument echoessuch philosophical discussions, it is not likelythat it is from this arena that he

has actually borrowed the formula. Instead, I would suggest that both Paul and

Epictetus appropriate this formula from one of its more common applications

We find a hint of this context in the literary record, when the formula is

used with reference to cultic regulations.83

In fact, this formula is found com

monly in Greekleges sacrae and is particularly prominent in the of

public cult institutions, expressing the will of the civic officials who are in

charge ofthe operation ofthe cult.

The most common form of this legal phrase in the cultic regulations is theimperative.

84For example, in the famous "minutes" of the Iobakchoi from

Press, 1977) 10-11, Philo, Plant 64 3 (possibly), Virt 57 3, Prov frg 2, 57 2, Omn Prob Lib

59 5, Epictetus, Diss 2 16 37,3 24 6, and also his well-known comment in Diss 11 21

.8 0

Cf Ael, VH 12 6 1, Anaxagoras, Testimonia, frg 35 4,2 Esdr 4 14, Esth 4 2, Matt 20 158 1

E g , see Teles, " ," 29, m O'Neil, Teles, 28-29, Epictetus, Diss , 1 26 8,

Philo, Plant 64 3 (possibly), Omn Prob Lib 59 5 (possibly), Acts 22 25, Ael, VH, 2 7 2, in legal

contexts, cf Plato, Cri 51d, Philo, Plant 169 4, Josephus, Ant 8 404,1 Mace 14 44, John 18 318 2

E Fuchs, "Die Herrschaft Chnsti ZurAuslegung von 1 Kor6,12-20," m Neues Testament

und christliche Existenz Festschriftfur Herbert Braun zum 70 Geburtstag am 4 Mai 1973 (ed

H D Betz and L Schottroff, Tubingen Mohr-Siebeck, 1973) 183-93 As far back as Olshausen,

this phrase has been described as a "universal principle," related to what Paul says in Rom 8 21, and

having to do with the freedom ofthe children ofGod (Epistles to the Corinthians, 104-6), see also

Conzelmann, who says that "[o]nly the Stoics and Cynics provide material for comparison"

(Corinthians, 108-9), more recently, Strobel, Korinther, 111-12 Drawing specific parallels

between Paul's phrase and passages such as Diss 1 1 21, 18 2, 22 1, 27 14, 28 5, and Epictetus's

famous definition ofthe truly free human being m 4 1 1, Fuchs suggests that Paul has appropriated

what is essentially a Stoic phrase, into which he has introduced a new element (), in order to

argue against a radical understanding ofan expression of freedom, with which he agrees m principle, by focusing on the problem of allowing oneself, m the name of freedom, to become controlled

instead byless worthy interestswhen m fact the Christian's freedom from such domination is the

manifestation ofthe lordship ofGod, through the victorious Christ's ownership ofthe believer (pp

186-89)8 3

Herodotus 1 183, Philo, Jos 43 4, Spec Leg 1 242 8, Josephus, Ant 13 252, 373, 15

203, 419, 20 268,/ W 6 426,1 Mace 14 44 (this is in fact a cultic installation decree, cf Jose-

phus's account of Antiochus Ill's decree prohibiting aliens from entering the Temple of Jerusalem

[Ant 12 145-46), 3 Mace 1 11, Mark 2 24, 26, 10 2, 12 14 and parallels, Matt 12 10, 12, 27 6,

Luke 14 3, John 5 10 As we shall see, Foerster's comment that "[occasionally it [the for

mula] is used also of religious and cultic commandments," is at best an understatement See on the

form BAGD, s , 2, the impersonal third person singular is the common form m the literaryrecord + the dative of the person + the infinitive of the action to be performed See also Moule,

Idiom Book 27 n 2 BDF 130 1 358 2 245 3 393 1 5 409 3 410


21/25

Hanges 1 Connthians 46 295

second-centuryCE Athens, we find the same form ofthe verb used to express

both negative and positive injunctions "it shall be lawful forno one

( [line 32; cf. 1 Mace 14 44]), " it shall be law

ful forthe secretary. ." ( ... [line 100]) f The same negative

constructions can be found in a cultic law from the same area and period, here

in the published statutes of a private club.86

From the early first century we find

the positive formulation used to prescribe the right to any Gythian who wishes

to make a dedication to the emperor Tiberius on behalf of the city.87 Within the

Greek homeland, there are many other examples of this type of usage, spanning

several centuries.88

Outside the homeland, the Greek pattern was consistently

followed in both Greekand non-Greek cultic decrees. In the decree of the

association ofthe Sabbatistai ofElaioussa, from the Augustan period, we find

the phrase (lines 7-8).89 From Miletus

used in cultic regulations, e g, LSCG177 (Cos, 300 BCE), IG511390, IG1221368 (the minutes of

the Iobakchoi of Athens, second century CE) In the donation of cultic nghts by Diomedon from

