paul's political strategy in 1 corinthians 1-4 : volume 163. constitution and covenant

PAULrsquoS POLITICAL STRATEGY IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1ndash4

Constitution and Covenant

Volume 163

This volume examines 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 within first-century politicsdemonstrating the significance of Corinthrsquos constitution to the inter-pretation of Paulrsquos letter Bradley J Bitner shows that Paul carefullyconsidered the Roman colonial context of Corinth which underlaynumerous ecclesial conflicts Roman politics however cannot accountfor the entire shape of Paulrsquos response Bridging the Hellenism-Judaism divide that has characterized much of Pauline scholarshipBitner argues that Paul also appropriated Jewish biblical notions ofcovenant Epigraphical and papyrological evidence indicates that hischosen content and manner are best understood with reference to anecclesial politeia informed by a distinctively Christ-centered politicaltheology This emerges as a ldquopolitics of thanksgivingrdquo in 1 Corinthians14ndash9 and as a ldquopolitics of constructionrdquo in 35ndash45 where Paulredirects gratitude and glory to God in Christ This innovative accountof Paulrsquos political theology offers fresh insight into his pastoral strat-egy among nascent Gentile-Jewish assemblies

bradley j bitner is Tutor in New Testament and Greek at OakHill Theological College in London He is the coeditor with JamesR Harrison ofNewDocuments Illustrating Early Christianity Vol 11(forthcoming)

SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

MONOGRAPH SERIES

General Editor Paul Trebilco

163

PAUL rsquoS POLITICAL STRATEGY IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1ndash4


MONOGRAPH SERIES

Recent titles in the series

140 Discerning the Spiritsandre munzinger

141 The Sheep of the Foldedward w klink iii

142 The Psalms of Lament in Markrsquos Passionstephen p aherne-kroll

143 Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrewskenneth l schenck

144 The Speeches of Outsiders in Actsosvaldo padilla

145 The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Actspatricia walters

146 Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Actsmatthew sleeman

147 The Ituraeans and the Roman Near Easte a myers

148 The Politics of Inheritance in Romansmark forman

149 The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Petermartin williams

150 Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sinstobias hagerland

151 The Composition of the Gospel of Thomassimon gathercole

152 Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthiansjohn k goodrich

153 Affirming the Resurrection of the Incarnate Christmatthew d jensen

154 Riches Poverty and the Faithfulmark d mathews

155 Paul and the Rhetoric of Reversal in 1 Corinthiansmatthew r malcolm

156 The Genre of Acts and Collected Biographiessean a adams

157 The Eschatology of 1 Peterkelly d liebengood

158 The Hermeneutics of Christological Psalmody in Paulmatthew scott

159 Corinthian Wisdom Stoic Philosophy and the Ancient Economytimothy a brookins

160 Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrewsmatthew c easter

161 Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romanssarah whittle

162 The Role of Jewish Feasts in Johnrsquos Gospelgerry wheaton

Paulrsquos Political Strategy in1 Corinthians 1ndash4


Volume 163

B RADLEY J B I T NER

32 Avenue of the Americas New York NY 10013-2473 USA

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge

It furthers the Universityrsquos mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit ofeducation learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence

wwwcambridgeorgInformation on this title wwwcambridgeorg9781107088481

copy Bradley J Bitner 2015

This publication is in copyright Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreementsno reproduction of any part may take place without the writtenpermission of Cambridge University Press

First published 2015

Printed in the United States of America

A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataBitner Bradley JPaulrsquos political strategy in 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 constitution andcovenant Bradley J Bitner Oak Hill Theological College

pages cm ndash (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph series 163)Revision of the authorrsquos thesis (PhD) ndash Macquarie University 2013Includes bibliographical references and indexISBN 978-1-107-08848-1 (hardback)1 Bible Corinthians 1st IndashIV ndash Criticism interpretation etc 2 Christianityand politics ndash History of doctrines ndash Early church ca 30ndash6003 Political theology ndash Biblical teaching I TitleBS26756P6B57 201522702067ndashdc23 2015004551

ISBN 978-1-107-08848-1 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy ofURLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publicationand does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is or will remainaccurate or appropriate

CONTENTS

List of figures page ixAcknowledgments xiList of abbreviations xiii

Introduction constituting the argument 1

Part I Constitution and covenant in Corinth 11

1 Paul and politics 1311 Noster Paulus ancient perspectives on the political Paul 1512 Recent scholarship and the politics of Pauline interpretation 1813 Paul and politeia the pattern of inquiry 3314 Approaches to Paul and politics in Corinth 39

2 Law and life 4421 Lawrsquos Leben 4422 Crookrsquos challenge 4623 Crookrsquos challengers 4724 Crookrsquos conditions 49

3 The Corinthian constitution 5231 Sources for first-century Roman civic constitutions 5332 Physical features of extant civic constitutions 5633 Display and function of constitutions 6134 Structure and content of constitutions 6535 The validity of applying the constitutions to Corinth 7236 Plausible contexts for display in Corinth 7437 Constitution and the Corinthian politeia 7938 Conclusion 82

4 Traces of covenant in Corinth 8441 The Jewish community in first-century Corinth 8542 The synagogue inscription in Corinth 9143 New covenant community in Corinth 10044 Conclusion 103

vii

5 Constituting Corinth Paul and the assembly 10651 Rendering 1 Corinthians 10652 Comparative method 10753 Communication and metaphor 12254 Corinthian portraiture Corinth Paul and the assembly 12955 Conclusion 134

Part II Constitution and covenant in 1 Corinthians 11ndash46 135

6 1 Corinthians 14ndash9 and the politics of thanksgiving 13761 History of scholarship on 1 Corinthians 14ndash9 13962 The politics of thanksgiving in Graeco-Roman and Jewish

settings 14863 Politeia and the constitution of community 17064 The mediation of communal privileges in first-century

communities 17565 Promise and the confirmation of privileges in community 18666 Conclusion 187Excursus μαρτύριον and the text of 1 Corinthians 21 189

7 1 Corinthians 35ndash45 and the politics of construction 19771 History of scholarship on 1 Corinthians 35ndash45 20072 The politics of construction 21273 The politics of construction and Greek temple building 21674 The politics of construction in Roman Corinth 22475 Jeremiah and the Pauline politics of covenantal

construction 24276 Architecture in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45 25277 Authority in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45 26078 Approval in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45 27179 Acclamation in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45 275710 Conclusion 285Excursus 1 Corinthians 46 and the rhetoric of reconstruction 289

Conclusion comparison of constitutions 302

Bibliography 309Index locorum 335Subject index 343Modern author index 350

viii Contents

FIGURES

1 Map with Corinth Carthage and Urso page 542 Reconstruction of the lex Ursonensis 593 Julian Basilica at Corinth 764 Detail of Corinth synagogue inscription 925 Two views of inscribed synagogue block 946 Architect relief from Terracina 2337 Babbius inscription 238

