Arguments Concerning Food Offered to Idols: Corinthian Quotations and Pauline Refutations in a Rhetorical Partido (1 Corinthians 8:1-9)

JOHN FOTOPOULOS
Saint Mary's College Notre Dame, IN 46556

1 CORINTHIANS 8:1-9 appears to contain several contradictions in Paul's argumentation concerning food offered to idols that have caused serious difficulties for the interpretation of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1. These contradictions have been approached with a variety of scholarly theories, none of which has provided a satisfactory interpretation of Paul's argumentation. In this article, I will argue that these apparent contradictions can be sensibly explained by recognizing 8:1-9 as a rhetorical partitio containing Corinthian quotations and interspersed Pauline refutations, thus allowing for Paul's instructions in 8:1-11:1 to be interpreted as a coherent, sustained prohibition of intentional consumption of food offered to idols.1
1 Joop F. M. Smit ("1 Cor 8,1-6: A Rhetorical Partitio, A Contribution to the Coherence of 1 Cor 8,1-11,1," in The Corinthian Correspondence [ed. Reimund Bieringer; BETL 125; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996] 577-91) has previously considered Paul's use of a rhetorical partitio in 8:1-6. Although I am in agreement with Smit that Paul begins his treatment of food offered to idols by using the device of a rhetorical paritio, I do not agree that 8:1-6 is the entire partitio or that 8:1-6 is a coherent train of thought containing solely the positions of Paul. Rather, it is my contention that Paul's partitio consists of 8:1-9 and includes quotations from the Corinthian Strong

611

612 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005 I. Contradictions in 1 Corinthians 8:1-9 and Previous Solutions 1 Corinthians 8:1b asserts that , "we all have knowl edge," while v. 7a contradicts this position by stating, ' , "but not everyone has this knowledge."2 Another inconsistency evident in the text appears in v. 5a, where there is a "concessive relating to a contingent possibility"3 indicated by . . . , "even if there are socalled gods . . . ," which is contrasted in v. 5b with a positive assertion, . . . , "but in fact there are many gods. . . ." Finally, v. 8a declares, , "food will not bring us before the judgment of God," but v. 12b equates consumption of sacrificial food with sinning "against Christ" ( ), a position reinforced by 10:1-13, which warns that the Israelites tested Christ by eating food offered to idols in the wilderness (cf. 10:7-9) and were struck downan example explicitly given for the idol-food-eating Corinthians (10:11).4
that are interrupted by interspersed Pauline refutations. A further difference that I have with Smit regards the general order of Paul's ensuing argumentation as it corresponds to the arguments estab lished in the partitio, something that will be treated later in this article. Finally, Smit ('The Rhetor ical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:7-9:27," CBQ 59 [1997] 476-91, esp. 479-80 n. 18) identifies 8:7 as the narrano of 8:7-9:27 while asserting that the '"weak brothers' whom Paul introduces in 7 are completely hypothetical and indefinite." This is unconvincing, however, since the content of 8:7 does not fulfill the function of a narratiowhich is to describe that which has been done and to serve as the basis of the case in disputeand because Smit asserts that the Weak do not exist, a fact that would destroy the foundation of Paul's case. Rather, 8:10a is the narratio of Paul's treatment of the Corinthian dispute concerning food offered to idols, clearly indicating that the facts at issue are that the Strong have been seen reclining in a pagan temple precinct eating sac rificial food and the Weak have been led to eat such food as well. 2 So, too, Wendell L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 68; Wolfgang Schrge, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (3 vols.; EKKNT 7; Solothurn/Dsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991-99) 2.221. 3 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Cambridge, U.K.: Paternoster, 2000) 632. 4 Several prominent scholars have argued that the references to baptism into Moses and to Israel's spiritual food and drink in 10:1-4 indicate that the Corinthians held a magical view of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which the Corinthians believed kept them from falling and thus permitted their consumption of sacrificial food. Such a magical, apotropaic view of baptism and the Lord's Supper, however, is not represented by Corinthian quotations in 8:1-9 or present anywhere else in the letter. Moreover, David E. Aune ("The Phenomenon of Early Christian 'Anti-Sacramentalism,'" in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor ofAllen P. Wikgren [ed. David E. Aune; NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972] 194-214) has demonstrated that there is no evidence that Paul or any other early Christians were critical of baptism or the Eucharist because of excessive value attributed to those sacraments as the means of securing the advantages of salvation. Thus, I have argued elsewhere (John Fotopoulos, Food

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 613 These contradictions and the interpretive obstacles throughout Paul's treatment of food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians have led some exegetes to seek interpretive assistancefromGreek and Latin rhetoric.5 Other scholars have felt it necessary to advocate partition theories in order to make sense of Paul's argumentation and instructions regarding food offered to idols.6 Yet other exegetes have addressed these contradictions by arguing that Paul vacillates from his initial missionary teaching in Corinth regarding sacrificial food as an adiaphoron because of pressure imposed on him by the Jerusalem leaders and the newly
Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 [WUNT 2/151; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003] 227-33) that in 10:1-13 Paul is presenting a rhetorical exemplum for the Corinthians, using the negative example of Israel's history to warn of the dangers of consuming sacrificial food, since the Israelites, like the Corinthians, had received spiritual gifts including food and drink but later engaged in idolatry by their consumption of sacrificial food. 5 Duane F. Watson, "1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions," JBL 108 (1989) 301-18; Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 126-49, 237-58; Hermann Probst, Paulus und der Brief: Die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz (1 Kor 8-10) (WUNT 2/45; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); Gary D. Collier, "'That We Might Not Crave Evil': The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10.1-13," JSNT 55 (1994) 55-75; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 186230; Abraham J. Malherbe, "Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9," in Paul in His Hellenistic Context (ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995) 231-55; Gregory W. Dawes, "The Danger of Idolatry: First Corinthians 8:7-13," CBQ 58 (1996) 82-98; Stanley K. Stowers, "Elusive Coherence: Ritual and Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 10-11," in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack (ed. Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) 68-83; Jol Delobel, "Coherence and Relevance of 1 Cor 8-10," in Corinthian Correspondence, 177-90; Joop F. M. Smit, '"Do Not Be Idolaters': Paul's Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1-22," NovT39 (1997) 40-53; idem, "The Function of First Corinthians 10,23-30: A Rhetorical Anticipation," Bib 78 (1997) 377-88; idem, "Rhetorical Disposition"; idem, '"You Shall Not Muzzle a Threshing Ox': Paul's Use of the Law of Moses in First Corinthians 9,8-12," EstBib 58 (2000) 239-63; idem, "About the Idol Offerings": Rhetoric, Social Context, and Theology of Paul's Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1-11:1 (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 27; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians (ConBNT 29; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998) 135-73; Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols.
6 So, e.g., Johannes Wei, Der erste Korintherbrief (Meyerkommentar 7; 9th ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 211-13; Khiok-Khng Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic (BIS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 83, 194, 209; Hans-Friedemann Richter, "Anstige Freiheit in Korinth: Zur Literarkritik der Korintherbriefe (1 Kor 8,1-13 und 11,2-16)" in Corinthian Correspondence, 561-75. For a critical assessment of various partition theories of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 and arguments for its literary integrity, see Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 2-5, 238-40.

