The ‘knowledgeable’ in 1 Corinthians
I'd be interested to hear what people think of Volker Gäckle's recent and extensive study on the 'strong' and the 'weak' in Corinth and Rome (Die Starken und die Schwachen). It has been received well even by Gäckle's 1 Corinthians 8-10 'sparring partner', Woyke (cf. Johannes Woyke, "Das Bekenntnis zum einzig allwirksamen Gott und Herrn und die Dämonisierung von Fremdkulten: Monolatrischer und polylatrischer Monotheismus in 1. Korinther 8 und 10," in Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich. Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen, J Rüpke [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 101)
Based upon an examination of the likely Corinthian slogans and citations found in 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1, the concepts and vocabulary found therein, and the semantic field of ἀσθεν- ('weak'), Gäckle proposes a compelling portrait of the 'strong'. The description of a group as 'weak' by another is based upon 'kognitiv-rationalen edukativen und psychisch-emotionalen Kategorien' (108). He thus argues that the 'strong' are notably concerned about cognitive categories. 'Ebenso wie in 1Kor 8 liegt der Schwerpunkt der Diskussion in 1Kor 1-4 auf der Frage nach der Bedeutung von Wissen und Erkenntnis' (200). Indeed, he shows in detail that there are many examples in ancient literature of the pejorative characterisation of another group as ἀσθενής by a cognitively focused group (cf. 1 Cor. 4:10; 8:7, 9, 10; 9:22; 12:22). Gäckle writes:
‚Wie fast alle korinthischen Zitate und Begriffe lässt auch dieses Zitat ['Wir haben Erkenntnis'] ein aristokratisches Bewusstsein durchscheinen, das sich auf eine intellektuelle Welt- und Gotteserkenntnis gründet ... Der Glaube der starken nahm seinen Ausgangspunkt bei der Suche nach dem intellektueller Gotteserkenntnis' (190. Cf. also 189, 200–204).
The Corinthian 'knowledge' involves elitist cognitive concerns, an Intellektualismus (201).
Hit or miss?
posted by Chris Tilling @ 11:15 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I can't read German so I'm not able to give you my opinion on what you're asking, but I can say this... The Unicode is wonderful! Welcome aboard! :^P
Yea, thanks Nick! Kudos in your direction!
Nick - Untranslated German is a way of scaring off die Schwachen, whose kognitiv-rationalen faculties don't cut it. :-)
Byron,
You said it! ;^P
Many early Christians did indeed believe that they had secret knowledge or 'gnosis' that other Christians lacked.
Gäckle might be right. I tend to see Paul's use of wisdom and knowledge as ad hoc because I see him attempting to take back the true meaning of these terms from the very early proto-gnostics and other mystery religions of the day and is explaining what true knowledge and wisdom are about - knowledge of God. so, Gäckle could be right in that the Corinthians saw knowledge as elitist and intellectualism and Paul was correcting this
Miss (if your summary is accurate and I've understood it correctly.)
Paul writes at the beginning of the section (8:1b-3), as a caveat to what follow (I take 1a to be a topical header which Paul is about to address but is pausing for a moment to try to head off a misunderstanding):
"We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up (i.e. makes arrogant), but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
"Therefore," Paul continues, restating his topical header again after the digression, "in regard to (or concerning) the eating of things sacrificed by idols: we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (idiomatically that idols are false gods) and that there is no God but one. For even if..." and so on through the beginning of his actual discussion.
(That translation was provided from the prior version of the NASV. I haven't cross-checked it yet, being busy today, but nothing jumps out at me from experience as being a likely mistranslation. Nor from the larger context would I acknowledge that Paul is quoting his opponents anywhere here.)
The introductory qualification was intended to be a self-critical defuser: we know but we must also remember that knowledge puff up and we should be concerned with love first.
Paul's concern about "the strong" here is that they should not be arrogant about what they know, and should be careful not to let their freedom lead their weaker brethren into sin or misunderstanding about what the strong really believe.
(Incidentally, from local contexts I understand Paul to be talking about the pagans here by "the weak"; though as I've extensively commented elsewhere in previous weeks, I think "the weak" in context of Romans 14 is about Christians with a pagan background. Elsewhere in Paul "the weak" would be non-Christian Jews. However, I could about as easily accept that "the weak" in 1Cor8 are new Christians with a pagan background.)
The whole chapter is pretty clearly geared toward protecting "the weak" from "the strong" (the latter category including Paul himself); and the opening caveat fits into this concept.
This isn't about elitist cognitive concerns; or insofar as it is, Paul is flatly against them.
Though maybe that was Gäckle's point, too, and I misunderstood your summary. (If so, my bad, move along, nothing to see here. {g})
JRP
OK Byron, I asked for that!!
Steven, I would not disagree, and many of them lived in Corinth!
Brain:
"I tend to see Paul's use of wisdom and knowledge as ad hoc because I see him attempting to take back the true meaning of these terms from the very early proto-gnostics and other mystery religions of the day and is explaining what true knowledge and wisdom are about - knowledge of God"
Thanks. I found that helpful.
