big men in corinth_atla0001023687

8/8/2019 Big Men in Corinth_ATLA0001023687

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-men-in-corinthatla0001023687 1/28

[JSNT 66 (1997) 45-71]

'BIG MEN' IN CORINTH*

Timothy L. Carter

Cranmere, Lillington Avenue, Leamington Spa, CV32 5UE

Introduction

In his article, 'Body Language in 1 Corinthians: The Use of

Anthropological Models for Understanding Paul and his Opponents',

J.H. Neyrey uses Mary Douglas's 'Grid and Group' matrix to analyse

the differing attitudes to the body expressed in 1 Corinthians.1 SinceDouglas's model and Paul's letter share a common concern with both

the physical and social body, it seems appropriate to use the former to

analyse the latter. According to Douglas, the physical experience of

the body sustains a particular view of society, while at the same time

the social body constrains the way in which the physical body is

perceived.2

Using this theory, Douglas developed four different ideal

* An earlier version of this paper was given at the Paul seminar of the 1995

British New Testament Society Conference in Bangor; thanks are due to members of

the seminar for their comments.

1. Semeia 35 (1986), pp. 129-70; the article is revised as chapter 5 in

J.H. Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of his Letters (Louisville,

KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), pp. 102-46. In the latter, Neyrey makes

no explicit use of 'Grid and Group', although he does acknowledge his debt to

Douglas. Since the variables in the book bear comparatively little relation to Douglas's

original model, this paper will engage with Neyrey* s earlier article instead.

2. M. Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York:

Pantheon, 3rd edn, 1982; repr.; London: Routledge, 1996); references in this paper



46 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 66 (1997)

types of culture, whose position on a matrix is determined by two

variables, termed 'group' and 'grid'. According to Douglas, the horizontal 'group' axis measures the level of participation in a boundedsocial unit: low group indicates a high degree of individualism; highgroup indicates a high level of participation in a group.3 AlthoughNeyrey himself defines 'group' more in terms of a high or low degreeof pressure to conform to group norms,4 he clearly accepts Douglas'sdefinition in his article, since he states that strong group is marked bydyadic personality, whereas weak group is marked by individualism.Douglas offers varying definitions of grid, but for the purposes of thispaper, the vertical 'grid' axis may be taken to measure the extent towhich an individual or group accepts or rejects the prevailing symbolsystem of the surrounding culture: high grid means the individual orgroup shares the public system of classification; low grid means thatthis is rejected in favour of a private system of classification (seeAppendix).5 This definition is also accepted by Neyrey, although hefocuses more on the extent to which the individual's worldview iscorroborated by experience.6

In applying the model to 1 Corinthians, Neyrey draws on Douglas'sthesis that the cultural patterns of a particular society are bothreflected in and reinforced by the way in which the physical body isperceived. He correctly sums up Douglas's argument by saying thatstrong group pressure will express itself in strong control of boththe physical and social body, whereas weak group control will find

3. This definition of group is taken from the 1970/1982 edition of Natural Symbols, where Douglas is explicitly concerned with cross-cultural analysis. The

1973 edition marked a shift in focus towards the individual, and here 'group' is used

to measure the extent to which an individual is controlled by others (strong group) or

controls others (weak group).

4. Neyrey here relies on S .R. Isenberg and D.E. Owen's adaptation of Douglas's

1973 definition of group: 'Bodies, Natural and Contrived: The Work of Mary

Douglas', RelSRev 3.1 (1977), pp. 1-17; cf. B.J. Malina, Christian Origins and

Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), pp. 18-20.

5. Douglas's early definition of grid in terms of 'ego-centred social categories'

was somewhat obscure, so the definition of grid accepted here is based on the 1973/

1996 edition oí Natural Symbols (cf. 'In the Nature of Things'). Douglas's more



CARTER 'Big Men' in Corinth Ari

expression in weak control of the social and physical body. Neyreyargues accordingly that the differing attitudes towards social andbodily control expressed in 1 Corinthians reflect the differing viewpoints of Paul and his opponents. Paul's concern for proper control of the physical body thus replicates a view of the social body marked bystrong group and grid, with an emphasis on formality, structure andritualism. Paul's opponents, on the other hand, view the body as anuncontrolled organism, and this replicates a perception of the socialbody as marked by weak group and grid, with an emphasis on informality, spontaneity and effervescence. Neyrey's analysis thus seems to

result in a picture of an apostle who is concerned with order and structure, and who is opposed in Corinth by dissident pneumatic enthusiasts.

This paper welcomes Neyrey's basic thesis, that Douglas's modelcan be used to analyse the clash of differing cultural values of Pauland certain people in Corinth, as these are revealed in 1 Corinthians.However, Neyrey's ascription of strong and weak grid to Paul and hisopponents respectively is surprising, since Neyrey's discussion focusesupon the difference between strong-group and weak-group percep

tions of the body, but scarcely makes any reference to grid at all. Theemphasis throughout is on the need for, or lack of, bodily control, butthere is no reference to any evaluation of the classification systems andnorms of society to see whether or not these are accepted by Paul andhis opponents. Neyrey bases his discussion on Douglas's thesis thatritualism, with its strong control of the physical body, will tend tooccur in 'strong-group / high-grid' societies, whereas effervescence,with its weak control of the physical body, will tend to occur in 'weak-

group / weak-grid' social units.7

What Neyrey assumes, but fails todemonstrate, is that it is this contrast between ritualism and effervescence that lies at the root of Paul's difficulties in Corinth.

The problem is that in his analysis of 1 Corinthians, Neyrey plungesstraight into what the letter has to say about the body in 1 Corinthians5-15 and fails to analyse the social situation in the church. This paperseeks to rectify this deficiency by analysing chs. 1-4 (and also ch. 9)in the light of Douglas's model. On the basis of the attitude adopted to

the outside world and the respective strength or weakness of groupidentity, it will be argued that Paul should in fact be located in thet i 'hi h / l id' d t hil th C i thi




themselves should be located in the 'high-grid / low-group' quadrant

of competitive individualism. This conclusion will be borne out by the

high degree of correspondence between the situation in Corinth and

Douglas's own analysis of these different cultural types. It will then be

argued that the local leaders in the church are seeking to increase the

size of their own entourage at the expense of both their fellow leaders

and also Paul himself by competing against one another. In these

chapters, Paul makes a direct appeal to the loyalty of the lower-class

majority in the church with a view to regaining their loyalty to him as

their father in Christ.