614

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

issued Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25).7 Another group of interpreters has asserted that in his instructions Paul accepts the Corinthians' views in support of eating food offered to idols as a persuasive strategy so as later to qualify these views in his argumentation.8 Other exegetes, not being able to find a sensible explanation for Paul's apparently contradictory instructions on food offered to idols, simply have concluded that Paul is inconsistent in the formulation of his written instructions.9 Despite these diverse interpretations, as well as previous scholars' use of ancient rhetorical theory for the interpretation of the Corinthian issue concerning food offered to idols, a satisfactory explanation for the contradictory positions that are apparent in 8:1-9 is still wanting. The contradictions evident in 8:1-9, however, can be sensibly explained by recognizing this unit as a rhetorical partitio that contains Corinthian quotations interspersed with Pauline refutations. By recognizing 8:1-9 as a rhetorical partitio, Paul's instructions in 8:1-11:1 can be interpreted as a coherent, sustained prohibition of intentional consumption of sacrificial food. We therefore turn to ancient rhetorical theory and to the function of a rhetorical partitio in order to identify the positions of Paul and the Corinthians that are present in 1 Cor 8:1-9. IL A Rhetorical Partitio According to Quintilian, a partitio is "the orderly enumeration of our positions (propositiones), those of our opponent, or both" (Inst. 4.5.1). He adds that if an orator must prove or refute a number of points, a, partitio is useful, since it indicates what will be said about each subject in orderly fashion (4.5.8). Quintilian indicates that ^partitio can serve both of these purposes, but he concludes his treatment of the partitio by stating that "the primary partitio is between agreed and disputed facts. Agreed facts are divided into those admitted by our opponent and those admitted by ourselves. Disputed facts are divided into those which are our positions (propositiones) and those which are our opponents.'" Cicero also states that the partitio takes two forms, the first of which "shows what we have in agreement with our opponents and what is left in dispute, as a result of this some
7 John C. Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians (London: S.P.C.K., 1965; reprint, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983) 240-62; C. K. Barrett, "Things Sacrificed to Idols," NTS 11 (1965) 138-53, esp. 150; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 190. 8 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 241; Dawes, "Danger of Idolatry," 92. So, too, Chrysostom, Horn. 1 Cor. 20.1-2. 9 Peter D. Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Waterloo, ON: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1993) 88. Although Barrett ("Things Sacrificed," 148) thinks that the issuance of the Apostolic Decree played a role in the Corinthian dispute about sacrificial food, he still finds Paul's instructions to be confused or inconsistent.

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS

615

definite problem is set for the listener on which they should have their attention fixed" (Inv. 1.22.31). In the second form of partitio, Cicero adds, "the matters which we intend to discuss are briefly set forth in a methodical way" (ibid.). Similarly, Rhetorica ad Herennium maintains that in a partitio (divisio) "we ought first to make clear what we and our opponents agree upon, if there is agreement on the points useful to us, and what remains contested" (1.10.17). Rhetorica ad Herennium then proceeds to discuss proof and refutation, stating that the "entire hope of victory and the entire method of persuasion rest on proof and refutation, for when we have submitted our arguments and destroyed those of the opposition, we have, of course, completely fulfilled the speaker's function" (1.10.18). Since Quintilian, Cicero, and Rhetorica ad Herennium all state that in a partitio it is customary for orators to indicate their own positions and those of their opponents, especially when a number of points must be proved or refuted, Paul's use of a partitio in 1 Cor 8:1-9 is appropriate to begin his lengthy treatment of the Corinthian dispute over sacrificial food. III. Paul's Method of Persuasion Close scrutiny of Paul's letters demonstrates that he was quite adept at using the conventional devices of ancient rhetoric analogous to those of pagan rhetoricians and moralists in the Greco-Roman world.10 In particular, the Corinthian correspondence reveals Paul as a forceful letter writer who used elements of ancient rhetoric in his writings as a substitute for personal speeches in order to address important issues that had arisen in the churches after his departure from the city.11 Although Paul deprecates the use of human rhetoric and his own rhetorical skill in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 1:17, 20; 2:1, 4, 13; 4:20), Dale B. Martin has argued that it was a common rhetorical device for orators to deprecate their own
10 See, e.g., Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Duane F. Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question," NovT 30 (1988) 57-88; Abraham Malherbe, "Exhortation in First Thessalonians," NovT 25 (1983) 238-56; idem, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (LEC 4; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); idem, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation; David E. Aune, "Romans as a Logos Protreptikos," in The Romans Debate (ed. Karl P. Donfried; rev. and expanded ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991)278-96. 11 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 20-23; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 33-67; James D. Hester, "Rhetoric and the Composition of the Letters of Paul," Journal for the Study of Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament [periodical online; article at http://newton.uor.edu/FacultyFolder/Hester/Journal/HesterComp.html, accessed February 4, 2002]; Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 95-200.