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is a revision of my PhD thesis accepted by Macquarie University in2013 The project began in 2006 at a beachside cafeacute in NewCorinth duringa week spent with inscriptions in Old Corinth Dr BruceWinter postponedhis own plans to reconstruct Corinthrsquos constitution and encouraged myresearch I hope the result approximates what he might have achievedProfessor Alanna Nobbs invited me to the Ancient History Department

at Macquarie where in 2009 I took up the iMQRES scholarship thatfacilitated this study Professor Larry Welborn provided expert supervi-sion Larryrsquos creative and rigorous scholarship his ability to press gentlyfor greater depth and precision and his mastery of the sources and litera-ture are inspiring and humbling I am grateful to be one of his studentsDrs Peter Keegan and Chris Forbes offered further assistance and

Emeritus Prof E A Judge kindly shared his erudition Drs Jim andElisabeth Harrison provided generous academic and material supportThe careful proofreading efforts of the Reverend Dr John Davies savedme from many errors Drs Ben Millis and Paul Iversen responded to mytreatment of the Corinthian synagogue inscription in Chapter 4 Drs DonBarker Dirk Jongkind and Brent Nongbri read and commented on theExcursus to Chapter 6 Colleagues at the Macquarie New Testament andEarly Christianity lunches particularly Dr Julien Ogereau and JamesUnwin discussed the unfolding argumentAt a late stage Jeff Cayzer shared drafts of his forthcoming translation

of Johannes Weissrsquos 1910 commentary Simon Harris drew Figure 2 andScott Spuler rendered Figures 4 and 5I wish to thank Professor Paul Trebilco for accepting the manuscript

for the SNTS series Laura Morris Alexandra Poreda and others atCambridge University Press helped steer the process toward publicationand Kate Mertes expertly handled the indexing Macquariersquos AncientHistory Department and the Society for the Study of Early Christianityprovided grants in support of my research critical portions of whichwere conducted at Tyndale House (Cambridge UK) in January 2012

xi

Additionally the Society for the Study of Early Christianity contributedgenerously toward the costs of indexing this volume

Finally I am grateful to friends at Macquarie Anglican and EppingPresbyterian Reformed Churches especially to Dr Trevor and PaulineGreen for their love and care Jeanette and Brian Swanrsquos benefaction toour family overflowed Our parents Jim and Carol Bitner and Dr Johnand Ruth Ann Mansell offered constant support James John SamuelAdam Anna and Elisabeth wrestled with me prayed for me and mademe laugh Kathi alone knows the extent of her loving encouragement

xii Acknowledgments

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of ancient literary sources conform to conventions in TheSBLHandbook of Style (P H Alexander et al [eds] Peabody MA 1999)or The Oxford Classical Dictionary (S Hornblower andA J S Spawforth[eds] 4th ed) Unless otherwise noted editions and translations ofGreek and Latin authors are from the Loeb Classical LibraryInscriptions are abbreviated when possible according to Guidede lrsquoeacutepigraphiste (F Beacuterard [ed] 2010) or to G H R Horsley andJ A L Lee ldquoA Preliminary Checklist of Abbreviations of GreekEpigraphic Volumesrdquo Epigraphica 66 (1994) 129ndash70 Papyri arecited according to J F Oates et al (eds) Checklist of Editions ofGreek Latin Demotic and Coptic Papyri Ostraca and Tablets WebEdition (httpscriptoriumlibdukeedupapyrustextsclisthtml)

ABSA The Annual of the British School at AthensAE LrsquoAnneacutee EacutepigraphiqueAJA American Journal of ArchaeologyAmandry Amandry M Le monnayage des duovirs corinthiens

Paris 1988BAGD Bauer W Arndt W F Gingrich F W Danker F W

(eds) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature 2nd rev edChicago 1979

BDAG Bauer W Danker F W Arndt W F Gingrich F W(eds) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed Chicago2000

BDF Blass F Debrunner A Funk R W (eds) A GreekGrammar of the New Testament and Other EarlyChristian Literature Chicago 1961

BICSSup Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of theUniversity of London Supplement

xiii

CBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCIG Corpus inscriptionum graecarumCIJ Corpus inscriptionum JudaicarumCIL Corpus inscriptionum latinarumCorinth I3 Scranton R L Corinth Volume I Part III Monuments

in the Lower Agora and North of the Archaic TemplePrinceton 1951

Corinth I5 Weinberg S S Corinth Volume I Part V TheSoutheast Building the Twin Basilicas the MosaicHouse Princeton 1960

Corinth IX3 Sturgeon M C Corinth Volume IX Part 3 Sculpturethe Assemblage from the Theater Princeton 2004

Corinth XVI Scranton R L Corinth Volume XVI MediaevalArchitecture Princeton 1957

Corinth XX Williams II C K Bookidis N (eds) Corinth theCentenary 1896ndash1996 Volume XX Princeton 2003

CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorumDE Ruggiero E de (ed) Dizionario epigrafico di antichitagrave

romane Roma 1895ndash1997Dig Mommsen Th Kruumlger P Watson A (eds) Digesta

The Digest of Justinian Philadelphia 1985FIRA III Riccobono S (ed) Fontes Iuris Romani Ante-

justiniani vol 3 2nd ed Florence 1943GRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine StudiesIG Incriptiones GraecaeIGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentesIJO Inscriptiones Judaicae OrientisInst Iust Thomas J A C Institutiones The Institutes of

Justinian Cape Town 1975Iversen Iversen P Corinth Volume VIII Part IV The

Inscriptions ForthcomingJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJRA Journal of Roman ArchaeologyJRS Journal of Roman StudiesJSNT Journal for the Study of the New TestamentJTS Journal of Theological StudiesKent Kent J H Corinth Volume VIII Part III The

Inscriptions 1926ndash1950 Princeton 1966Lampe Lampe G W H A Patristic Greek Lexicon Oxford

1961

xiv List of abbreviations

lex Irn Gonzaacutelez J Crawford MC ldquoThe Lex Irnitana A NewCopy of the Flavian Municipal Lawrdquo JRS 76 (1986)147ndash243

lex Urs Crawford M C (ed) Roman Statutes I no 25BICSSup 64 London 1996

LHR Law and History ReviewLSJ Liddell H G Scott R Jones H S A Greek-English

Lexicon With rev suppl Oxford 1996Meritt Meritt B D Corinth Volume VIII Part I Greek

Inscriptions 1896ndash1927 Cambridge 1931M-M Moulton J H Milligan G (eds) The Vocabulary of

the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri andOther Non-Literary Sources London 1930 reprPeabody MA 1997