Setting Coordinates for Grid and Group

Since 1 Corinthians was composed by Paul, it follows that the view of

the church expressed in the letter will be Paul's own, and not neces

sarily that of the Corinthians themselves. While geographically distant

from them, Paul clearly wishes to be identified as closely as possible

with the church, and his strong concern for social cohesion (1 Cor.

12-14) and group boundaries (1 Cor. 5-6) clearly indicate a high grouprating for the apostle. According to Neyrey, Paul is also high grid,

which would mean that the apostle gave his assent to the cultural norms

and values of the surrounding society. This, however, is scarcely plau

sible. Closer inspection reveals that Paul should in fact be given a low

grid rating, as someone who expressly rejected the prevailing cultural

norms and values in favour of the ultimate symbol of debasement—

the cross of Christ (1.18-25).8 When Christians air their grievances

against each other in the civil court, Paul claims this is the equivalentof appointing those who are despised in the church to sit in judgment

over their disagreements (6.1-11). He is reluctant to allow his converts

to participate in the idol feasts that formed part and parcel of the

social life in Corinth (8-10). These are clearly not the views of a man

who is in tune with the prevailing cultural system.

On this basis, the apostle should be given a high group / low grid

rating, and when Douglas's description of the features of this quadrant

are examined, Paul's view of the church in Corinth comes sharply intofocus. According to Douglas, the small bounded group combines a

strong sense of group identity with a rejection of the symbol system of



CARTER 'Big Men* in Corinth 49

the surrounding culture. Within this quadrant the group boundary is

the main definer of roles, and individuals class themselves either as

members or strangers. The boundaries protect the good inside of the

community from the evil world outside, but these boundaries are

porous, inasmuch as deviants within the group are accused of allowing

the outside evil to infiltrate. This leads to a preoccupation with rituals

of cleansing, expulsion and the redrawing of new boundaries, as well

as an association of magical danger with boundary emblems. Within

such groups, leadership is precarious, and there may well develop

internal factions related to a struggle for leadership. Since the human

body is a symbol of the social unit, the social idea of the good inside

and the bad outside is replicated in anthropology. Thus the community's

distinctive therapeutic system is based upon the essential goodness of

what is inside the body, while the body itself may be rejected as being

the external husk or empty shell: strict ascetic controls may therefore

be set on bodily enjoyment and the gateways of sensual experience.9

The correspondence between this type of community and Paul's view

of the Corinthian church should be obvious.10

For Paul, the group

boundary itself was the main definer of roles. While 1 Cor. 12.28 betrays some evidence of some elementary structural ordering within

the community, Paul does not develop the symbol of the body of Christ

in this direction at all. The apostle does not draw on this symbol's

inherent potential for developing a hierarchical structure within the

community; instead he employs it to stress the corporate identity and

equal interdependence of all the members of the group, thereby ruling

out any possibility of individualism. There is thus a strong sense of

group identity, and in the absence of any strongly articulated hierarchical structure, membership is defined primarily in terms of being

inside or outside of the group.

Furthermore, the letter reveals a strong preoccupation with group

boundaries. Paul's opening address to the Corinthians as ήγιασμένοις

εν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ, χλητοΐς άγίοις sets them apart from the rest of the

world, and goes on to identify them with all those who call on the

9. Natural Symbols, pp. 103, 111, 143-44.

10. R.A. Atkins argues that Paul should be located in this quadrant: Egalitarian




name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every place. In a probable allusion tobaptism as the rite of entry into the community, Paul states that hisconverts have been washed, sanctified and justified in the name of theLord Jesus and in the Spirit of God (6.11). As such, they have been setapart from their former sinful way of life, which by implicationcharacterizes the outside world (6.9-1 la). Yet Paul sees the incestuousman as evidence that the outside evil has infiltrated the community.This sin, symbolized as polluting leaven, threatens to spread throughout the community, and Paul urges them to cleanse out the old leaven byexpelling the offender, so that they can become unleavened, as in fact

they really are (5.6-7). The ambiguous nature of the boundaries separating the members of the community from those outside is furtherrevealed in Paul's discussion of sex (6.12-20), divorce (7.12-16) andidol meat (8.1-11.1). The community in Corinth suffers from porousboundaries in a way that is typical of the low-grid / high-group socialunit.11

In addition, Paul's discussion of marriage provides evidence forascetic tendencies within the community with which he himself may

have a limited degree of sympathy (7.1), while his discussion of theLord's Supper emphasizes both its exclusive nature (11.21)12 and thedangers surrounding its celebration (11.27-34). Divisions within thecommunity are apparent at the Lord's Supper (11.18) and also appearto be related to the question of the leadership of the congregation(1.10-12). These features confirm a close correspondence betweenDouglas's model and Paul's view of the Corinthian community, whichclearly indicates that the apostle's worldview is that of the high-group /

low-grid quadrant of Douglas's matrix.Neyrey is thus quite wrong to locate Paul in the high-group / high-

grid quadrant of the matrix. The apostle's primary aim is not thatof imposing order on the chaos caused by pneumatic enthusiasts: hisdual concern is rather to strengthen the unity of the social body andto reinforce the boundaries setting the community apart from thesurrounding society.

11. Cf. W. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1983), pp. 75-117.




Turning from Paul's view of the church at Corinth to the Corinthians

themselves, it is evident that those who had contact with the outsideworld through their attendance at idol feasts, or their use of the lawcourts and prostitutes, neither shared the apostle's concern about theboundaries of the community, nor his rejection of city life outside thoseboundaries. This would therefore suggest a low group rating, as Neyreycorrectly argues, but Neyrey's assumption that the Corinthians shouldbe given a low grid rating is unfounded. Certain Corinthian churchmembers do not reject the world in low-grid fashion; Paul's problemis that they embrace the cultural values of their city all too readily.

Confirmation that these Corinthians should be located within thequadrant of competitive individualism comes from the close degree of correspondence between the situation in Corinth and the anthropological data upon which Douglas based this quadrant, which she arguesis dominated by impersonal rules. According to Douglas, the Gariatribe of the Madang District on the north coast of New Guinea exemplify the social structure of this quadrant; she ascribes to them an optimistic view of the universe, in which the world exists for their benefit

and they have the right to enjoy it. Religion is pragmatically regardedas a technology for overcoming risk, and there are highly magical attitudes to miracles. Spiritual values such as purity and sin are nonexistent, and there is no idea of rewards or sanctions in the next world.In such a society, deviance is perceived as stupidity rather than sin,and human nature is divided between the foolish and the wise, between'those who know' and those who do not. The successful man would becharacterized by personal pre-eminence and secret ritual knowledge;

the leaders are those who 'really know' and who can lure followersaway from their less fortunate rivals and direct their activities to theirown advantage. This is a highly egocentric, individualistic and competitive society, dominated by the 'Big Man', who imposes himself asa leader, and who derives prestige and power from the size of hisfollowing. This culture is also highly materialistic and egocentric: anysense of relationship or mutual obligation rests purely on a fiscalbasis; where there is no interchange of goods or services there is only

suspicion, hostility and the risk of warfare.