Cos we find a prohibition with the unusual form, , which is probablythe perfect infinitive

active = (SGDI3634 = SIG31106 = LSCG177, line 43) Also cf SIG

31097, line 36,

, the plural with the singular imperative, also similar is LSCG 177, lines 80-81

The formula also appears in marriage contracts (PEleph 20, no 1, lines 7ff)8 5

IG2 2 1368 (= SIG2

737, SIG3

1109, LSCG, no 51), cf also line 63,1 Pnene 202 5 This is

an inscription published by a restneted club in the rituals ofwhich public officials plava role theinscription details the introduction ofrevised, and an affirmation ofexisting, cultic regulations See

also IG129194, lines 3-5, SGDI 3052 (Chalcedon, second centuryBCE)

8 6 The in line 31 prohibits the entry of any person prior to approval by the

group (IG2* 1369 = LSCG53)8 7

SEG 11 923, line 17 = James Oliver, Greek Constitutions ofEarly Roman Emperors

from Inscriptions andPapyri (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178, Philadelphia

American Philosophical Society, 1989) no 15a, pp 58-65 Oliver puts the terminus post quern at 10

March 15 CE This is the terminus post quern for the response letter from Tiberius, which would

naturally postdate the actual proposal ofthe city of Gythium and the appended lexsacra Cf also

/ Pnene 202, line 5, LSAM48, lines E2-4 (Miletus, 276/275 BCE), LSAM54, lines 1-2 (Didyma,

undated)8 8 E g , LSCG 14, Ime 9 (Athens, 418/417 BCE), IG2 610, Ime 21 (= IG 2

21361 = LSCG45,

Piraeus, fourth centuryBCE, a decree ofthe cult ofBendis, using the infinitive instead ofthe imper

ative + the dative) and LSCG 177 (mentioned above, n 84), 47, lines 11,36 (Athens, 307/306 BCE),

98, line 38 (Keos, third centuryBCE), IG92

1 2 583, line 76 (= LSCGSup 45, Actium, 217 BCE an

agreement containing details for the reorganization ofa cult of Apollo as a "federal" cult), IG22

1346, line 16 (= LSCGSup 127, Athens, beginning of the Imperial Period), IG52

514 (Lykosura,

Arcadia, third centuryBCE = SIG3

999, prohibitions against wearing jewelry, sandals, purple, elab

orate hairstyles, men's head coverings, black clothing, and flowery decorations on clothing, begin

ning with the same form but here preceded by) Additional examples can be found in SIG3

981,

hnes 2-3 (Arkesine, third centuryBCE), SIG3

636, line 25 (Delphi, 178 BCE), SIG* 1157, lines

10-11 (Korope, 100 BCE)8 9

OGIS573 = LSAM80 The formula also occurs in the same inscription at line 15, again in


22/25

296 Journal of Biblical Literature

comes a frst-century CE inscription, publishing new regulations instituted by a

former official of the group (now cultic reformer) for a guild of musicians,

which uses the formula in a prohibition against the transfer of the liturgies of

and to an individual for a cash payment:

vi .

90

More intriguing are those examples which bring the various elements dis

cussed together in a single cultic law.91

From Cos we have a regulation for the

cult of Dionysos Thyllophoros (second or first centuryBCE) dealing with the

sale ofthe priestly office. In lines 23-30 we find a potentially interesting collo

cation:92

. . . [][] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [] ' [ ][] [][] I ai [ ], [] [ ] [][ ] [][ ] [] []-...

And the priestess shall be permitted to appoint an assistant priestess at thecity's expense. But anotherwoman shall not be permitted to serve as priestess norto perform [therites]forDionysos Thyllophorus, unless the priestessshould appoint someone for each deme. But ifany woman should act contraryto the things which are written, the Master ofthe priestess and oftheothers, having the desire to do so, shall be permitted to impeach, in theCouncil, the woman who has carried out the injustice.

Ofcourse, the fact that, in this case, we must rely on restoration for the refer

ence to makes this example problematic. However, that we can

be certain of the use of the two phrases in question in other similar texts, for

example, the lexsacra from Andania alreadymentioned, only increases the

probability that the restoration is justified.93

These examples show the degree

to which the + the dative formula and equivalents of the phrase

found in 1 Cor 4:6 are at home in the context of the Greek

devotees ofa deity called Sabbathikos (Sambathikos; see the editor's corresponding note). See also

LSAM 62 (first centuryCE), a tribal cultic regulation, using the negative fonnula to forbid to any

one the option of altering the document (line 11).9 0

LSAM 53, lines 18-20. Here, as in IG 22

1361 (see n. 88 above), the infinitive is used.9 1

I.e., (and equivalents) and .9 2

Here we see the grouping ofthe formula in both positive and negative ordinances

described as ; cf. SGDI 3627 = SIG2

598 = SIG3

1012 = LSCG 166.9 3

[the prohibition against giving aid to slaves who havesought asylum in the sanctuary] . . . (lines 81b-82a), and lines 83b-84a:

[the runawayslave] []-1 . Here we clearly


23/25


leges sacrae?* When we add to the mix Pauls use of technical terms of com

mand and his practice of instituting specific community regulations (in both

oral and written form), the parallel with the leges sacrae, in both form and con

text, appears more obvious.