616

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

rhetorical ability in order to secure the goodwill of the audience and that by so doing in the Corinthian correspondence Paul was behaving precisely as a skilled orator.12 Paul's remarks on his manner of persuasion in 2 Cor 10:3-5 seem to reflect more accurately his true rhetorical ability: , , , , , . For although we march in theflesh,we do not wage war in theflesh,for the weapons of our warfare are notfleshly,but are empowered by God to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every rampart raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought as prisoner of war to comply with Christ, being ready to pun ish every insubordination, once your compliance is complete. In the quotation above, Paul states that the purpose of his letters is to destroy "arguments" (). The word is a philosophical term, 13 in this case applied to the Corinthians' sophistic assertions that had been argued to Paul in their correspondence and in person during the apostle's painful visit. In reply to the Corinthians' , Paul's forceful written mode of persuasion was per ceived by the Corinthians as , "weighty and strong" (2 Cor 10:10). In fact, Paul's use of rhetoric was so powerful that it caused fear (2 Cor 10:9) and sorrow (2 Cor 2:4) in some members of the Corinthian church. IV. A Rationale for Paul's Partitio In light of Paul's effective use of ancient rhetoric and the widespread rhetor ical convention of orators establishing their own positions and that of their oppo nents in apartitio, Paul's use of a rhetorical partitio to make distinctions between positions argued by the Corinthians and the positions that he asserts seems quite reasonable. To be precise, it is my position that in 8:1-9 Paul is refuting a particu lar group of Corinthian Christiansthe Stronga faction that argued in favor of consumption of food offered to idols against a second groupthe Weakby
12

Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995)

47-49.

Hans W. Heidland, ", ," TDNT, 4. 284-94, esp. 287; BAG(D), s.v. , translates the term in 2 Cor 10:4 as "sophistries" (p. 598). Others note the philosophical, argumentative meaning of the term in 2 Cor 10:4; see, e.g., Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthi ans (WBC 40; Dallas: Word, 1986) 306; Stanley K. Stowers, "Paul on the Use and Abuse of Rea son," in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 253-86, esp. 275.

13

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 617 quoting important parts of the Strong members' arguments.14 Some scholars do not believe that there were actual Weak members in the Corinthian church; they hold that this group was simply referred to in this way by Paul as a hypothetical device for the sake of his argument.15 Margaret M. Mitchell has convincingly demonstrated, however, that the purpose of 1 Corinthians was to address numer ous issues over which the Corinthian church was divided, the letter itself being an example of deliberative rhetoric attempting to persuade a factious community to unite in love.16 Thus, Paul's partitio in 8:1-9 cites quotations of the Corinthian Strong that they assert in support of their consumption of sacrificial food while reclining at formal meals, even as the partitio also establishes Paul's differences of opinion with them. His partitio also attempts to establish the general order for his ensuing argumentation, as & partitio can do. This ensuing argumentation con sists of a narratio (statement of facts)17 in 8:10a and the probatio (proofs), which
14 A large number of scholars refer to those in favor of consumption of sacrificial food as the Strong; however, Paul does not use this term in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 specifically in reference to those advocating consumption of sacrificial food. Rather, he refers to those in favor of such consumption as those who possess "knowledge" (8:10). The term "Strong," however, is not without merit. It is the logical opposite of "Weak," a term used by Paul in 8:7, 9, 10, 11, 12 in reference to those opposed to the consumption of sacrificial food (e.g., 8:9, ). Furthermore, Paul reminds those in favor of consumption of sacrificial food that God will not let them be tested beyond their strength (10:13), and he ironically asks this same group if they are stronger than the Lord (10:22). He also refers to some of the Corinthian Christians as "strong" in 1:26 () and 4:10 (), whereas he refers to himself and the apostles in 4:10 as "weak " (). Paul, describing his missionary strategy in 9:22, also declares that to the Weak ( ) he became weak (), so that he might win the Weak (). Moreover, those referred to as the Strong in 1:26 and 4:10 seem to be the same group of people as those who possess knowl edge in 8:111:1, that is, higher-status Corinthian Christians. The term "Strong" may seem appro priate to some scholars also because Paul uses this term in contrast to the "Weak" in Romans 14 regarding disagreements about eating meat, although this is a different issue from that of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1. Alternatively, some scholars refer to those who advocate consumption of food offered to idols as "gnostics," since this group claims to have "knowledge." The term "gnostic," however, is problematic, since it is subject to misinterpretation and associations with later, second-century Gnostic movements. 15 Hurd, Origin, 143-48; Gordon D. Fee, " Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8-10," Bib 61 (1980) 172-97, esp. 176; Gooch, Dangerous Food, 68. 16 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 20-68, 184-92. Mitchell demonstrates that 1 Corinthians isfilledwith numerous rhetorical techniques and topoi mirrored in pagan politi cal speeches urging factions to unite for the common advantage of Greek cities. For a thorough dis cussion of the existence of actual divisions between the Strong and the Weak in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1, see ibid., 126-49,237-58; also Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 188-91. 17 Quintilian (Inst. 4.4.1) states, "Some place the propositio immediately after the narratio, as being a part of the matter before the court." This indicates that some orators placed the proposi ti before the narratio as well, similar to Paul's establishment of various propositiones in his par titio before giving his narratio in 8:10a. Quintilian (Inst. 3.9.5) notes that it was Aristotle who was