Muraoka Muraoka T AGreek-English Lexicon of the SeptuagintLouvain 2009

NovT Novum TestamentumNPNF1 A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of

the Christian Church first series vol 10 ndash

Saint Chrysostom homilies on the Gospel of SaintMatthew (ed Philip Schaff Grand Rapids Eerdmans1978)

NTS New Testament StudiesOCD Hornblower S Spawforth A J S (eds) The Oxford

Classical Dictionary 4th ed Oxford 2012OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones SelectaeOLD Glare P G W (ed) Oxford Latin Dictionary Oxford

1968ndashPG Migne J-P (ed) Patrologiae cursus completus

Series graeca Paris 1857ndash83PDubl Greek Papyri from DublinPIR Klebs E et al (eds) Prosopographia Imperii Romani

Berlin 1897ndashPLond Greek Papyri in the British MuseumPOxy Oxyrhnchus PapyriPSchoslashyen Papyri graecae SchoslashyenPYadin The Documents from the Bar Kochba Period in the Cave

of LettersRE Pauly A F (ed) Paulys Realencyclopaumldie der clas-

sischen Altertumswissenchaft 1893ndash New edG Wissowa 49 vols Munich 1908ndash

List of abbreviations xv

REA Revue des eacutetudes anciennesREB Revue des eacutetudes byzantinesREG Revue des eacutetudes grecquesRP I Rizakis A D Zoumbaki S B Kantireacutea M (eds)

Roman Pelopponese I Roman Personal Names in TheirSocial Context (Achaia Arcadia Argolis Corinthia andEleia) Meletēmata 31 Paris 2001

RPC I Amandry M Burnett A Ripollegraves P P (eds) RomanProvincial Coinage 11 From the Death of Caesar tothe Death of Vitellius (44 BCndashAD 69) London 1998

RS I Crawford M C (ed) Roman Statutes I Bulletin of theInstitute of Classical Studies suppl 64 London 1996

SB Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus AumlgyptenSEG Supplementum epigraphicum GraecumSIG Sylloge inscriptionum graecarumTDNT Kittel G (ed) Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament Translated by G W Bromiley 10 volsGrand Rapids 1964ndash1976

TWNT Kittel G (ed) Theologisches Woumlrterbuch zum NeuenTestament 10 vols Stuttgart 1932ndash1979

TynBul Tyndale BulletinWest West A B Corinth Volume VIII Part II Latin

Inscriptions 1896ndash1926 Cambridge 1931ZNW Zeitschrift fuumlr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und

die Kunde der aumllteren KircheZPE Zeitschrift fuumlr Papyrologie und Epigraphik

xvi List of abbreviations

INTRODUCTION CONSTITUTINGTHE ARGUMENT

Constituted Colony

In the aftermath of Julius Caesarrsquos violent death in his name and inaccordance with his drafted plans several transmarine colonies werefounded de novo Among them were Corinth in Achaia Carthage inAfrica Proconsularis and Urso in Baetica (Spain)1 The founding of aRoman colony required a constitution Caesar at Rome appointed theconstitution that formed these three colonies2 Their charters linked themfirmly to Rome and its law and erected a framework for public life withinwhich local and regional traditions were adapted3 Graeco-Roman histor-ians refer to the foundation of Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis in 44 BCas a ldquorestorationrdquo4 Some hold up Corinth as a paradigm of Caesariancolonial foundation5 Corinthrsquos constitution ndash publicly granted and laterphysically displayed on bronze tablets ndash was a crucial element in theritual foundation that called the community into existence6

More than a symbol the Corinthian constitution continued to shape theform of civic life Law and life were interrelated in complex and far-reaching ways privilege and status land use construction and laborcommerce litigation and inheritance were among the constitutionallyframed aspects of colonial life More than a century after RomanCorinthrsquos foundation an official letter penned on behalf of neighboringArgos complains that Corinth was wielding its colonial (ie constitutional)status invidiously in the region7 In this and other evidence we see theongoing effects of the constitution on notions of civic and individual identity

1 These three are consistently grouped in Roman (and modern) historiography2 For Caesar as οἰκιστής of Roman Corinth see Paus 231 cf 212 For Caesarrsquos

interest in law see Suet Iul 4423 On the charter and public life in Carthage see Rives (1995)4 Strabo 8623 Diod Sic 322715 Plut Caesar 575 Paus 212 Cf Appian Pun 136 Dio Cass 435036 Walbank (1997 95ndash130) Gargola (1995 80ndash2)7 Ps-Julian Letters 198 409cndashd

1

and praxis in the first two centuries AD Within this constitutional frame-work Roman law ndash applied and adapted to different domains of life both inLatin and Greek ndash shaped attitudes and assumptions about rights andobligations across a variety of social groups Magistrates and slavesitinerant merchants and agricultural laborers in the surrounding terri-torium participants in public banquets suppliants of AsklepiosDemeter and Kore visiting spectators and competitors in theIsthmian Games ndash all came into vital contact in a variety of ways withthe dynamic form of life the politeia generated by the Corinthianconstitution Birthed from Caesarrsquos unsystematic and privately com-posed memoranda8 the lex coloniae therefore provides an indispensa-ble frame of reference for understanding life in early Roman Corinththe colony named in his honor For this reason it is also crucial for theinterpretation of the Pauline epistle known as 1 Corinthians

Covenanted Community

In the wake of Jesusrsquos violent death and resurrection in his name and inaccordance with his wishes a ldquominister of the new covenantrdquo arrived inCorinth and planted a new community9 That minister the apostle Pauldescribed the ekklēsiarsquos structure and life in legal-political terms it wasan assembly10 a temple11 an irruption of the divine kingdom12 itsmembers individually new foundations13 Among its reasons for gather-ing were quasi-judicial matters14 covenant meals15 and the collection offunds16 In his correspondence Paul presupposes certain covenantalregulations as normative for the community17 and he paradigmatically

8 Cic Phil 239100 records the confirmation championed by Antony of Caesarrsquosacta Cf Frederiksen (1965) Scarano Ussani (1992 29ndash31)

9 Paul as minister of the new covenant 2 Cor 36 as planter-builder of the ekklēsia 1 Cor36 10 2 Cor 1219 1310 as commissioned apostle and ambassador of Jesus 1 Cor 11ndash316 21ndash2 91ndash2 1123ndash26 151ndash11 2 Cor 11ndash2 18ndash22 217ndash36 511ndash21 133ndash4

10 1 Cor 12 passim Important contributions on ekklēsia include Judge (2008) Miller(2008) Trebilco (2011) Van Kooten (2012) To evoke the political resonances of the termin a diaspora Graeco-Roman context we translate ekklēsia as ldquoassemblyrdquo throughout

11 1 Cor 316ndash17 cf 619 2 Cor 61612 1 Cor 420 69 1113 2 Cor 51714 1 Cor 51ndash13 61ndash9 cf 1424ndash25 2 Cor 131ndash1015 1 Cor 101ndash22 1117ndash3416 1 Cor 161ndash4 2 Cor 81ndash24 91ndash1517 Eg Deut 1915 in 2 Cor 131