13




There is much here that calls to mind the situation in Corinth.14

In

1 Cor. 1.12 we see the church split into rival parties on the basis of

their allegiance to different apostles and, underlying this factionalism,

there is an esoteric wisdom (3.18-23) that inflates the pride of those

who are wise and spiritual, as opposed to being unspiritual and foolish

(4.6; 2.6-16). Specialized knowledge enables them to eat idol meat

with adisregard for those whom it might offend (8.1-13). Such knowl

edge leads to arrogance, even to the point of boasting of one person's

incestuous behaviour (5.1-6a). There is no regard for any sense of

purity or sin; the slogan Πάντα μοι εξεστιν (6.12; 10.23) comes from

those who feel they have a right to enjoy life, as does the pragmatic

view that food is for the stomach and the stomach for food (6.13). A

lack of belief in the resurrection of the dead (15.12) results in a free

dom to indulge the physical and sexual appetites, while baptism may

have been regarded as a kind of magical insurance policy, which could

be taken out on behalf of those who had died (15.29). The Lord's

Supper likewise was regarded as giving magical protection against any

ill-effects from their behaviour (10.1-22). Paul's own reluctance to

accept support from these Corinthians seems to have led in some way to his estrangement from them. Douglas's model throws the behaviour

of Paul's opponents in Corinth into stark relief, and hints at their

identity as rival leaders within the congregation.

However, it is of course sometimes possible to read into a given text

what one wants to get out of it, and in the light of this knowledge it is

necessary to pause and consider carefully whether it is legitimate to

apply the model of the 'Big Men', based substantially on anthropolo

gical studies of tribes in New Guinea, to first-century Corinth. Is thereany evidence of the existence of such people in the city at that time?

Indeed there is. As A.D. Clarke has pointed out, the fact that the site

of the city was originally chosen for its mercantile potential meant that

mercantile trade was a key feature of the town's existence.15

Further

more, when the city was refounded in 44 BCE it was populated for the

14. Cf. A.C. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1990), pp. 189-93; B. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: ASocio-Rhetorical Commentary on I and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle: Paternoster Press,



CARTER 'Big Men' in Corinth 53

most part with freedmen whose descendants would have been regarded

as freeborn. The relative newness of the city and the freebora nature

of the population would have produced a climate that offered social

mobility to those who were able to afford it. The possession of wealth

was essential to progress, because it was only by lavish expenditure that

it was possible to buy friends and win the esteem that was reserved for

those who were benefactors of the community. Far from being a place

where whole generations were condemned to remain in their allotted

position on the social scale, Corinth was a city where social advance

ment was a real possibility, and where money was crucial to realizing

that goal. Corinth then did constitute suitably fertile ground for theflourishing of a materialistically based competitive individualism, akin

to that of the New Guinea tribes to which Douglas refers. In addition,

the high grid rating proposed for such people suggests that they would

have readily embraced the competitive spirit that was so much a part

of the city of Corinth.

Furthermore, in the light of the sociological analyses of Judge and

Theissen, the existence of at least a small number of relatively well-off

believers in the church at Corinth can no longer be doubted.16

Theissenhimself suggested that the parties of 1.12 developed as a result of

rivalry between local leaders who promoted the importance of those

church leaders for whom they had had the privilege of providing food

and lodging.17

This theory of rivalry between the local leaders has

been developed by Welborn and Pogoloff. Welborn sets the terms used

in 1.10-12 and 3.3 against their contemporary political background and

argues that Paul was trying to prevent the kind of discord that results

from a struggle for power between rival political parties, which werenamed after the individuals whose interests they served; the cries of

1.12 should be understood as declarations of political allegiance.18

16. E.A. Judge, The Social Patterns of Christian Groups in the First Century

(London: Tyndale Press, I960); G. Theissen, 'Social Stratification in the Corinthian

Community', in The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (London: SCM Press,

1977), pp. 69-119; also Meeks, Urban Christians, pp. 51-73. There is now a well-

established consensus that the Pauline churches did not draw their members exclu

sively from the lower classes.17. Social Setting, pp. 54-57; cf. Meeks, Urban Christians, pp. 117-25.

18 L L W lb O h Di d i C i h 1 C i hi 1 4 d A i




Pogoloff argues that Paul is responding to divisions based upon compe

tition for social status between the rival groups, where each one claims

to have the wiser teacher, whose cultured eloquence indicates and

confers status.19

There are a number of indications in 1 Corinthians that confirm that

the leaders of the factions in 1.12 were in fact engaged in competitive

rivalry against each other. In 3.3, Paul indicates that he cannot address

the Corinthians as spiritual because of the jealousy and strife that is

present within the community; since he goes on immediately to refer

to the way in which each of them declares that they belong to Paul or

Apollos, it is evident that it was the allegiance to the different apostlesthat was causing rivalry between the factions. Furthermore, in 3.21

Paul forbids any more boasting in men, and again immediately relates

this to the different missionaries who have been adopted by the

Corinthians. The reference to boasting clearly indicates that there were

those who were claiming superiority over their rivals on the basis of

the qualities of their own leader, and this perspective is confirmed in

4.6, where Paul says that they are puffed up in favour of one against

another. There can thus be little doubt that there was competitionbetween the different groups.

20

Competition for Followers in Corinth?

In Douglas's matrix, competition between the 'Big Men' in the high-

grid / low-group quadrant of the matrix focuses on the need to increase

the size of one's own following at the expense of others. Leadership is

ill-defined, to the extent that the power of a leader is located in theconsent of his followers, who may divide their allegiance between him

and his rivals or withdraw it altogether. Each leader therefore seeks to

lure followers away from his less successful rivals, in order to increase

his prestige and honour and establish his own otherwise precarious

position. This is a feature that is common to all the three different

this portrayal of the conflict at face value is surprising, in view of his earlier claim

that conflicts were often simply portrayed as a clash between the rich and poor in

stereotypical fashion (p. 58).




tribes on the basis of which Douglas formulates her ideal type.