618

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

are laid out in 8:10b11:1, roughly corresponding to the order of the Corinthian Strong quotations and Pauline refutations from 8:1-9 (see the table on the following page). The general order for Paul's treatment of the dispute over food offered to idols in his ensuing argumentation as it corresponds with his partitio is established as follows. 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 raises the Strong's position that all have knowledge, corresponding to 8:10-9:27, in which Paul argues against this position by treating the effects of knowledge on the Weak and using the example of his renunciation of apostolic freedoms in order to save the Weak. 1 Corinthians 8:4-7 raises the content of the Strong's knowledge about the nonexistence of pagan deities represented by their cultic statues used in support of consumption of food offered to idols, corresponding to 10:14-22, in which Paul argues against this by asserting that the pagan deities do, in fact, exist as demons and that the consumption of sacrificial food at the table of demons constitutes idolatry. 1 Corinthians 8:8a raises the Corinthian Strong's position that food will not bring them before the judgment of God, corresponding to 10:1-13, in which Paul argues against this by demonstrating that Israel came under God's judgment for eating sacrificial food in the wilderness. Finally, 1 Cor 8:8b raises the Strong's assertion that the Corinthians are better off socially by eating food offered to idols and worse off socially by abstaining, corresponding to 10:23-11:1, in which Paul argues that the Corinthians can eat food in social situations where the food is not known to be sacrificial food, such as from the macellum and at private meals in homes hosted by pagans, as long as they show concern for the Weak. It should be noted that Paul has committed what Quintilian considers to be a serious mistake for an orator, since Paul does not treat the issues in his probatio in the sequential order that they are addressed in his partitio (8:4-7 corresponds to 10:14-22, while 8:8a corresponds to 10:1-13). It seems, however, that Paul's error was a common mistake for orators; Quintilian's disdain for such an error (Inst. 4.5.28) indicates that it did occur in practice. Nevertheless, in J*mVspartitio he presents the Corinthian Strong positions, establishes his points of disagreement with them, and lays out the general order for his treatment of the dispute in his ensuing argumentation, just as a partitio should do.

V. The Presence of Corinthian Quotations in 1 Corinthians There is a large scholarly consensus that in 1 Corinthians, at least in a few verses of the letter, Paul quotes Corinthian positions or slogans. Many scholars
responsible for "a slight innovation in making the propostilo, rather than the narratio, come next to the prooemium"

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS

GENERAL ORDER OF PAUL'S PARTITIO IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8:1-9 AND THE CORRESPONDING ARGUMENTATION IN 8:10-11:1

619

Sections of Paul 's Partitio A. 8:1-3 Strong's position asserting that they all have knowledge and Paul's refutation stressing the arrogant effects of their knowledge.

Corresponding Sections of Paul 's Argumentation A. 8:10-9:27 Paul's argument about the effects of the Strong's knowledge on the Weak and his example of renun ciation of apostolic freedoms in order to save the Weak. B. 10:14-22 Paul's argument that the pagan deities do, in fact, exist as demons and that the consumption of sacrificial food at the table of demons constitutes idolatry.

B. 8:4-7 Content of the Strong's knowledge about the nonexistence of pagan deities represented by their cult statues used in support of consumption of sacrificial food, and Paul's refuta tions that not all have this knowledge and that there are many gods and lords. C. 8:8a Strong's position that food will not bring them before the judg ment of God. D. 8:8b-9 Strong's assertion that the Corinthians are better off socially by eating food offered to idols and worse off by abstaining, and Paul's refutation warning the Strong that their liberty to eat can become an obstacle for the Weak.

C. 10:1-13 Paul's argument that Israel came under God's judgment for eating sacrificial food in the wilderness. D. 10:23-11:1 Paul's argument that the Corinthians can use their liberty to eat food socially if the food is not known to be sacrificial foodfromthe macellum and at private meals in homes hosted by pagans as long as they show concern for the Weak.

have pointed to Paul's use of the ("and concerning") formula as evidence 18 of Corinthian quotations being cited in the letter. Mitchell, however, has demonstrated that in ancient Greek literature simply serves as a topic 19 marker introducing a subject that both the author and the reader already know. Therefore, Mitchell has concluded that Paul's use of the formula in 1 Corinthians may or may not indicate issues raised by the Corinthians in their letter to Paul. Paul could have become aware of these issues by means of oral

Hura, Origin, 61-74. Margaret M. Mitchell, "Concerning in 1 Corinthians," NovT3l (1989) 229-56, esp. 234.
19

18

620

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

communication.20 Nevertheless, whatever the source of the issues in 1 Corinthi ans that were relevant to the Corinthian church, indicates that these are issues about which both the Corinthians and Paul are familiar "from some ele ment of their shared experience." 2 1 Mitchell carefully emphasizes that her research "does not prove that the topics under were not mentioned in the 22 Corinthian letter, but merely that they need not have been so introduced." Although the formula in and of itself does not demonstrate the source of Paul's subject matter in 1 Corinthians, whether oral or written, Paul himself cites at least one Corinthian quotation that he obtained from a letter that the Corinthians had written to him, 23 which he introduces with the for mula. In 7: la Paul refers to the issue about which the Corinthians wrote ( ) and then cites their position in 7: lb, , "it is good for a man not to touch a woman." After the Corinthian quo tation, Paul states his refutation of their position: , "But because of sexual immoralities, each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband." In addition to this occurrence, it seems that in several places in 1 Corinthians Paul quotes Corinthian positions and then proceeds to refute them, as he does in 7:1, by using an adversative such as or . In 6:12a and 6:12c there is another generally accepted Corinthian quotation that is quoted twice by Paul, , "All things are permissible for me," followed by two interspersed Pauline refutations in 6:12b, ' , "but not all things serve common advantage," and in 6:12d, ' , "but I will not be ruled by anything." This same Corinthian position is again quoted twice, in 10:23a and 10:23c,24 as , refuted once more by ' in 10:23b and a new interspersed Pauline refutation in 10:23d, ' , "but not all things build up." Thus, all of the Pauline refutations of the Corinthian quotation begin with the adversative . Present in 6:13a-b is another Corinthian quotation, In 1 Cor 1:11 Paul states that he has information that has been communicated to him orally by Chloe's people. Paul probably also had oral information from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, the apparent carriers of 1 Corinthians, that supplemented the content of the letter. 21 Mitchell, "Concerning ," 256. 22 Ibid. 23 The Corinthians' letter was written in reply to Paul's previous letter (a.k.a. Corinthians A; see 1 Cor 5:9). Paul's previous letter had given the Corinthians instructions prohibiting social rela tions with those who were sexually immoral. The Corinthians had interpreted Paul's instructions as prohibiting social relations with pagans, a misguided understanding that Paul clarifies in 1 Cor 5:9-13 by clearly prohibiting social relations with certain types of immoral Christians but allowing social relations with pagans. 24 In 10:23a and 10:23c is omittedfromthe quotation.
20