2 Introduction constituting the argument

aligns the Corinthian assembly with the Israelite covenant community18

Thus although the term appears only infrequently in the Corinthiancorrespondence we are justified in taking ldquocovenantrdquo as the operativename for such a pattern of Pauline communal constructionWithin a century of its founding the ekklēsia was again addressed in

civic terms as ldquothat most confirmed and ancient assembly of theCorinthiansrdquo Its members were called on to prove themselves asldquothose who live as citizens the unwavering politeia of Godrdquo19 Paulrsquosinitial testimony to the merits of the crucified and risen Jesus as patronand lord of the assembly called the community into political existenceTo that foundational teaching were added his subsequent epistles theentire complex forming an incomplete charter concerning vital aspects ofthe communityrsquos form of life20 According to the Pauline evidence byaudacious and asymmetrical analogy the Corinthian assembly wasformed with reference to its larger colonial setting It too was a kind ofconstituted-covenanted community

Argument and Aims

This investigation contributes to scholarship on both Roman Corinth and1 Corinthians however its principal focus is the interface of two distinctpoliteiai in the text of the epistle In introducing our argument earlier wehave juxtaposed the political notions of constitution and covenant in theearly Roman colony and its early Christian assembly Our hypothesis isthat both constitution and covenant are necessary categories for theinterpretation of Paulrsquos letter Although a series of steps is involved intesting this hypothesis the essence of the entire argument may be statedsimply in 1 Corinthians 11ndash46 we witness a collision of constitutionsThis clash is the result of Paul contending for a specifically ecclesialpoliteia with reference to the larger colonial politeia21

In 1992 John Barclay argued that highly permeable social boundariesbetween the assembly and the larger colony at Corinth were a majorfactor in shaping the ways the Corinthians heard and responded to (orresisted) Paulrsquos teaching This meant according to Barclay that the

18 Eg 1 Cor 101ndash2219 1 Clem 476 (cf pr) 544 Translations adapted from Ehrman (2003)20 Cf 1 Clem 47121 The exigence of 1 Corinthians was related to ldquoweakrdquo boundaries between the ecclesial

and colonial communities see Barclay (1992) repr in Barclay (2011 181ndash203) CfHorrell (1996) De Vos (1999) Adams (2000)


ldquocorrelation between the harmony of the Corinthiansrsquo social context andtheir particular theology is evident at a number of levelsrdquo22 Among thelevels Barclay did not explore in detail were the legal and politicalnotions and practices underlying the ldquoreligious ethosrdquo of some in thecolony and assembly23 Others have pursued the influence of colonialpolitics on members of the community A number of studies havefruitfully investigated the letter as a species of deliberative discourseboth with reference to ancient rhetorical conventions24 and modernfeminist-rhetorical theory25 However for the most part these havemade use of literary sources that attest principally to elite ideology andsocial conventions Few have drawn significantly on the epigraphyrelevant to Roman Corinth26 Many of these ldquopoliticalrdquo studies assumea closer correlation with a Graeco-Roman rhetorical genre than theevidence of 1 Corinthians perhaps warrants particularly given themany ways in which Paul appeals to the Jewish scriptures at key pointsin his argument27

This latter issue draws us into the larger question of the JudaismHellenism divide that persists in Pauline scholarship In many casesthis seems to be driven not only by the necessity of scholarly focus butalso by assumptions about Paul his ldquoallegiancesrdquo and the interpretivestance one takes with respect to his letters and communities28 What isclear is that Paulrsquos letters must be interpreted at the intersection ofJewish Greek and Roman influences The challenge of course is ingetting the balance just right An appeal to the Corinthian constitution isnecessary but not sufficient for the interpretation of the Pauline text andcommunity Covenant is the Jewish analog underlying Paulrsquos discourseand animating the social and theological collision that is inscribed in1 Corinthians29 Constitution and covenant with their attendant political

22 Barclay (1992 67 2011 199)23 Cf Winter (2003)24 See esp Welborn (1987 109ndash11) Mitchell (1991) Litfin (1994) Winter (1997)

Dutch (2005)25 Many in the ldquoHarvard schoolrdquo have built on Schuumlssler Fiorenza (1987) See eg

Miller (2008) Kim (2010)26 Notable exceptions are the works of Winter and the recent study by Concannon

(2014) For the use of inscriptions in this manner for 2 Corinthians see Welborn (2011)27 See eg Lampe and Sampley (2010) Malcolm (2013)28 On the so-called divide see Engberg-Pedersen (2001) For more recent challenges to

traditional author- or text-centered interpretations see Macdonald (2004) Cameron andMiller (2011)

29 Cf Rosner (1994) Christiansen (1995) Blanton (2007) Metso (2008)


theologies30 or politeiai31 move us closer to understanding the exigencestructure and force of Paulrsquos argumentWhen we come to Paulrsquos text with both constitution and covenant in

view we see that in 1 Cor 14ndash9 his testimony to the new covenantMessiah (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦΧριστοῦ 16) bears within itself the blueprintof a distinctive politics and ethics for the nascent Corinthian community(κοινωνία 19) To grasp the shape of that design we must attend to thetext of 1 Corinthians within the framework of ancient comparativepolitics This in itself is not a novel approach for investigating Paulrsquospastoral strategy32 Nevertheless our aim and what has not beenattempted before is to give an account with reference to both constitu-tion and covenant of those elements of political theology that character-ize Paulrsquos pastoral and rhetorical strategy in 1 Cor 11ndash46To do so requires preparatory work especially on the constitutional

side A growing number of studies in recent decades have suggested thatthe use of extant colonial andmunicipal charters is productive for reading1 Corinthians33 Extant evidence from these constitutional documents hasbeen applied to Paulrsquos response to litigation in 1 Cor 61ndash8 (Winter) and tothe structure of magisterial authority and status in 1 Cor 1ndash6 (ClarkeGoodrich) and 1117ndash31 (Walters) with illuminating results Howeverthese studies have assumed rather than proven that such a use is warrantedB WWinter argued in 2001 that on the basis of the available evidence theCorinthian constitution might be effectively ldquoreconstructedrdquo as a fruitfulcontext for reading Paulrsquos letters to Corinth That the evidence from twoconstitutions from first-century Roman Spain has become more readilyavailable than ever in recent years means that the time is ripe for us to go

30 Political theology broadly signifies a vision of privileges obligations and socialrelations emerging from assumptions about the basis and exercise of sovereignty In thissense the phrase closely approximates politeia the Greek term used for a constitutionand for the form of public life it engendered We argue that 1 Corinthians marks the sitewhere the political theologies of the Corinthian colony and the Pauline assembly collideOn political theology in relation to Pauline studies see Taubes (2004) See furtherChapter 1