Hi Jason, I comment below:
Right, Jason. Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
“Therefore," Paul continues, restating his topical header again after the digression”
I don’t believe 8:1-3 forms a digression. It is Paul’s subject. 8:4a is formulated as an aspect within that wider discussion. As to the eating of ... what is stated in 8:1a. Note to the linking ouv in 8:4a.
That we are dealing with Corinthian citations is supported by the repetition of the ὅτι in 8:4b, and the parallel with the ὅτι in 8:1 which very probably evidences a citation-correction structure. To site from a footnote in my work on this, Cf. the massive majority of scholars on this: David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 364, and the references in 366 n.6; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (2) (Zürich: Benziger, 1995), 220–21; Fotopoulos, Food, 209–11; Gäckle, Die Starken und die Schwachen, 37–41; Wendell Lee Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth : The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 67–70, 83–84; B. Witherington, III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 188; G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), 362; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 2006), 439; Otfried Hofius, “‘Einer ist Gott - Einer ist Herr’. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Bekenntnisses 1.Kor 8,6,” in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für Erich Gräßer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, eds Martin Evang, Erich Gräßer, and Helmut Merklein, Michael Wolter (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 99; Johannes Woyke, Götter, “Götzen”, Götterbilder: Aspekte einer paulinischen “Theologie der Religionen” (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 203–4; Thiselton, Corinthians, 630, etc.
Speaking with you, i.e. that any citations are doubted, see Joop F. M. Smit, “About the Idol Offerings”: Rhetoric, Social Context, and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1–11:1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), e.g. 73 n.25.
“Paul's concern about "the strong" here is that they should not be arrogant about what they know, and should be careful not to let their freedom lead their weaker brethren into sin or misunderstanding about what the strong really believe.”
I see things slightly differently. It is not just that the gnosis of the ‘knowledgeable’ is arrogant, it is not the ‘necessary knowing’ either – which Paul details in 8:3, and echoes in 8:6. But I’ll leave my comments on that until a later date!
“This isn't about elitist cognitive concerns; or insofar as it is, Paul is flatly against them”
Ah, now I get you! Yes, Paul is against them. And Gäckle would agree!
Chris,
Incidentally, or not incidentally {g}, Johannes Woyke just wrote a reply concerning his use of "the strong" in your "Monotheism" post (I think that's the title); but I'm not sure how far back that is. A link to it here would be nice. Prod. Prod. {g} (I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it, but it's still very interesting and worth looking at in conjunction with the discussion going on here.)
Also, I will say that the more I look at this, the more I am now leaning over to “the weak” being about new Christians who just recently used to be pagans.
{{I don’t believe 8:1-3 forms a digression. It is Paul’s subject.}}
I don't mean it's an irrelevant digression--maybe digression isn't the correct word. Yes, it's closely connected to the main point about eating the pagan meat (or not), which question from his congregation he's about to reply to: the principle is about love, not about being "the strong" who have knowledge. Obviously 1a and 4a introduce the specific topic twice. What’s in between those topical “concerning” statements then is a key part of how to take the subsequent discourse from 4b to 13.
It should be noted that I did point out that Paul “restates his topical header”; so I wasn’t ignoring that 4a and 1a are more-or-less equivalent to each other. Nevertheless, 1a isn’t part of the caveat of 1b-3. Paul starts up again at verse 4, having put in a caution first.
{{That we are dealing with Corinthian citations is supported by the repetition of the {hoti} in 8:4b, and the parallel with the {hoti} in 8:1 which very probably evidences a citation-correction structure.}}
In 8:4b, I agree, there are citations from the strong among the Corinthian Christians on which they ground their freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols (ironically borrowed straight from Judaism!)--which citations, and their use of which, Paul actually agrees with in principle and to a certain extent in practice.
These could be considered Paul quoting his ‘opponents’ perhaps, but they’re a very different kind of ‘opponent’ than Stepmom-Sleeping-Guy whom Paul is (I expect) citing back in 1 Cor 6:13a, for instance. I don’t think Paul considers himself their opponents, except incidentally; whereas he’s prepared to hand over SSG to Satan! (Not permanently, of course, but still... {wry g})
Could 1b be a similar citation? (“we all have knowledge”, introduced by {hoti}) Technically yes. Indeed, the {oidamen hoti} form makes the parallel even stronger. I can easily accept that Paul is citationing the people he is about to correct here. But he is about to correct the people he agrees with. These are the people on his side of the aisle, not his real opponents in the Corinthian church. If “we know” indicates a kerygmatic proclamation of those people, it’s a proclamation (or a proclamation set through verse 6, not counting the caution in verses 1b-3) that Paul agrees with. These people are the strong in faith; but they have to be strong in charity, too, and that includes charity to the weak--who in this case are people commonly accustomed to considering eating the meat to be a religious ritual honoring the gods. It would be better not to ever eat meat again, rather than that these who are weak should stumble by misunderstanding the strength of the strong in faith.