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 621 , , "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, and God will destroy both one and the other." This cannot be Paul's position, since the maxim indicates a belief that the physical body will be destroyed, a belief in conflict with Paul's clearly stated view that the physical body will be changed in the twinkling of an eye and will put on imperishability and immortality (15:51-53). Jerome MurphyO'Connor has demonstrated that this Corinthian quotation is refuted in 6:13c-14 in a Pauline response that displays similar parallelism, , , "But the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."25 Once again Paul begins his refutation with an adversative . Finally, in 6:18b there is another clear Corinthian quotation, , "Every sin which a person might commit is outside the body." This must certainly be a slogan of the Corinthians, since Paul states that the Corinthians' bodies are members of Christ and that their bodies cannot be used for sexual immorality (6:15-17). Thus they are to glorify God in their bodies (6:20). Therefore Paul, consistent with the above Corinthian quotations, in 6:18c begins to refute this Corinthian position with an adversative , stating , "but the sexually immoral person sins against one's own body." These examples suffice to demonstrate the probability that Corinthian quo tations are present in 1 Corinthians and that Paul regularly refutes them with an adversative followed by his own arguments. This too, as will be shown below, is the general method by which Paul refutes Corinthian Strong quotations present in 8:1-9. Therefore, the use of and the clear identification of some Corin thian quotations in 1 Corinthians strengthen the case for the presence of quota tions in 8:1-9. Nevertheless, some exegetes deny that Corinthian quotations are present in 8:1-9, considering their identification with the placement of quotation marks to be an interpretive gloss.26 Frederik W. Grosheide, anticipating a poten tial objection to the identification of Corinthian quotations in 1 Corinthians 8, states, "The objection that Paul does not indicate that he is quoting is removed by the consideration that everyone in Corinth would naturally know what they had written and thus would recognize their own words."27 Certainly it would be
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20," CBQ 40 (1978) 39196, esp. 394-95. 26 Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth (JSNTSup 169; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 279. 27 Frederik W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 188.
25

622

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

preferable for exegetes if Paul had consistently used a clear introductory marker such as before quoting all Corinthian positions. Several times in 1 Corinthians, however, Paul quotes the Scriptures or refers to beliefs or practices in the Corinthian church that he expects the Corinthians to understand without prior introductory markers or explanations. In 2:16 and 5:13, for example, Paul quotes Isa 40:13 and Deut 17:7, respectively, without any introductory formulas. He is also comfortable quoting a maxim or saying in 4:6, "Nothing beyond what is written," without introductory markers and without identifying the source of the maxim, fully expecting the Corinthians to understand its meaning. The apos tle also engages in a midrashic interpretation in 10:4, where Christ is referred to as the "rock" without introduction or further explanation. Finally, Paul is capable of using the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead as a rhetorical proof in 15:29 without introduction or explanation. Thus, it is quite plausible that Paul expects the Corinthians to recognize their positions which he quotes from their letter to him without the presence of introductory markers since he also refers to Scriptures, beliefs, and practices in 1 Corinthians without providing such intro ductory markers or explanations. Furthermore, Paul's use of apartitio, a rhetori cal device intended to present the respective positions of opponents as well as of the orator refuting their case, makes the identification of Corinthian Strong quota tions in 8:1-9 especially appropriate, thus providing a sensible explanation for the contradictory positions evident in the argumentation. VI. Corinthian Strong Quotations and Pauline Refutations in 8:1-9 Paul begins his instructions concerning consumption of food offered to idols with the topic marker (v. la). This topic marker signals that sacrificial food is an issue about which both Paul and the Corinthians are aware. Mitchell remarks, "by the way in which he names the disputed matter, 28 Paul already enters into the debate on someone's terms." These terms are a Corinthian quotation cited by Paul as he begins his partitio, which enumerates the first position of his antagonists: , "We know that we all have knowledge" (v. lb). Some scholars assert that the Strong's quota tion begins with , 29 while others argue that the quotation includes
Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 237 n. 288. So Hurd, Origin, 69; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 187; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 140; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 363; Gooch, Dangerous Food, 62; Schrge, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2. 225; Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: An Examination of Paul's Approach in the Light of Its Background in Ancient Judaism and Legacy in Early Christianity (JSNTSup 176; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
29 28

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 623 .30 Although era isfrequentlyused to state a generally accepted fact that is well known,31 the grammatical construction of in thefirstperson plural seems to represent the position of the Corinthian Strong.32 This view is strengthened by noting the various grammatical shifts throughout 8:1-12, which occur especially when Pauline refutations are conveyed. These Pauline refuta tions occur not in thefirstperson plural but in the second and third persons (w. lc-3,5b, 7,9-12),33 thus bolstering the case for the presence of Corinthian Strong quotations and interspersed Pauline refutations. Finally, the most convincing rea son why is part of the Corinthian quotation is that if it is the position of Paul, then he agrees with the Corinthian Strong that "we all have knowledge," a position that Paul proceeds to refute in vv. lc-3 and v. 7a. Despite this evidence, some commentatorseven those trained in Greek rhetorical theory such as John Chrysostomhave held that the entire verse belongs to Paul. These exegetes assert that Paul is accepting the Corinthians' position in his argumentation as a persuasive strategy so as to later qualify it.34 That this view is untenable was rec ognized by other patristic commentators such as Theodoret,35 because Paul does
Press, 1998) 122; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 260-61 ; Andreas Lindemann, Der erste Korinther>ne/(HNT 9/1; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 190; Helmut Merklein, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (kumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament; Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus; Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992-2000) 2.179. 30 So Willis, Idol Meat, 68-70; Paul D. Gardner, The Gifts of God and the Authentication ofa Christian: An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 8-11:1 (Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America, 1994) 22-23; Richter, "Anstige Freiheit in Korinth," 562-63; Eriksson, Traditions, 150-51 ; Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 209. 31 BAG(D), s.v. , 693-94, esp. 693 for ; see also Willis, Idol Meat, 68. 32 Grosheide, Commentary, 188. 33 C. F. G. Heinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Meyerkommentar 7; 8th ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896) 254. 34 Chrysostom, commenting on Paul's method of argumentation, states, ; , (Horn. 1 Cor. 20.1). A modern proponent of this position is Dawes ("Danger of Idolatry," 92), who states that Paul "accepts the correctness of the knowledge they claim to have (w 4-6) but then qualifies this accep tance by pointing out that acting on the basis of this knowledge may lead others into sin (w 7-13)." It is interesting to note that although Chrysostom does not identify Corinthian quotations cited by Paul in his argumentation in 8:1-9, he recognizes that several of these verses represent Corinthian positions. See, e.g., Chrysostom, Horn. 1 Cor. 20.1-3. 35 Theodoret (Interpretatio 1 Cor. 213-18) finds it unconvincing that Paul's method of argu mentation is to accept the Corinthians' positions as a persuasive strategy so as to later qualify them. Theodoret clearly recognizes the contradictions between 8:1b and 8:7a andfinds,rather, a different reasonfromthat of Chrysostom for the text's incoherence. These contradictions are inter preted by Theodoret as stemmingfromPaul's use of irony, another rhetorical device. Regarding 8:1b, Theodoret states, , . , . . . {Interpretatio 1 Cor. 213). Again, commenting on 8:7a, he states, '' . , , . ' ' -