31 Politeia as a primary category for the analysis of early Christianity Judge (1960 18ndash29) Winter (1994 2) For politeia as ldquocitizenshiprdquo ldquocivic activityrdquo ldquocivic dutyrdquo or evenldquoterritoryrdquo see Robert and Robert Bulletin eacutepigraphique 1960202 1966238 1968325cf 1971621 On the Jewish politeia see Rajak (1984) Troiani (1994)

32 Cf Barclay (2011 81ndash106) who argues that political philosophy civic constitutionsand the ldquoelasticrdquo termconcept politeia may be ldquouseful analytical toolsrdquo

33 Notably Winter (1991) Clarke (1993) Winter (2001) Walters (2010) Goodrich(2012 64ndash9)


beyond previous studies34 This study applies the contours of a well-knownJulio-Claudian constitutional template to Roman Corinth and then relatesthis evidence to 1 Cor 11ndash46 In doing so it lays the foundation for a newand significant line of research into the Corinthian correspondence and itscolonial context

As we have ventured into largely uncharted territory we proceedcarefully For our appeal to the constitution for the interpretation ofPaulrsquos letter to set up a convincing comparison we must contend withthe methodological questions involved in the combined use of suchancient texts and related evidence This preparatory work of restoringthe constitution to Corinth lies at the heart of Part One Moreover for ourappeal to covenant as a category in counterpoint to constitution to bepersuasive we have had to examine the evidence for the Jewish synago-gue experience in Corinth and the traces of new covenantal discourse inthe epistle Only after constructing such a comparative framework do weturn to the primary task and object of inquiry the exegesis of the Paulinetext particularly 1 Cor 14ndash9 and 35ndash45

Methodology

As with most contemporary studies this is an eclectic methodologyshaped by necessity and by the evidence we handle Each chapter inPart One is methodological at its core Here it suffices to give a briefaccount of the full articulation and bibliography that we defer until wereach those successive chapters Because we are engaging in a compara-tive analysis we must establish an analytical category and stance We doso in Chapter 1 establishing the integrative category of politeia andsituating the present study in an established stream of social-historicalinvestigations Since we draw heavily on ldquolegalrdquo inscriptions we arguein Chapter 2 for a critical use of Roman law to illumine first-century lifeChapters 3 and 4 draw on a range of epigraphical archaeological andliterary sources to anchor constitution and covenant in Roman CorinthChapter 5 deals with important hermeneutical issues by describing ourdifferential comparative method and the positive communicativeassumptions that bind Paul to the Corinthian community This includesa case study on βεβαιόω in 1 Cor 16 8 illustrating semantic and socialconventions preparatory for Chapter 6 it also delineates a theory of

34 The publication of the lex Irnitana by Gonzaacutelez with Crawford (1986) and the criticaledition of the lex Ursonensis by Crawford in RS I 25 (1996) form the basis for our templatein Chapter 3


metaphor adequate for our exegesis of Paulrsquos building metaphor inChapter 7

Scope and Structure

If an understanding of the collision of politeiai in Paulrsquos text is the aim ofour argument how do we set about constructing an adequate frameworkfor the exegesis we wish to undertake We approach the problem in twomajor movements reflected in the two parts of the study In Part One weaddress the methodological issues at stake in constituting such a compar-ison Then in Part Two we turn to the text of 1 Corinthians Because ofthe work required to lay out the method and the critical textual basis ofour comparison in Part One and patiently to infer as much as possiblefrom exegesis we have limited our scope in Part Two to a focus on tworhetorical units within 1 Cor 11ndash46Part One (ldquoConstitution and Covenant in Corinthrdquo) begins in

Chapter 1 to situate our constitutional comparison in the larger streamof antecedent studies of Paul and politics We demonstrate that ourinterest in attending to the shape of Paulrsquos political theology in1 Corinthians is not merely a contemporary concern but one that hasancient precedent We also trace the various and somewhat conflictingpolitical interpretive approaches to Paul in contemporary scholarship ndash

according to their methods and aims ndash to establish our own pattern ofinquiry and to connect it with the underdeveloped intuition concerningthe use of the Corinthian constitution by scholars of early Christianity Asthe contextualization of the extant Spanish charters for Corinth raisesquestions about the fit of legal evidence and everyday life we arguebriefly in Chapter 2 for the validity of such a use of evidence and outlinethe conditions for its effectiveness In Chapter 3 we come to thematter ofthe Corinthian charter itself in light of the relevant comparanda By aclose examination of the features contents and function of the Spanishcharters we offer two hypotheses for where the Corinthian constitutionmay have been displayed in the first-century colony More importantlywe trace its effect by means of a case study on the lives and labor of avariety of figures in early Roman Corinth to demonstrate decisively thenexus between law and life for many of those who may have participatedin the Pauline assemblyIn Chapter 4 we begin to pivot toward Paulrsquos text through a consid-

eration of the evidence for a Jewish synagogue community in Corinth Inconsidering the elements comprising Second Temple covenantal dis-course particularly in its Deuteronomic forms we trace the marks that


Paulrsquos conception of his new covenant ministry left on the Corinthiancorrespondence Finally in Chapter 5 we complete our turn toward1 Corinthians by outlining our comparative methodology and commu-nicative assumptions concluding with an impressionistic portrait ndash of thecolony the apostle and the community ndash that serves as a backdrop to ourexegetical explorations in the following chapters

Part Two (ldquoConstitution and Covenant in 1 Cor 11ndash46rdquo) consists oftwo exegetical chapters in which we begin to apply the comparativeframework of Part One Our work in detailing the contents and relevanceof the charter evidence to Roman Corinth is repaid in these chaptersEach exegetical investigation draws on the Corinthian constitution asalternately an anchor a frame a filter and a foil That is the constitu-tional evidence allows us to anchor certain social and political categoriesand to frame certain questions in first-century Corinth that are suggestedby the language of Paulrsquos text Furthermore the constitution acts as afilter through which other evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewishsources must pass if it is to be convincingly connected to PaulrsquosCorinthian epistle and its auditors Moreover the constitution fulfillsthe role of a foil in terms of the political theology emerging in 1 Cor11ndash46 allowing us to perceive more clearly the dynamics of the colli-sion between colony and assembly

In Chapter 6 we begin with a selective history of scholarship on Paulrsquosopening thanksgiving in 14ndash9 This directs us to legal and politicalfeatures that interpreters have perceived in Paulrsquos text It also revealsneglected epigraphical evidence that provides critical insight into socialconventions relevant to Paulrsquos thanksgiving With the help of the con-stitution we discover that Paulrsquos politics of thanksgiving centered on thelogic of the testimonial has both resonance and dissonance with abroader social pattern observable in Roman Corinth Within this patternsit competing conceptions of community and privilege that rest on asovereign oath Because our interpretation takes its cue in part from themeaning of μαρτύριον in 1 Cor 16 and interprets that term in light of1 Cor 21 we deal in the Excursus to Chapter 6 with the difficult textualvariant of 21 (μαρτύριον vs μυστήριον) to argue that μαρτύριον is thepreferred reading