It might be argued that the nature ofPauls instructionin fact, the natureof the church itselfis so alien to the concerns of Greek religion that it pre

cludes the possibility ofa Christian communityrule or cult bylaws. Yet it is clear

that much of Pauls written instruction deals with the same kinds of issues that

are important for other religious groups. He issues regulations dealing with cul

tic procedures,95

with the relations between members of his group,96

with ques

tions of marriage, sex, and the cult,97

with the participation of women and

slaves,98

with decency and good order,99

with proper cultic attire,10 0

with the

orderof worship,10 1

and with concern for the well-being of the state.10 2

Fur

thermore, we know that the contents ofcultic regulations reflect the particularconcerns and priorities ofthe individual group. While certain patterns remain

consistent in the presentation and formulas used in these documents, their con

tent is wide-ranging, including philosophically based concerns for ethics and

moral purity.1 03

With respect to the specific context of Pauls concerns in

1 Corinthians 1-4, the cult document ofthe "Guild ofZeus Hypsistos" demon

strates that the issue ofeach members personal loyalty to the legitimate leader

ofthe group, as well as regulations against factionalism, is not outside the range

ofappropriate topics.10 4

9 4In addition to IG 5

11390, see LSCG 177 for the collocation of these formulas (,

11.43, 80-81,148; equivalents of , 11.117,134-35).9 5

1 Cor 11:17-34; cf. I.Ephesosla, lines 10-12; LSAM60, lines 1-12.9 6

1 Cor 5:11; 6:1-8 (presupposing knowledge of the principle involved); 8:9-13; Rom

14:1-15:7; cf. LSCG 53, lines 40-44; IG 22

1368, lines 72-90.9 7

1 Cor 5:1-10; 6:12-20; chap. 7; cf. SIG3

985, lines 25-41; LSAM12; 29, lines 5-7; IG51

1390, line 8.9 1 Corinthians 7; 11:3-16; Philemon; cf. IG 5

11390, lines 8, 16-26; SIG

3985, lines

14-44/IG511390, lines 76-84; SIG

3985, lines 5-6.

9 91 Cor 14:26-40; cf. IG5

11390, Unes 39-45.

1 0 01 Cor 11:2-16; cf. IG5

11390, lines 13-26; IG5

2514, lines 2-9.

1 0 11 Cor 14:1-40; cf. I.Ephesos la 10, lines 12-15; IG2

21368, lines 63-67.

1Q2 Rom 13:1-7; cf. IG 4

21 128, lines 3-9; LSAM9, lines 1-7; 53, Unes 33-35; I.Ephesos la

10, Unes 14-17.10 3

E.g., LSCG 59, Unes 10-14 (Dlos, Imperial Period) also mentions such concerns, and

expresses the ideal that a participant in the cult of Zeus Kynthios and Athena Kynthia, ...

.. . . ("to enter with clean hands and soul"); LSCG 53, Unes 32-34; SIG3

985 (Philadelphia, first centuryBCE), Unes 14-50, 54-60 (S. C. Barton and G. H. R. Horsley, "A

Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches/'/AC 24 [1981] 7-41, esp. 17-23).10 4

P.Lond. 2710, Unes 13-14; see C. Roberts, T. C. Skeat, and A. D. Nock, "The Gild of ZeusHypsistos," HTR 29 (1936) 39-88. Some practical concerns must also be mentioned: while it could

be objected that Paul's letters give no evidence either for the inscribing of a formal bylaws decree


24/25


Therefore, taking into consideration the frequent co-occurrence of these

two characteristic phrases in the documentary record of a varietyofcontempo

rary cult organizations, it seems to be a plausible hypothesis to propose that the

referent ofthe phrase is a foundational document ofthe Corinthian

church, a public document (i.e., open to all members of the community) modeled on the kind of cult bylaws that would have been familiar to everymember

of the church, in which Paul had laid out those guidelines and principles which

he felt necessary for the group s prosperity. Such a hypothesis appears to satisfy

the conditions ofthe text and to interpret it plausiblyin relation to contemporary

culture.

2710) is not an inscription but a papyrus text (cf. the decree from Miletus, n. 73 above, lines 3541),

and (2) that we appear to have evidence for the placement of cultic bylaws at the entrance to the

private homes in which the cult group assembled (SIG3

985).


25/25

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding 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 ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

1 cor 4.6 - written bylaws in church

Documents