624

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

not indicate anywhere in the text that he accepts the view that all have knowl edge, but rather immediately refutes the Corinthian Strong's position in the fol 36 lowing verses, w . lc-3 and again in v. 7a. Thus, v. lb is the claim of the Strong that all have knowledge, a claim rebutted by Paul in a tripartite refutation in vv. lc-3: (1) , Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (2) ' , If someone thinks to know something, one does not yet know as one should. (3) , ' If someone loves God, that one is known by him. In this tripartite refutation, Paul does not simply qualify the idea that all of the Corinthians have knowledge; he flatly denies it (v. 7a) and asserts that knowl edge puffs upthose claiming to have knowledge really do not know as they should. "Knowledge" is an issue raised throughout 1 Corinthians as something about which the Corinthians are confident but which Paul modifies or refutes.37 Although Paul praised the Corinthians for their knowledge in the exordium of 1 Corinthians (1:5), he also castigated some of the Corinthians for their arrogance in 4:18 (), 4:19 (), and 5:2 (). In 5:2, a case of sexual immorality was reported among the Corinthians, but they, in turn, responded arrogantly to this behavior. It is no surprise, then, that Corinthian knowledge also made the Strong arrogantly assertive regarding their freedom to eat food offered to idols. That vv. lc-3 is Paul's refutation of the previously quoted Corinthian Strong position (8:1b) is further supported by P 4 6 , the single most important textual witness for 1 Corinthians, which contains an adversative in v. lc, reading . Paul again employs a topic marker in 8:4a, , "Concerning, then, the eating of food offered to idols," to resume the Strong's quotations in v. 4b-c. These quotations 38 express the content of the , (Interpretatio 1 Cor. 216). For more on irony, see Quintilian Inst. 9.22.44; 6.2.15; 8.6.54. 36 Willis, Idol Meat, 68; Gardner, Gifts, 22. 37 Willis, Idol Meat, 69-70; Gardner, Gifts, 22-23. as a noun occurs ten times in 1 Corinthians. So, too, the verbs and are used frequently; see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:5; 3:16; 6:2,3,9,15,16,19; 8:1,7,10,11; 12:8; 13:2, 8, 9; 14:6; 15:34. 38 Scholars who consider v. 4b-c to be Corinthian positions include Hans Lietzmann, An die KorintherI/II(rQw. W. G. Kmmel; HNT 9; 4th ed.; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949) 37;

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 625 Strong's knowledge ( ) that is used to support their consumption of sacrificial food (v. 4b-c): (1) No idol exists in the world. (2) No God exists but one. The content of the Strong's knowledge asserts their belief that the pagan gods represented by cult statues have no real existence in the world (v. 4b), a notion supported by their belief that only one God truly exists (v. 4c). These assertions are important points for the Corinthians, since in Greco-Roman formal meals portions of sacrificial food were often placed before statues of pagan deities who were believed to be fellow participants in the meal.39 With this Corinthian theo logical assertion, the Corinthians could justify their consumption of sacrificial food in the presence of pagan statues, since the deities represented by these images had no real existence. Wendell L. Willis has rightly argued that the knowledge expressed in the two clauses v. 4b and v. 4c is developed further in v. 5a with serving as explanatory conjunctions for the content of Corinthian knowledge in v. 6.40 Verse 5b stands as a parenthetical Pauline refutation of v. 5a.41 In v. 5a, the Corin thians articulate their assessment of their pagan religious environment's belief in many gods and lords as a "concessive relating to a contingent possibility"42 for the sake of argument as indicated by . . . , "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or whether on earth." Thus, the Corinthian Strong argue by using a positive assertion in v. 4b-c that the pagan deities do not have real existence, and by using a hypothetical position for the sake of argument in v. 5a that also considers the possibility of the existence of pagan deities.
Grosheide, Commentary, 188; Barrett, First Corinthians, 191; Fee, First Corinthians, 370-71; Gooch, Dangerous Food, 62-63; Schrge, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2. 221; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 188; Richter, "Anstige Freiheit in Korinth," 562-63; Otfried Hofius, "'Einer ist GottEiner ist der Herr': Erwgungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Bekenntnisses 1 Kor 8:6," in Eschatologie und Schpfung: Festschrift fur Erich Grer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (ed. Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter; BZNW 89; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) 95-108, esp. 99-101. 39 See David Gill, Greek Cult Tables (New York/London: Garland, 1991); Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 162-69,174-78. 40 Willis, Idol Meat, 83-87; Cheung, Idol Food, 123. 41 Eriksson (Traditions, 155) thinks that v. 5b is the position of the Weak asserted against the position of the Strong. 42 Thiselton, First Corinthians, 632.