Is it possible that something like this was going on at Corinth?

Paul's letter provides no direct evidence that rival leaders in Corinth

were competing to enlarge the number of their own followers at one

another's expense. Nevertheless, the scenario has a degree of plausi

bility about it, since this was a culture where one of the primary status

symbols of a social climber was the number of adherents who accom

panied him during the course of a day, or who gathered around his

door to receive their share of his generosity as benefactor.21 Those local

patrons in Corinth who were able to persuade others in the church to

adopt their chosen leader would have extended the sphere of theirpatronage and thereby their own prestige and honour; it is thus quite

conceivable that the relative importance of the individual leaders was

measured in the hard currency of the size of their following.

If such competition for followers was taking place in Corinth, this

would tie in with the fact that there were those in Corinth who were

passing judgment on Paul and running down his apostolic ministry

(2.15; 4.1-5; 9.3-18). In a climate of competition for the allegiance of

a limited number of followers, this practice would have had the effectof weaning people away from their allegiance to Paul in favour of one

of the other church leaders, or the party who proclaimed their allegi

ance to Christ alone. Caution is needed here, since the evidence for this

practice comes from Douglas's model, rather than from the letter itself.

Nevertheless, there seems little doubt that Paul knew that his authority

as an apostle was under threat at Corinth. Where rival groups pre

ferred the authority of other figures, the most potent social indicator

of the extent of Paul's authority would have been the number of Corinthians who aligned themselves with those local leaders who had

stayed loyal to Paul.

If Paul's responses to his accusers are read in the light of this hypo

thesis, it can be seen that he defends himself against the criticisms of

the local leaders and attempts to establish as close an identification as

21. Clarke, Secular Leadership, p. 31. Witherington objects to using Douglas's

model because she has not really explored the contours of honour and shame in theGraeco-Roman world (Conflict and Community, p. 255 n. 7). Witherington him




possible between himself and the lower-class members. Attempting to

subvert the values held by the rival local leaders, Paul appeals directly

to the socially disadvantaged majority within the church in an attempt

to regain their loyalty.

This reading of the letter proposes a link between the parties of

1.12 and the issues addressed in 1.18-4.21, in that it suggests that the

different grounds on which the Corinthians are judging Paul corres

pond to the rival parties. Thus the followers of Apollos criticized Paul

for his lack of rhetorical skill, the followers of Cephas objected to his

refusal to accept support, and the Christ party asserted their indepen

dence of Paul and all apostles. We shall begin by examining how Pauladdressed his own supporters.

Paul's Response to the Situation in Corinth

The Followers of Paul and Baptism

After his initial greeting and thanksgiving, Paul turns to address the

question of σχίσμα and ερις in the church, and the immediacy with

which he does so highlights the importance of this issue for him. Paulhas heard from the members of Chloe's household that there are

quarrels going on in the community, and he urges them to avoid divi

sions by coming to a common mind and purpose (1.10-11). Their

quarrelling over each person's allegiance to a different apostle or

none is in danger of doing the unthinkable and dividing Christ himself

(1.12-13). In 3.3 Paul mentions jealousy and strife, and later says that,

up to a point, he is prepared to believe reports that he has heard about

divisions at the Lord's Supper, where one eats and another goeshungry (11.18-21). Yet while he seems to accept the inevitability of

factions, he nevertheless stresses the need for unity in the body of

Christ (10.16-17; 12.24-25).

Paul's deep concern for unity reflects his 'high-group' concern for

strong social cohesion within the church, a concern that would not have

been shared by the 'low-group' Corinthians, who would have been

more concerned with personal advancement and status. Paul would

thus have viewed the possibility of division with a great deal moreanxiety than the Corinthians: as far as the apostle was concerned, their

i i f i li i d f di idi Ch i I i b




Corinth was divided or not.22

As E. Schüssler Fiorenza has pointed

out,23

it may well have been Paul and not the Corinthians who under

stood their debates as divisions, and Douglas's model suggests that this

was probably the case: the apostle himself fears the divisions over

leadership that can all too easily arise in the small bounded social unit,

while as far as the Corinthians are concerned, the possibility that strife

might split the church apart is secondary to the establishment of their

own position within the pecking order.

In 1.13, Paul condemns their factionalism, asking whether he him

self was crucified for them, or whether they were baptized into the

name of Paul. Such remarks should not be understood as a rebuke to

Paul's own followers: we may safely assume that Chloe, Stephanas,

Fortunatus and Achaicus were among Paul's supporters, and it was

they who alerted Paul to the problems in the church (1.11; cf. 11.18).

Originally the church would probably have been united behind Paul as

its founding apostle; disunity would only have arisen after the arrival

of the other missionaries. It is thus inherently likely that Paul's own

supporters would have shared his concern for the unity of the church,

for if the church were to split, it would be a split away from Paul.24

In 1 Cor. 1.13-17, Paul distances himself from any factionalism and

conveys the impression that he is not entering into any competition for

followers in Corinth. By asking whether he himself was crucified for

them (1.13b), Paul makes the point that their first loyalty is to Christ

crucified, and not to any human leader. Yet the gospel of Christ cruci

fied is of course the message that he originally proclaimed to the

22. In favour of a unified church, see J. Munck, The Church without Factions',

in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM Press, 1959), pp. 135-67;

more recently and to a lesser extent, G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 6-10, 47-51; in favour of divisions in the

church, see M.M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (Tübingen:

Mohr, 1991).

23. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, 'Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in

1 Corinthians\ NTS 33 (1987), pp. 386-403.

24. If Douglas's model is applied to Paul's supporters in Corinth, it would follow

that a concern for the social body should he matched by a concern for the physical

body and its boundaries. It is thus quite likely that those who shunned sexual inter




Corinthians, and that he is careful to associate specifically with his own

apostolic ministry (1.17; 1.23; 2.2). In this way, Paul makes it difficult to dissociate allegiance to the gospel of the cross of Christ and

allegiance to himself as the one who first proclaimed that message to

them. Paul appeals to the overriding authority of the gospel, and then

associates himself as closely as possible with that authority.