In Chapter 7 we turn to the central integrative rhetorical unit of 1 Cor1ndash4 namely Paulrsquos argument related to himself Apollos and the com-munity in 35ndash45 Because Paulrsquos formulation in 14ndash9 raises questionsthat it does not answer about the shape that authority loyalty and glorymight take in such an ecclesial politeia we follow the intuitions of thosewho have connected 14ndash9 to 35ndash45 to take the measure of his


unfolding political theology Once again a selective history of scholar-ship on 35ndash45 leads us to insights that suggest it is a carefully con-structed unit that focuses on the matter of a properly wise evaluation ofministers ministry and the assembly Again too we see that certainepigraphical sources surfacing momentarily in earlier scholarship havebeen subsequently ignored We give them full attention to uncover therelevant social pattern they reveal Within a category opened andanchored in Roman Corinth by the constitution we perceive Paulrsquosstrategy as he reconstructs the politics of public building centered onthe logic of evaluation to cast a new vision for the assembly We arguethat constitution and covenant (particularly with reference to Jeremiahrsquoscovenantal commission in Jer 110) provide Paul with the metaphoricalmaterials for his rhetorical reconstruction of the nature of authority themessage and manner of ministry the eschatological nature of evaluationand the proper focus of glory Because 1 Cor 46 reveals much that isimportant for our understanding of 35ndash45 and because it is beset withexegetical difficulties we apply in the Excursus to Chapter 7 the para-digm of the rhetoric of reconstruction to offer a new interpretation of itsmeaningIn the Conclusion we draw together the findings of our investigation

and highlight the strength and productivity of our comparative methodWe contend that constitution and covenant further our understanding ofPaulrsquos culturally accommodating pastoral strategy his interaction withRoman law and the resulting collision of political theologies visible inthe text of 1 Corinthians Finally we suggest directions for futureresearch that might build on the groundwork laid in the study


PART I

Constitution and covenant in Corinth

1

PAUL AND POLITICS

In constitutional adjudication arguments may be based not onlyon precedent but also on other conventional modes of constitu-tional discourse ndash text original meaning structure moral rea-soning and consequences Gerhardt (2008 97)

Roman law had sufficiently established itself in the Greek East by thetime of Augustus that its statutes and categories could be appealedto even wielded not only in colonies such as Roman Corinth buteven by non-Roman communities In a conflict between Chios andcertain Romans resident among them early in the first century ADL Antistius Vetus the previous provincial governor rendered a deci-sion in favor of the Romans However the Chians refused to acquiesceand when the next governor entered the province they approached himand reopened their case The governor invited arguments and bothsides submitted their best documentary evidence In the end theChians prevailed against the Romans startlingly on the basis ofRoman constitutional evidence They were able to produce a sealedcopy of an eighty-year-old Sullan senatus consultum guaranteeing andconfirming their rights and privileges1 Roman legal text overturnedprecedentMuch like a court case (ancient or modern) any interpretation of a text

is an agōn a struggle to establish meaning persuasively This is espe-cially true of constitutional texts with long histories of interpretation andmany interested parties In this sense the hermeneutics of historical textsshares much in common with that of legal texts thus also do therhetorical strategies of historians and biblical scholars often mirrorthose of jurists and advocates In the courtroom of the academy or thechurch the historian and exegete ndash like the lawyer ndash must adduce

1 Cf Bitner (2014b)

13

evidence establish its relevance to the matter at hand and situate the casewithin the larger stream of precedent2

Scholarship often lauds those who overturn precedent however thesituation in a court of law is somewhat different There onersquos caseadvances with the aid of invoked precedents Text and precedentcombine to persuade others of the validity and coherence of the argu-ment As in the Chian episode described in the first paragraph textualevidence frequently trumps precedent weighty though the precedentmay be3

In what follows we begin to situate the framework for our argumentwithin the history of scholarship with regard to Paul and politics gener-ally and Paul and politics in Corinth in particular4 As we make our casewe appeal to and analyze certain precedents while pointing out the weak-nesses of others We do this in four stages First the opening argumentdemonstrates that ancient interpreters of Paul and 1 Corinthians providean important precedent for the kind of political interpretation we under-take These early fathers we call as witnesses lend support to our consti-tutional comparison Second we divide recent interpretations of theldquopolitical Paulrdquo into four streams according to method of engagementwith the Pauline text and three categories according to interpretive aimWhile we have sympathies across these streams and categories themethod adopted here tends most toward social history and the aim towardunderstanding Paulrsquos text Third having established our own approachwithin the broader field of Paul and politics we highlight three scho-larly precedents for the appropriation of politeia as an overarchingpattern of inquiry that gives shape to what we mean by the ldquopoliticalrdquoFinally we examine recent approaches to Paul and politics in RomanCorinth and uncover a significant constitutional lacuna one that thefollowing chapters begin to fill as we adduce textual and archaeologicalevidence for conceptualizing the Corinthian constitution Thus we layout the lines of precedent each having its own value however we aimto confirm or overturn certain of them on the basis of textual evidence inChapters 6 and 7

2 See Gadamer (1984 289ndash305) Cf Thiselton (1992 32)3 Technically classical Roman law had no formal theory of precedent seeWolff (1951

80ndash2) Metzger (2004 243ndash75)4 My ldquoreasoned eclecticismrdquo foregrounds methodological presuppositions and aims

entailed in our constitutional comparison Each chapter in Part Two begins by rehearsingthe relevant specific history of scholarship

14 Constitution and covenant in Corinth

11 Noster Paulus ancient perspectives on the political Paul

We open by appealing briefly to three patristic witnesses each with hisown historical context and concerns However together they offer anancient precedent for a political even a constitutional reading of PaulrsquosCorinthian correspondence As we follow the trail backward fromJerome through John Chrysostom to 1 Clement an increasing plausi-bility emerges for interpreting 1 Cor 11ndash46 in the framework of aconstitutional comparison

111 Jeromersquos Paul Iurisconsultus Dei

In AD 399 Jerome paused in his translation of the Hebrew scriptures Hehad been asked by his friend Oceanus in Rome to pen an epistolary eulogyfor Fabiola the late Christian benefactress In the course of extolling hervirtuous life Jerome articulated a constitutional contrast ldquoThe laws ofCaesar are different it is true from the laws of Christ Papinianus com-mands one thing our own Paul (noster Paulus) anotherrdquo5