626

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

The Strong's position quoted in v. 5a is interrupted by a Pauline refutation in 43 v. 5b. This refutation, indicated as an anacoluthon, corrects the Corinthian Strong's assessment that pagan gods and lords are only so-called, having no real existence, which Paul indicates by . Paul disputes the Strong's posi tion, which they asserted in v. 5a, with in v. 5b as a point in his par titio that will be developed further and fully refuted in his probatio (proof/argument) of 10:19-22, where idols depicting pagan deities are equated 44 with demons. Paul states that the so-called gods and lords whom the Strong do not believe exist do, in fact, exist. It is because these so-called gods and lords truly exist (as demons) that the Corinthians are not to eat food offered to idols. The content of the Strong's knowledgethat no pagan deities truly exist and 45 that God is oneis further argued and supported in v. 6 by the continuation of 46 their quotation, which was conveyed to Paul as a confessional formula: ' , ' ' But for us there is one God, the Father (v. 6a) From whom are all things and for whom we exist (v. 6b), And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (v. 6c) Through whom are all things and through whom we exist (v. 6d). This confessional formula stands as a shared tradition common to both Paul and the Corinthians47 with having been drawn from the Shema of Deut 6:4.48 It seems likely that Paul himself had transmitted this confessional formula to the Corinthian church during his time in the city, 49 also being employed by Paul in Gal 3:20 and Rom 3:30.50 Consequently, the Corinthians argue their position in support of the consumption of food offered to idols on the Willis (Idol Meat, 86) calls v. 5b "Paul's own qualification." So, too, Eriksson, Traditions, 156; Merklein, Erste Briefan die Korinther, 2.186. 45 Hofius, "'Einer ist GottEiner ist der Herr,'" 99-101; Richter, "Anstige Freiheit in Korinth," 562-63. 46 Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 144) calls v. 6 a "formula of confession," which has phrasing that has not been chosen by Paul and content that is not Pauline. Other scholars refer to v. 6 as a pre-Pauline or Pauline creedal statement. For example, Schrge (Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2. 241) writes, "Paulus will durch das Zitat der urchristlichen Formel keine weltanschauliche These ber die Existenz nur eines Gottes vortragen." 47 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 144 n. 38; Eriksson, Traditions, 154. 48 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 144; Eriksson, Traditions, 123; Cheung, Idol Food, 122; Merklein, Erste Briefan die Korinther, 2. 188. 49 Eriksson, Traditions, 154. 50 Ibid., 123.
44 43

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 627 basis of their monotheistic belief in the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, who created all things and through whom they exist. Richard A. Horsley has demonstrated that enlightened theological knowledge used to sup port the freedom to eat foods that were not kosher was quite common in Hellenis 51 tic Judaism, something analogous to the Strong's support of their assertion of their freedom to eat sacrificial food by recourse to their knowledgeable Christian monotheism. In v. 7, Paul expresses his implicit acceptance of the content of the Strong's knowledge, yet rejects their conclusion that consumption of sacrificial food is permitted. The Pauline refutatio begins in v. 7a with the adversative emphatically correcting the assessment of the Strong that have the knowl edge expressed in w. 4-5a and v. 6 that is claimed to support their consumption of sacrificial food.52 Paul does not reject the entirety of the theological content expressed in the Strong's quotations, but he bluntly refutes the notion that all of the Corinthians have the knowledge that they allege: ' , "But not everyone has this knowledge." Some Corinthiansthe Weak do not have this same knowledge and are so accustomed to idols that they still think of sacrificial food as having been offered to a supernatural being having real existence, thus defiling their (v. 7b-c) by their consumption of it.53 Lack of knowledge, weak moral consciousness, and consumption of food offered to idols lead some of the Corinthians, the Weak, to be defiled. In v. 8 there are two further quotations of the Corinthian Strong. The first quotation is , "Food will not bring us before the judgment of God" (v. 8a). In this context the word means "to bring before the judgment," rather than meaning "commend to." 54 In this quo tation the Corinthian Strong assert that the consumption of sacrificial food has no spiritual consequences for them. This Corinthian belief may stemfromtheir view that physical actions have no moral significance orfromtheir experience that no Corinthian Christians have suffered spiritual consequencesfromeating sacrificial 55 food. Although many scholars see v. 8a as a Corinthian quotation, the difficulty
51 Richard A. Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10," CBQ 40 (1978) 574-89. 52 Merklein, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2. 192. 53 Fee, First Corinthians, 379-80; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 639. 54 Wei, Erste Korintherbrief 229; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Food and Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor 8:8," CBQ 41 (1979) 292-98, esp. 296-97; Fee, First Corinthians, 382 n. 34. Barrett (First Corinthians, 195) considers this meaning to be acceptable. 55 For a list of past scholars who see v. 8 as a Corinthian slogan, see Hurd, Origin, 68. To this list may be added Barrett (First Corinthians, 195), who states that Paul quotes from the Corinthians' beliefs and then qualifies and approves them; Murphy-O'Connor, "Food and Spiritual Gifts," 292-98; Fee, First Corinthians, 382-84; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 199; Gooch, Dangerous Food, 63; Cheung, Idol Food, 134.