The apostle also asks whether they were baptized into the name of Paul, and declares that he is relieved that he only baptized a very small

number of the Corinthians himself: their loyalty is to Christ, not him

(1.13C-17). This line of argument undercuts the Corinthians' practice

of attaching themselves to the particular church leader who baptized

them. One clear indication that baptism was being made the basis for

conflicting loyalties to different church leaders is the way in which

Paul claims that God sent him, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

It seems that when he came to Corinth, Paul himself only baptized a

few key people. However, his desire to distance himself from the prac

tice altogether in 1.14-15 is a strong indication that the Corinthians

were attaching themselves to the particular church leader who baptized

them. Yet, despite 1.13c, such a practice would scarcely have originatedamong the followers of Paul, given the small number of people he

baptized. Paul must therefore be attacking those who were baptized by

Apollos and Peter or his representatives, and who then made this the basis for their loyalty to these other leaders. Paul makes the point that

it is loyalty to Christ that counts, not loyalty to the leader by whomone has been baptized.

In 1.13-17, it is possible to see how Paul distances himself from the

factionalism at Corinth by ostensibly addressing his remarks to those

who are his followers. In so doing, he condemns the party spirit in the

church, and seeks to recall them to loyalty to the gospel of Christ

crucified, which he himself proclaimed to them. Paul thus cannot be

accused of participating in the competition for followers in Corinth,

yet nevertheless his aim of regaining their loyalty is clearly seen to be

present here below the surface.

The Followers of Apollos and WisdomIn 1.17, Paul also claims that he did not preach to the Corinthians εν




difficult to avoid the supposition that Paul is responding to unfavour

able comparisons that have been made between his own rhetoricalstyle and that of Apollos. It is not unreasonable to infer that Apollos'sstyle of preaching was preferred by some to that of Paul, and that this

was one of the reasons behind the formation of the Apollos party.

Addressing a situation in which some were making their allegiance toone or the other a matter of pride or arrogance (4.6), Paul counters

this attitiude in 3.5, where he declares that neither he nor Apollos are

anything in themselves; they are God's servants, through whom the

Corinthians believed: God is the only one who really counts for anything. As Conzelmann points out, 'The effect of this conception of office is to break up both the Paul party and the Apollos party alike.

Both lose their heads.'25

However, Paul's declaration of equality with

Apollos probably has as its ulterior motive the aim of seeking to

re-establish his own authority over the congregation as its founding

apostle: where his own preaching suffered in comparison with that of

Apollos, he was the one who stood to gain from claiming their equality.

Yet not all the references in 1 Corinthians 1-3 can be taken as

referring to rhetoric:26

the wisdom through which the world did not

know God (1.21) must have had some specific content to it, while in

his reference to a mysterious wisdom spoken among the perfect (2.6),

Paul seems to be adopting the Corinthians' terminology to refer to an

esoteric wisdom of some kind. This in turn suggests that members of

the Apollos party may well have been people of high social standing,

since, as Theissen points out, it would have been the well-educated inCorinth who would have developed a penchant for some kind of saving wisdom.27 Such people correspond to the 'Big Men' of Douglas's

model, who use their secret ritual knowledge to direct the activities of others, and so wean followers away from their less successful rivals.

25. H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1975), p. 73.

26. C.K. Barrett argues that the meaning of σοφία shifts at 1.20 in 'Christianity

at Corinth', in Essays on Paul (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 1-28; see p. 8. This is

contested by Pogoloff, who argues that the term denotes rhetoric throughout, on the basis that Hellenistic rhetoric at the time of Paul maintained a constant concern for the

unity of form and content {Logos and Sophia p 40; cf pp 37 68) However the




By its very nature, any esoteric wisdom has a powerful attraction for

those who wish to gain access to its secrets and so join the elite group

of those who are 'in the know', and it is likely that the wisdom in

Corinth functioned in just that way. Since it is probably an accusation

of being unspiritual himself that lies behind Paul's claim that the

spiritual man is not judged by anyone in 2.15,28

it is very likely that

the wisdom referred to in 1 Corinthians 1-4 was used by some to

denigrate Paul and so to seek to wean followers away from him to the

Apollos party in the church.

Paul responds by saying that he cannot address them as spiritual, but

only as fleshly, on account of their jealousy and rivalry (3.1-3): in their

claims to belong either to Paul or Apollos they show themselves to be

all too human. Although Paul attacks the competing elements in both

parties, he probably has the followers of Apollos in view, since the

drawing of unfavourable comparisons is likely to have originated with

them. By publicly declaring that those who fomented such rivalry were

unspiritual (3.1-5), Paul may well have hoped to persuade the non-

elite in Corinth to dissociate themselves from the leaders who were

making such claims, in order to avoid such a rebuke themselves.

It will have been because wisdom was so highly prized in Hellenistic

society (1.22) that Paul seeks to lower the value placed upon it by the

Corinthians in 1.18-25. Paul refers to it disparagingly as the wisdom

of the world and uses the shameful symbol of the cross in order to seek

to subvert its appeal. Such an embracing of symbols of degradation by

small bounded groups has the effect of driving grid downwards: assimi-

liation to the surrounding culture is hindered, and the distinctiveness

of the group is emphasized by virtue of the fact that the group embraces

what the world repudiates. By setting the cross in antithesis to wisdom,

Paul emphasizes rejection of the values of the surrounding culture and

thereby reinforces the boundaries surrounding the community. Far

from downplaying the shameful nature of the cross in the eyes of the

world, Paul emphasizes it, terming it a scandal and foolishness, but

hailing it as the power and the wisdom of God for those who are

called by God. Paul sets the cross and wisdom in sharp antithesis and

declares that those who see the cross as foolishness are perishing, while

'to us who are being saved' it is the power of God. In this way, Paul




wisdom the sine qua non of salvation, and, by his use of the first person

plural (1.18), seeks to include his readers, together with himself, inthe company of those who are being saved. The same technique is used

in his description of Christ as σοφία ήμΐν από θεοΰ in 1.30. Paul is

seeking to recall his readers from the wisdom so highly prized by the

leaders of the Apollos party and to identify them with himself in

accepting the message of the cross of Christ, which he proclaims, as

the real wisdom of God and the only means of salvation.

Paul is also attempting to regain the loyalty of the Corinthians in

1.26,where he declares that not many of the Corinthians are wise,powerful or of noble birth. These indicators of social standing may well

have formed the basis on which the leaders were seeking to establish

their own personal following, and Paul subverts them in vv. 27-28 by

declaring that God has chosen the foolish, weak and inferior people in

the world in order to humiliate the wise and powerful and to bring to

nothing those who think they really matter. Paul thus allies himself

directly with the socially disadvantaged in Corinth in an attempt to win

their loyalty. By reminding his readers of the centrality of the message

of Christ crucified, Paul seeks to gather the community around values

that are diametrically opposed to those held by the leaders; in addition,

by saying that he came to them in weakness, fear and with much

trembling (2.3), Paul seeks to establish weakness as a factor uniting

himself and the low-status Corinthians together with the crucified

Christ. His overall aim in 1.18-3.9 is thus that of regaining the allegi

ance of those Corinthians who have deserted him to become members

of the Apollos party, led by patrons in Corinth who prized esoteric

wisdom and rhetorical eloquence.