Although Jerome was not the only writer to invoke such a comparisonbetween Roman law and Christian law his formulation is fascinating inseveral ways First he explicitly differentiated two constitutional systemsthe ldquolaws of Caesarrdquo and ldquothe laws of Christrdquo These were for Jerome twolegal systems deriving from two supreme magistrates An oppositionemerged not only in terms of the lord of each law nor merely in thecontent of the commands but most importantly in the authorized inter-preters of the respective constitutions On the one hand the late second- toearly third-century jurist Papinian stood for the venerable tradition ofRoman legal interpretation Juristic opinion on legal matters particularlyof jurists granted the ius respondendi by the emperors became enshrinedin the living tradition of Roman law6 By contrast Jerome positioned Paulas the jurist of Christ likening him to a Roman lawyer7 For the Christiansin Jeromersquos view Paul of Tarsus was the iurisconsultus Dei the author-itative interpreter of the Churchrsquos divinely granted constitution8

We point to this constitutional contrast framed by Jerome to emphasizethe plausibility of our investigation on the basis of ancient interpreters of

5 Jerome Ep 773 (CSEL 5539)6 See Inst Iust 128 PomponiusDig 12248ndash50 and Gaius Inst 17 Cf MacCormack

(1998 11ndash14) Frier (1996 962ndash3)7 With the emphatic ldquonoster Paulusrdquo Jerome compares the apostle to the great third-

century jurist Julius Paulus8 Jerome Ep 772 (CSEL 5538)

Paul and politics 15

Paul And Jeromewas not alone among them Other evidence from the latesecond through fourth centuries demonstrates that conflict with regard toChrist and Caesar is not simply a concern of modern scholarship9 EarlyChristian writers participated in a larger political discourse in whichRoman law figured prominently particularly in terms of self-definitionself-presentation and legitimization10 Within this discourse Jeromersquosfocus on Paul as a key figure in the early Christian formulation of ecclesiallaw and life provides prima facie evidence for our central concern namelyto interpret Paulrsquos argument in 1 Cor 11ndash46 in its Roman constitutionalsetting

112 Chrysostomrsquos Paul Philosopher of Politeia

Reading Paulrsquos argument in terms of Roman law in Corinth finds furtherjustification in earlier patristic authors Prior to Jerome John Chrysostomoften read Paul in political terms Chrysostomrsquos sensitivity to the legaland political agonistics in Paul particularly in his Corinthian correspon-dence has been recognized11 For Chrysostom writing late in the fourthcentury Paul was (among other things12) a legal interpreter who appliesGodrsquos commands to his people13 Furthermore Chrysostom utilized thephilosophical and constitutional category of politeia to understand Paulrsquosteaching and authority with regard to the early churches and the properlyChristian way of life14 Chrysostomrsquos use of the term politeia is nuancedhowever it sketches a Paul who stands between IsraelrsquosMosaic covenant(the ldquoold politeiardquo) and the constitutional contours of the early Christiancommunities (the ldquonew politeiardquo) In comparing John the Baptist to PaulChrysostomrsquos view of the latter as a philosopher of politeia emergesclearly

[B]ut [John] dwelt in the wilderness as in Heaven showing forthall strictness of self-restraint And from there like some angelfrom Heaven he went down unto the cities being a champion of

9 Best known Augustine de Civ D eg 1917 226 Cf Markus (1970 154ndash86) VanOort (1991 18ndash163)

10 Jacobs (2006 86ndash7)11 Mitchell (1991) Mitchell (2002) Mitchell (2010) esp ch 2 ldquoThe agōn of Pauline

Interpretationrdquo12 Mitchell (2002 432) notes that in Chrysostom ldquo[t]here is a Paul for everyone to be

had or rather carefully constructedrdquo13 Mitchell (2010 28)14 Eg Hom 1 Cor 416 (NPNF1 1274) politeia as Paulrsquos manner of life held up for

imitation See further Chrysostomrsquos Adv Jud passim


godliness and a crowned victor over theworld and a philosopherof that philosophy which is worthy of the heavens And thesethingswere when sinwas not yet put away when the law had notyet ceased when death was not yet bound when the brazen gateswere not yet broken up but while the ancient polity still was inforce (ἀλλrsquo ἔτι τῆς παλαιᾶς κρατούσης πολιτείας) Such is thenature of a noble and thoroughly vigilant soul for it is every-where springing forward and passing beyond the limits set to itas Paul also did with respect to the new polity (καθάπερ καὶ ὁΠαῦλος ἐπὶ τῆς καινῆς ἐποίει πολιτείας)15

Among Chrysostomrsquos variegated portraits of Paul here is one of theapostle as philosopher-founder of a new politeia a heavenly constitutionthat issues in a new manner of life (of which Paul for Chrysostom wasthe paragon) We add Chrysostomrsquos testimony to that of Jerome asevidence for early views of the political Paul that provide a precedentfor our political comparison

113 1 Clement The Pauline Assembly as DivinelyConfirmed Politeia

The plausibility of our endeavor to read 1 Cor 11ndash46 in constitutionalcomparison is strengthened yet again by the language and categoriesinvoked by an even earlier interpreter one who wrote within the space ofa few generations of Paulrsquos ministry in Corinth16 In his epistle to theCorinthians the author of 1 Clement corroborated and expanded on thepolitical dimensions of Paulrsquos letter17 1 Clement addressed the church inPauline and political terms as ldquothat most confirmed and ancient assembly ofthe Corinthiansrdquo (τὴν βεβαιοτάτην καὶ ἀρχαίαν Κορινθίων ἐκκλησίαν)18

Formerly they heeded the word of Christ received his Spirit and wereunwavering (ἀμεταμέλητοι) in their way of life (πολιτεία)19 Since theyhad fallen into strife and schism Clement enjoined the members of theassembly to recall Paulrsquos instruction and to perform Christrsquos commands20

In doing so they would prove themselves to be ldquothose who live as citizens

15 Hom Matt 34 (NPNF1 1065)16 Ehrman (2003 vol 1 23ndash5) cf Welborn (2004)17 See Welborn (2003)18 1 Clem 47619 1 Clem 27ndash820 1 Clem 471 491


the unwavering way of life fromGodrdquo (οἱ πολιτευόμενοι τὴν ἀμεταμέλητονπολιτείαν τοῦ θεοῦ)21

The presence in 1 Clement of constitutional language and categoriesis palpable The writer offers us our earliest ldquopoliticalrdquo commentary on1 Corinthians even if he combines Pauline terminology and argumentswith his own political rhetoric in a bid to admonish the assembly of hisown day22

114 Summary Paul and Politeia according to Ancient Testimony

The testimony of Jerome Chrysostom and 1 Clement thus provides uswith early patristic layers of interpretation that bear witness to a funda-mentally political framework operative in the reception and argument of1 Corinthians a framework that lends itself to a constitutional compar-ison Our opening argument has demonstrated that these ancient inter-preters provide a preamble to our project by their reading of Paul ndash inClementrsquos case particularly in connection with Corinth ndash as the apostle ofpoliteia the early Christian constitutional philosopher and exemplar23