628

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005

lies in ascertaining whether the Corinthian position ends with v. 8a or if it contin 56 ues into v. 8b-c. If v. 8a is not a position of the Strong but is the position of Paul, 57 then Paul believes that sacrificial food is morally neutral. But if it is Paul's posi tion that any kind of food, including sacrificial food, will not bring the Corinthi ans before God in judgment, then why should Paul instruct them that eating sacrificial food amounts to idolatry, which brings God's wrathful judgment (10:122)? Rather, in 10:1-22 the apostle vividly demonstrates from Israel's history and from the meaning of pagan cultic meals that the consumption of sacrificial food connotes partnership with the pagan gods, who are demons. Thus, food, particu larly sacrificial food, has tremendously negative implications for a person's rela tionship with God. Hence, from Paul's perspective, consuming food offered to idols is certainly not an adiaphoron. We conclude, therefore, that it was only the Corinthian Strong who believed that sacrificial food would not bring them before God in judgment based on their "knowledge" about the real existence of the Father and Jesus over and against the nonexistence of pagan deities represented by their cultic statues. Does the Corinthian quotation continue into v. 8b-c, or is v. 8b-c the position of Paul? If v. 8b-c is the Strong's position, then it seems to contradict their prior advocacy of consumption of sacrificial food, since the maxim as it appears states, , , "We are no worse off if we do not eat, and we are not better off if we eat." C. K. Barrett's solution rightly suggests that v. 8b-c includes Paul's "correction of the Corinthian position."58 In this case, the Strong expressed their position as , , "We are worse off if we do not eat and better off if we eat," while the double stands as Paul's correction of their assertion. The social and economic advantages of the consumption of sacrificial food ("we are better off if we eat") would have been expressed by the Strong over against the disadvantages of abstaining from sacrificial food ("we are worse off if we do not eat"). Paul, however, disputes the Strong's notions in his partitio by stating that they are not better off for eating and they are not worse off for abstain ing. This reconstruction is especially likely in light of v. 9, which is clearly Paul's refutation of the Strong's position.59 Verse 9 serves as Paul's refutation of the Strong's assertion that they are bet ter off socially if they eat and worse off if they abstain. Paul's refutation functions For a review of the various solutions regarding v. 8, see Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom," 577-79; Willis, Idol Meat, 96-98; and Fee, First Corinthians, 381-84, esp. 383 n. 39. 57 Hurd, Origin, 123; Willis, Idol Meat, 97; Gardner, Gifts, 48-54; Smit, "Rhetorical Dispo sition," 480-81; Newton, Deity and Diet, 293-94. 58 Barrett, First Corinthians, 195; so, too, Willis, Idol Meat, 97-98; Eriksson, Traditions, 161;Cheung,M>/Fo0/, 134-36. 59 Fee, First Corinthians, 384.
56

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 629 as a warning concerning the Strong's position in v. 8, the having adversative force: , "Beware that this liberty of yours does not become a stumbling block to the Weak." It is , "this liberty of yours," which was expressed by the Strong in regard to the social advantages of eating sacrificial food, that has become the spiritual downfall of the Weak. The Strong's liberty to consume sacrificial food, which has resulted in the Weak's downfall, is antitheti cal to Paul's conduct, which does not make use of liberty () but takes care not to put an obstacle () in the way of the gospel (cf. 9:12ff.). Paul has used the word in v. 9 ironically in order to show the Strong that the use of their so-called liberty has negative consequences.60 He warns them with the admonition .61 Horsley comments that "Paul's autobiographical argu ment concerning 'freedom' in chap. 9, in which he further explains his instruc tions of 8:13, is aimed directly at this 'freedom' and 'authority' of the enlightened Corinthians."62 VII. Reconstruction of Corinthian Strong Positions and Pauline Refutations After this brief exegetical survey, I suggest a probable reconstruction63 of the Corinthian Strong's arguments in favor of sacrificial food consumption that are quoted by Paul in his partitio of 8:1-9 and are countered by Paul's inter spersed refutations as follows: Strong's Quotation: . We know that we all have knowledge. Paul's Refutation: , , , ' . Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If someone thinks to know something, one does not yet know as
Smit, "Rhetorical Disposition," 482. Schrge, Erste Brief an die Korinther, 2.261. 62 Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom," 580. 63 Richter's reconstruction of the content of the Corinthians' positions ("Anstige Freiheit in Korinth," 563 n. 5) seems to be the closest to my independent reconstruction, but with several differences. Richter does not include as Corinthian positions in 8:4b, in 8:5a, or, most importantly, any of 8:8. Moreover, he does not apply ancient rhetorical theory to the text or consider the rhetorical partitio to support the identification of Corinthian Strong quotations. Finally, Richter adheres to an elaborate partition theory that divides 1 Corinthians into six separate letters, a theory that lacks textual support and also does not take into account the unity of the letter as supported by rhetorical criticism.
61 60

630

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67,2005 one should know. But if someone loves God, that one is known by him.

Strong's Quotation:

. . . . We know that no idol exists in the world and that no God exists but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or whether on earth...

Paul's Refutation:

. As in fact there are many gods and many lords.

Strong's Quotation:

' , ' ' . But for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Paul's Refutation:

'' . , . But not everyone has this knowledge. Since some are so accustomed to idols until now, they eat this food as food offered to idols and their moral consciousness, being weak, is defiled.

Strong's Quotation:

. , . Food will not bring us before the judgment of God. We are worse off if we do not eat, and we are better off if we eat.

Paul's Refutation:

, . . We are no worse off if we do not eat, and we are not better off if we eat. Beware that this liberty of yours does not become a stumbling block to the Weak.

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS VIII. Conclusion

631

The numerous contradictions present in 1 Cor 8:1-9 have made the use of ancient rhetorical theory an appropriate heuristic tool for the elucidation of Paul's argumentation. Paul's use of a partitio, a commonly utilized rhetorical device in which orators establish their own positions and the positions of their opponents, also makes the presence of Corinthian Strong quotations in the text quite understandable. This assertion is further reinforced by the presence of Corinthian quotations at other places in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. Thus, the presence of Corinthian quotations in 8:1-9 interspersed with Pauline refutations allows for a sensible explanation of the contradictions that are evident in the text. Moreover, the rhetorical-critical solution presented in this article makes various scholarly theories unnecessary which view Paul's instructions on sacrificial food as vacillating, inconsistent, careless, or containing positions that he does not truly accept in order to be qualified later. The Corinthian Strong quotations and Pauline refutations raised in the partitio of 8:1-9 also serve to establish roughly the general order for Paul's ensuing argumentation regarding sacrificial food in the proof section of 8:10b11:1. By recognizing the presence of Corinthian Strong quotations and interspersed Pauline refutations in 8:1-9, Paul's instructions in 8:1-11:1 can be interpreted as a coherent, sustained prohibition of the intentional consumption of food offered to idols.

^ 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 the copyright 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 previously published 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 American Theological Library Association.