The Followers of Cephas and Financial Support

There are good grounds for supposing that the figure of Cephas lies

behind the anonymous τις of 3.10-17.2.29

Whereas in 3.6-8 Paul uses

29. Cf., e.g., F.C. Baur, Paul, the Apostle and Jesus Christ, his Life and Work,

his Epistles and Teachings: A Contribution to a Critical History and PrimitiveChristianity (2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1873-75), pp. 268-320;

TW Manson The Corinthian Correspondence' in Studies in the Gospels and




agricultural symbolism to portray a harmonious cooperation between

himself and Apollos, in 3.10-17 the figure changes and so does the

tone: here Paul is the master-builder, concerned lest another builder

should try and replace the foundation stone of Christ with another (cf.

Mt. 16.18), and then go on to employ shoddy building materials. Here

the atmosphere of harmonious cooperation with Apollos is replaced

by one of mistrust that does not cohere easily with Paul's apparent

desire that Apollos should return to Corinth (16.12).

The idea of payment for work done in the Lord's service occurs in

3.8 with reference to Paul and Apollos, and occurs again at 3.14 with

reference to the builder. Apart from Rom. 4.4, Paul only uses the noun

μισθός twice more in 1 Cor. 9.17-18, again with reference to pay

ment in the Lord's service. The possibility that Paul's use of μισθός

indicates a link between 3.1-17 and 9.1-18 is strengthened by the fact

that Cephas is singled out in the latter passage as an example of one of

the apostles who travels with his wife and who accepts payment for

food and drink from the churches without working to support himself.

Paul's practice of supporting himself had clearly drawn criticism from

some at Corinth (9.3), and the link with Cephas in 9.5 suggests that

the issue of apostolic support may have played a crucial part amongst

those who were declaring their allegiance to Cephas.

Theissen has argued persuasively that this point of contention between

the followers of Paul and Cephas in Corinth is based on the distinction

between charismatic beggars originating in rural Palestine and urban-

based Hellenistic community organizers.30

The former, represented by

Cephas, understood dependence upon local hospitality and support as

obligatory in the light of Jesus' instructions to the twelve (cf. 1 Cor.

9.14); the latter, represented by Paul, could not depend on hospitality

in a strange city and regarded the practice of supporting themselves as

an authentication of their ministry. Whereas wandering charismatics

would be inclined to attach themselves to a wealthy urban patron, Paul

rejects this option, preferring to support himself, so that he can present

the gospel free of charge to others (9.18); this course of action

expresses both his freedom from human control (9.1) and his enslave

ment to Christ (9.16-17).

Marshall argues that the Corinthians were offended by Paul's refusal




been perceived by them as a refusal of an offer of friendship.31

However, a lack of contemporary evidence weakens Marshall's claim

that declining a gift would have caused offence. It may well be a prin

ciple within primitive societies that gifts are accepted, but that need

not hold true for Paul's cultural context, and Marshall admits that

discussions of friendship in the relevant literature rarely deal with the

refusal of gifts. Marshall appeals to discussions of 'the need for care

in the choice of friends' and 'the problems of ingratitude', but these

are at best tangential to the question. Both Seneca {de Ben. 25.6.2-7)

and Aristotle (Rhet. 2.23.8) appeal to the example of Socrates, who

refused an invitation from Archelaus because he could not reciprocatein kind, and to accept would have meant entering into voluntary servi

tude. Although his refusal offended the king, this was because the king

was arrogant and wished all his favours to be highly valued; Seneca

actually uses the story to make the point that it is not necessary to

receive from everybody.

Marshall also appeals to Seneca's account of Julius Graecinus, who

refused assistance in financing the public games from those he con

sidered to be of bad reputation (de Ben. 2.21.5-6), thereby incurringtheir lasting hostility. This incident certainly demonstrates that refusing

a gift could lead to enmity, but it does not support Marshall's claim that

refusal constituted a breach of social convention: he omits to mention

that Seneca actually praises Julius for his decision, thereby once again

making the point that one should have the freedom to choose whether

to accept a gift or not. In a footnote,32

Marshall also appeals to Diogenes

6.36 as evidence that refusal means a breach of friendship. This pass

age does not relate to gifts at all, however, but rather concerns a would-be follower of Diogenes, who was told to follow him with a tunny and

cheese; when he threw them away, Diogenes declared their friendship

broken, not because a gift had been refused, but because the follower

did not do as directed.

This is the sum total of the direct contemporary evidence brought

forward by Marshall to support his claim that Paul's refusal of the

Corinthians' gift amounted to a breach of friendship. The examples of

Socrates and Julius Graecinus indicate that it could have been takenthis way, but there is insufficient evidence to support Marshall's claim




that Paul was offending against accepted social convention; indeed,

Seneca's statement that one should be free to refuse may well indicate

the opposite. Furthermore, it should be noted that Paul's own discus

sion of the question in 9.1-18 betrays no indication of any awareness

on his part that his refusal to accept support has offended them; indeed,

given the apostle's evangelistic strategy outlined in 9.19-23, it must be

deemed most unlikely that he would obstruct the progress of the gospel

by deliberately offending against social convention in this way.

Douglas's model does, however offer a plausible explanation why

Paul's refusal to accept support from the Corinthians could lead to his

estrangement from them: in a materialistic culture, where relationships

between the 'Big Men' and their social inferiors are based entirely

around the fiscal exchange of goods or services, the absence of any such

interchange leads only to suspicion or hostility. When Paul declined the

Corinthians' offer of support, he was refusing to relate to them through

the accepted channels of patronage, which consisted of a reciprocal

exchange of goods and services. On the other hand, Cephas's willing

ness to accept support would have enabled some of the Corinthians to

relate to him more easily than to Paul, and thence to regard the latter's

reluctance to accept support with mistrust. Furthermore, Paul's refusal

to accept patronage may have caused resentment because it deprived

them of an opportunity to enhance their standing in the congregation.