Paul sees strength of faith being a good thing, but not as an elitist way of demonstrating that one’s set is better than someone else. And I really don’t see that these people whom he is in agreement with are doing that either. They’re concerned with their own freedom, maybe rather moreso than they ought to be, but I don’t see evidence yet that Paul is rebuking them for actually having an elitist attitude. The caveat at 1b-3 could be construed that way perhaps, but it could also be construed as a warning lest such an attitude develop; and nothing in verses 7-13 (so far as I can see) indicates that this attitude is in place yet. Critiques do not proceed there about how these strong are puffing themselves up but really are ignorant goobs (or whatever).
(This is the main reason why I still somewhat doubt that 1b is supposed to be a citation quote, too. The citations from 4b and 4c, with extensions in vv 5-6, form a pretty clear though still tacit background to the caution in 7-13: be careful about who sees you eating meat in an idol’s temple because even though this is really okay so long as you know you aren’t doing anything in honor of the idol one of these other people who are still used to honoring the lesser gods this way may think it’s okay to put them on the same level as the Father-and-Christ.)
Anyway, the strong--whom Paul counts himself among, and considers such strength to be a good thing elsewhere--are those who put their loyalty in God (the interpersonal-yet-singular God of the Shema unity, by Whom all things exist and through Whom we exist, not the gods of idols) and therefore are free to eat sacrificed meat precisely because their faith is in something higher than the gods and lords to whom those animals were sacrificed. True, there is knowledge naturally involved in this; but is this really supposed to be, for the people themselves, a concern about cognitive/rational education and psycho-emotional categories??
Miss, miss, missity miss miss. {g}
(This evaluation still can correspond to Gäckle agreeing that Paul is against elitist cognitive concerns.)
{{It is not just that the gnosis of the ‘knowledgeable’ is arrogant, it is not the ‘necessary knowing’ either – which Paul details in 8:3, and echoes in 8:6.}}
As far as I can tell, the “necessary knowing” (which isn’t mentioned in that term) in 8:3 is that God knows who loves Him. {g} That isn’t about knowledge known by people at all. It’s about God’s knowledge, and people’s love. Wasn’t the point to semi-quoting Socrates in verse 2 to demote knowledge compared to love? (Incidentally, this is probably why {ton theon} is missing from a couple of texts there; Metzger says the UBS committee figured a copyist or two expected Paul was going to say something like “If anyone loves God, this man truly knows him.”)
8:6 is certainly a kerygmatic statement which (we know very well) Paul supports. So do the strong, however. “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven on on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, etc.” This is introduced with post-positive {gar} in verse 5. If 4b and 4c are citations, this is at least conjunctive with it (if not also more citationing, which I expect. NOT FROM PAUL’S REAL OPPONENTS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH though. {g})
Moreover, this is pretty clearly the ground on which it’s okay to go ahead and eat pagan meat anyway. Thus by contrast, “However, not all men have this knowledge (or ‘the knowledge is not in all’); but some until now are accustomed to eat as if it were sacrificed.” Those are the weak. They either don’t yet believe the material represented in verses 4b-6, or else they’ve just started believing it and need to be protected from equivocating YHWH with these other lords and gods after all.
JRP
Hi Jason,
Thanks so much for your great comment: "But he is about to correct the people he agrees with."
I think therein is the clue to the subtelty of the passage at a syntactical level. Paul agrees with them at one level, but not at another. Their "knowledge", which puffs up, can ultimately lead to "sin agaist Christ" (8:12), and idolatry (10:1-22). This is why 8:1-3 is so central, from a hermeneutical perspective, for Paul's entire argument in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1
Chris,
Yeppy yep. {g}
JRP
Incidentally, here's the remark Johannes Woyke 1 Cor dropped into your "Monotheism" thread from late Oct 2007. (He added the comment last week on the 28th.)
.......[Johannes' comment follows]
Hi Chris,
thanks for discussing my views!
I know: My style is difficult to read even for Germans (part of it is due to the subject matter, I believe or at least hope so ;-)
So I need to clarify my position on 1Cor 8:6! Primarily in focus is the "archontological" aspect, i.e. the question of who has divine power to create, save, and bring eschatological justice. Paul confesses just this: "In face of the many who are called gods, only one is [true] God; in face of the many who are called lords, only one is [true] Lord, and I have good reasons to confess thus. Okay, many gods and lords are being acknowledges and venerated. But on a closer look, there is only One, from whom and by whom and to whom are all things and who therefore deserves to be worshipped, namely the Father and Jesus Christ."
And since the "strong" in Corinth believe (either from popular Stoicism or from the mysteries of Isis or Serapis), that the One can be worshipped also by way of the many, Paul in 1Cor 10:19-20 demonizes the "many gods and lords" of 1Cor 8:5 in order to show that they are incompatible with the One, who alone is God and Lord.
Maybe my article in J. Rüpke (ed.), Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen, Tübingen 2007, p.87-112 is a little clearer on the matter.
Greetings!
Johannes Woyke
Thanks, Jason!
Post a Comment
<< Home