As Theissen points out, if Cephas (or his representative) did visit

Corinth, it would have been the social elite within the church who

would have provided board and lodging, and who may well have

magnified the apostleship of Cephas as a way of enhancing their own

prestige as his patrons; their house could then easily have become afocal point and meeting place for those who counted themselves among

the supporters of Cephas.33

Paul's own refusal to accept support, on

the other hand, would have deprived patrons within the Corinthian

church of an opportunity to gain esteem and honour for themselves

through such a service to the fellowship.

Paul defends himself against those who criticize him for not accepting

support in 9.3-23. In his apology, Paul seems to give away any number

of hostages to fortune as he marshalls arguments from the field of human experience and the law in favour of the practice of accepting




redefining the practice as an apostolic right. It is only in v. 14 that Paul

refers to the Lord's command, and by using οΰτως to link this with his

preceding arguments in favour of accepting support, Paul makes the

point that the command was motivated by a concern for the welfare of

preachers of the gospel. Paul can then claim that he has not made use

of this right, since he is compelled to preach the gospel as one who has

been entrusted with a commission.

By claiming that it is his right to present the gospel free of charge

(v. 18) rather than to make a living from the gospel (v. 12), Paul

draws an implicit contrast between his own singleminded dedication to

the gospel and the other apostles who are insisting on their own rights.

In vv. 19-23, where Paul's reference to the law seems to hark back to

his earlier confrontation with Cephas at Antioch, Paul stresses that he

has enslaved himself and become all things to all people, in order by

any means to save some. This statement of his all-out commitment to

his readers is intended to regain the hearts and loyalty of those mem

bers of the church in Corinth who have aligned themselves with the

rival apostleship of Cephas. Paul is not just rehearsing the lengths to

which he is prepared to go to win converts; he is making an implicitappeal to his readers at this point, seeking to win their allegiance to

himself; and this appeal is directed to the lower class majority within

the church, as Paul seeks to identify directly with them by claiming

that he has voluntarily enslaved himself to win them for Christ.34

The

fact that Paul addresses them in this way, rather than targeting the

leaders in the church who have gained prestige through supporting

Cephas, is an indication that it is the loyalty and following of the

majority of church members that is at stake here. Paul is not justdefending a principle; he is seeking to regain people's loyalty.

34. Cf. D.B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1990); Martin argues that in 1 Cor. 9 Paul employs the demagogue topos to portray

himself as a populist leader who lowers himself, both in order to save those of low

social status and to seek to change the behaviour of those in Corinth who took their

high social status too seriously (pp. 77-84, 117-26). It is strange that, having iden

tified this pattern in 1 Cor. 9, Martin does not identify it in The Corinthian Body




The Followers of Christ and HybrisHitherto it has been possible to see how Paul has been judged by theApollos party for being unspiritual and the Cephas party for notaccepting support. A third reference to being judged by the Corinthiansoccurs in 4.2-5. The reason why Paul was subject to their judgment onthis occasion is not at first apparent, but Paul declares that any human

judgment is irrelevant to him; he refers his case to the coming Lord,and charges the Corinthians not to pass judgment before the appointedtime. The fact that Paul takes this line of defence suggests that theaccusations levelled against him may have something to do with the

over-realized eschatology that surfaces in 4.7-10.35 The Corinthiansaddressed in these verses already reign as Christ does (15.25), butwithout the apostles, who are left behind as those sentenced to death.They are wise in Christ, they already enjoy the riches of heaven (cf.2 Cor. 8.9) and have been sated at the messianic banquet (11.21; cf.Isa. 25.6-8). Judged by these standards, the apostle is found to befoolish, weak and dishonourable (4.10). The Corinthians on the otherhand have become so inflated with their own self-importance that they

are boasting as if they owed God no gratitude for the things they hadreceived (4.7); moreover, they seem to consider that they have outstripped the apostles and left them far behind (4.8-9).

This attitude on the part of these Corinthians makes it tempting toidentify them with the Christ party of 1.12, whose primary characteristic may well have been an allegiance to Christ, rather than anyhuman figure. Such an identification makes sense of the structure of 1 Corinthians 1-4, since Paul can be seen to address each of the four

parties of 1.12 in turn: the followers of Paul are addressed in 1.13-17,those of Apollos in 1.18-3.9, there is a probable reference to Cephasin 3.10-17, while a reference to the Christ party may well be introduced in 3.23. Paul goes on to defend his role as a servant of Christand a steward of the mysteries of God (4.1-21), and in 4.6 contraststhe pride of the Corinthians with the lowly status he has ascribed tohimself and Apollos in the figure of 3.5-9. Such a reconstruction must,however, remain at the level of a tentative hypothesis.

A far firmer sociological foundation for the attitude of 4.6-13 is provided by Marshall, who identifies the Corinthians' attitude of arrogantly




hybristai, a term typically applied primarily to socially advantagedand wealthy people (4.10) who misuse their power self-indulgenüy and

often derive pleasure from deliberately shaming those around them.36

Here we are once again in the quadrant of Douglas's 'Big Men', those

who have spiralled free of social constraints and whose main preoccupar

tion is with a celebration of their personal success and control oversociety.37 Just such a celebration is in fact implied by Paul's complaint

in 4.8. The Corinthians addressed here embrace wisdom, power andhonour (4.10), cultural values that correspond closely with the status

indicators of the well-off minority in 1.26; acceptance of these values

clearly marks these Corinthians out as belonging to the high-gridquadrant of competitive individualism.

By contrast, the apostle's embracing of the symbols of debasement(4.9, 13) serves as a clear indication of his low-grid rejection of thevalues of society, and, correspondingly, of society's rejection of him.By portraying himself as one who is despised by the hybristai and who

will not retaliate to defend himself, the apostle once again appeals

directly to the socially disadvantaged in the church. In contrast to the

'Big Men' who celebrate their power over others, Paul identifies himself with the powerless, seeking to establish a link with the majorityin Corinth who were not wise, powerful or of noble birth, and whomay themselves also have been wronged by the hybristai.

3* However,

although Paul accepts the lowly status given him by the hybristai, heindicates that this state of affairs is only temporary: the double use of άρτι, which brackets the description of the lowly status of the apostles,sends a clear signal that this state of affairs is not permanent: Paul

expects a reversal to take place on the day of Christ which is stillto come (v. 5). The apostle's rejection of the prevailing status quo

36. Enmity in Corinth, pp. 178-218; Marshall bases his analysis primarily on two

articles in Greece and Rome 23 (1976): D.M. MacDowell, 'Hybris in Athens',

pp. 14-30; N.R.E. Fisher, 'Hybris and Dishonour', pp. 171-93; Marshall's

definition is taken from MacDowell (n. 37).

37. Natural Symbols, pp. 136-37.

38. Fisher ('Hybris and Dishonour') actually seeks to define hybris as behaviour

that is pleasurable to the perpetrators, but that is intended to produce dishonour or

shame in others; however, Fisher's definition cannot be applied to Herodotus 1.189.1,




naturally results in a future-orientated perspective on salvation, while

the Corinthians' 'over-realized' eschatology may easily be linked withtheir high-grid acceptance of the prevailing social order.

Despite the disclaimer of 4.14, the preceding verses are clearly an

attempt to shame the apostle's hybristic opponents. Yet implicit within

the disclaimer is the invitation to accept Paul's words as a loving

paternal rebuke, and to become imitators of the one who uniquely

fathered them through the gospel, for to do so will avoid incurring

the shame brought upon the hybristai in w . 10-13. Paul acknowledges

the existence of other leaders in v. 15, but by assigning himself the

indispensable role of fathering them in Christ through the gospel, he

not only relativizes the position of the other leaders, but also asserts

his own vital role to those who feel they have no need of an apostle.

The appeal to the pathos of the Corinthians in vv. 11-13 prepares

the way for Paul's overt appeal for the Corinthians to become imita

tors of him as their only father in Christ, an appeal that is backed up

by the announcement of the impending visit of Timothy and the implied

threat of Paul's own imminent return. In the closing verses of ch. 4,

the overall aim of this opening section of the letter is at last explicitly

stated: it is under his own apostleship that Paul wants the Corinthians

to unite; indeed, it is only if they do so that he has any hope that

the church as a whole will accept what he has to say in the rest of

1 Corinthians.39

Conclusion

This article has attempted to read 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the light of Mary Douglas's matrix. The tightness of fit between the situation in

Corinth and Douglas's portrayal of the cultures of competitive indi

vidualism and the enclave would appear to lend support to the validity

of 'Grid and Group' as a cross-cultural model. A serious difficulty

with employing the model is Douglas's own inconsistency in formu

lating it, and the resultant confusion as different interpreters employ

the model in different ways. Neyrey's own approach has been shown

to be inadequately based on superficial correspondences between themodel and 1 Corinthians, thereby teaching the lesson that the model




can only be used safely on the basis of careful social analysis.

As Neyrey argues, the situation in Corinth does indeed reflect a

clash of cultural values, but it has been argued that his attempt to read

the letter in terms of a conflict between ritualism and effervescence is

misguided. The conflict arises as a result of the 'low-group / high-

grid' competitive individualism of the local patrons, who disregard

group boundaries, and who are seeking to increase their own following

at Paul's expense in a way that reflects the surrounding urban culture.

Paul himself, in typically sectarian 'high-group / low-grid' fashion, is

concerned to reinforce the boundaries setting the group apart from

the rest of the world, and in his concern for group cohesion, he fears

that the competitive elements within the church will result in its frag

mentation. Douglas's model thus confirms that Paul was preoccupied

with the question of establishing clear social boundaries around the

community.

Use of the model lends support to the view that Corinth was not a

united church, but rather suffered from the problem of rival factions.

The model also suggests that this rivalry found concrete social expres

sion in a competition for followers, as the local leaders of these factions

attempted to maximize the number of their adherents at each other's

and at Paul's expense. Admittedly, the letter itself contains no direct

evidence that leaders were competing for followers in this way, and

this analysis has had to rely to an uncomfortable extent on Douglas's

portrayal of the 'Big Men' in New Guinea. Nevertheless, there is a

close correspondence between these 'Big Man' societies and what we

can glean of the Corinthian situation from Paul's letters. Furthermore,

this scenario carries a strong degree of cultural credibility withinPaul's own first-century context. Thus, while a lack of direct evidence

of necessity means that this reading of the letter must remain unproven,

nevertheless it may be considered plausible. The corresponding pro

posal that Paul responds to each of these factions in turn cannot easily

be elevated above the level of a suggestion, but it does have the advan

tage of integrating the factions of 1.12 with the opening section of the

letter, by reading chs. 1-4 of the letter as Paul's specific response to

the attempts of the different groups to undermine his authority.To the extent that the above reading of 1 Corinthians 1-4 is capable




APPENDIX: DOUGLAS'S GRID AND GROUP MATRIX

This summary of Douglas's matrix is based on diagrams on pp. 105,141,143 of the

1982 edition oí Natural Symbols:

(affirmation of value of material things)

+

GRID

success-cosmology; complex regulative

syncretist; ritualism; cosmos; combinationpotential millenialism; of dangerous and

private magic benign elements;

ritualist

-GROUP GROUP +

(impersonal (personalnon-regulative regulativeself-exalted) self-subordinated)

benign, unstructured dual philosophy divided

cosmos; between warring forces

unmagical, weakly of good and evil;

condensed symbols; irrational, dominated by

witches using magical objects;

personal religion ritualist for counter-witchcraftGRID

(affirmation of spiritual joys—asceticism)

ABSTRACT

J.H. Neyrey's use of Douglas's 'Grid and Group' matrix to analyse differing attitudes to the body in 1 Corinthians is contested. An analysis of the social situationunderlying the letter reveals that the apostle should be 'high group / low grid', with a



CARTER 'Big Men y

in Corinth 71

of the 'Big Men' in New Guinea, it is suggested that the local leaders of the rival

factions of 1.12 were competing with each other and with Paul himself for followers,

and that 1 Cor. 1-4, 9 should be read as Paul's attempt to reassert his apostolicauthority by defending himself against the attacks of the leaders of the local factions,

and by appealing directly to the loyalty of the greater number of disadvantaged

members of the church

Tom Yoder Neufeld

PUT ON THE ARMOUR OF GOD

The Divine Warrior from Isaiah, to Ephesians

Isaiah 59 portrays a deity in armour warring against rebellious human

foes. In this tradition-historical investigation, Yoder Neufeld maps the

transformation of an ancient tradition into a creative new reading in

which God's people put on God's armour and go to battle against God's

heavenly foes, as in Ephesians 6. The Pauline recasting of the Isaianic

motif is a bracing one, argues the author.

Tom Yoder Neufeld is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Conrad

Grebel College, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

cl£30.00/$49.50

ISBN 1 85075 655 4

JSNT Supplement Series, 140 192pp



^ 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 permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

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

big men in corinth_atla0001023687

Documents