We turn now to a two-stage taxonomy of recent political interpretationsof Paul differentiated first according to their methods and then accordingto their aims

12 Recent scholarship and the politics of Paulineinterpretation

Our next set of witnesses is more selective and varied Some are knownfor their challenges to the court of scholarly consensus In their varietythey highlight the diversity of approaches to Paul and politics and what isat stake in the political and theological agonistics of Pauline interpreta-tion They are largely contemporary scholars not at all because the fifththrough nineteenth centuries were devoid of political interpretations ofPaul and 1 Corinthians24 Rather the methods and aims of these more

21 1 Clem 544 translations differ slightly from Ehrmanrsquos 2003 Loeb edition forἀμεταμέλητος of political stability in public inscriptions see IPriene 1146ndash8 SEG391243IV5ndash9

22 Welborn (1987a) Repr in Welborn (1997 1ndash42)23 Jacobs (2006) and Beck (1930) Cf Humfress (2007 173ndash5) with up-to-date

bibliography24 Earlier interpreters and interaction with the ldquopoliticalrdquo in Paul and 1 Corinthians

Heinrici (1880)


recent interpreters adequately represent and in fact epitomize importantimpulses in earlier scholarship25

To situate our approach to 1 Corinthians in relation to the precedentsthese interpreters exemplify they are classified in two ways by methodand by aim First we examine four overriding approaches or methodsThese we call philosophical empire-critical feminist and social-historical studies Second we analyze these same interpretive approachesaccording to their primary interpretive aims or goals Here we employ thecategories of applying resisting and understanding Paulrsquos politics26

These taxonomies and the analysis in this section show that our approachfinds its strongest precedents in social-historical studies having as theirmain goal the understanding of Paulrsquos politics accomplished through acareful and contextual exegesis of his text Nevertheless it also appearsthat we are sympathetic to various aspects of other approaches and willoccasionally use conceptual tools they offer as controls on our argument

121 Four Methodological Approaches

From contemporary atheistic philosophers to confessional exegetes awide spectrum of interpreters has attended to the political aspects ofPauline texts It is a spectrum that we divide into four approachesbroadly considered These are not intended as hermetically sealed cate-gories since individual scholars often exhibit eclectic methodologiesNevertheless we may helpfully consider observable tendencies Beforeengaging with representatives in each group it is helpful to describe eachmethod brieflyPhilosophical approaches to Paul reflect theoretically on concepts and

structures in his thought often without much regard for first-centurycontext or the entire evidence of the corpus Paulinum Such readingstreat Paul as a ldquocontemporaryrdquo and emphasize his political thought oftenin neo-Marxist termsEmpire-critical interpreters value Paulrsquos historical context (especially

his Roman context) and take a ldquobig picturerdquo approach that reads his texts

25 Many history-of-religion approaches to 1 Corinthians take the unstable category ofldquoreligionrdquo as their framework and often erase (by an overemphasis on similarity) thedistinctiveness of Paulrsquos text The mode of political theology rather than religion con-textualizes rather than eclipses the theological ideas in Paulrsquos text within Corinthrsquoscolonial context

26 Neither taxonomy comprises mutually exclusive categories We call attention tocertain family resemblances among methods and aims other classifications could be help-ful in emphasizing a different set of priorities


in broadly (counter-)imperial terms These scholars engage a wide rangeof evidence and frequently borrow from interdisciplinary theoreticalapproaches in framing the questions they bring to the Pauline texts

Feminist approaches to Paul insist on considering his historical con-text often emphasize the particularities of local settings and frequentlyseek to shift the interpreterrsquos ldquogazerdquo from Paul to other groups ofhistorical figures at the margins of Pauline texts and communitiesThey insist on reading Paulrsquos letters rhetorically and on resisting themas power plays that is as attempts to assert his authority over and imposehis theology on communities

Social-historical interpreters approach Paulrsquos texts with attention tothe nuance offered by local evidence They share a conviction thatPauline words and concepts legitimately testify to first-century concep-tual categories concerns and structures found in the ancient settings ofhis letters thereby providing critical evidence for his communities

These methods and interpretive emphases share some aspects in com-mon More importantly however they approach Paulrsquos text with differ-ent questions and go about the task of interrelating diverse sets ofevidence quite distinctly By surveying key representatives of thesefour methodological approaches and relating their emphases to ourown the approach taken in this study to the interpretation of 1 Cor11ndash46 becomes clearer

1211 Paul and the Philosophers

Gravely ill in early 1987 Berlin Professor of Hermeneutics Jacob Taubesgave a series of lectures in Heidelberg on Paulrsquos political theology27

Speaking about the epistle to the Romans rather than as he had originallyplanned on 1 Corinthians this German Jewish critic of legal theorist CarlSchmitt presented a political vision of Paul the Jewish apostle of theMessiah and of Paulrsquos political theology28 In its meandering course(partly because of his deteriorating health) the first half of the argumentoffers Taubesrsquos treatment of Rom 9ndash11 It concludes that Paul seeinghimself as a second Moses mounts a Jewish political critique of Romanlaw and empire

Although most scholars of NT and early Christianity have beenunpersuaded by the details of Taubesrsquos interpretation it has nonethelessbeen influential in drawing the attention of other Continental

27 Taubes (2004)28 Cf Gereacuteby (2008)


philosophers to the political dimensions of the apostle Paulrsquos writings29

Prominent among them are Alain Badiou30 and Giorgio Agamben31

both of whom also approach Paul not as historians or theologians butas philosophers32 As such their interest in Paulrsquos politics is unabashedlycontemporary they see him as a resource for social and political con-sciousness in the modern worldOf these philosophers Agamben returns repeatedly to Paul in his

writings Partway through his ldquocommentaryrdquo on Romans Agambenmarks what he terms ldquothe messianic concept of the remnantrdquo in Rom1111ndash26

If I had to mark out a political legacy in Paulrsquos letters that wasimmediately traceable I believe that the concept of the remnantwould have to play a part More specifically it allows for a newperspective that dislodges our antiquated notions of a peopleand a democracy however impossible it may be to completelyrenounce them The remnant is the figure or the substanti-ality assumed by a people in a decisive moment and as such isthe only real political subject33

Clearly Agambenrsquos primary interest here is in contemporizing the notionof the remnant in Paul as opposed to drawing out its first-century politicalresonances Nonetheless he rightly sees the political (even covenantal)element in Paulrsquos thought34 In a recent work with more attentiveness toPaulrsquos first-century context Agamben has written of the specifically eco-nomic (household) shape of the apostlersquos politics Following an examina-tion of the ldquoPauline lexiconrdquo of oikonomia Agamben declares

The strongly domestic tone of the Christian community isobviously not a Pauline invention it rather reflects a process ofsemantic mutation that involves the entire political vocabulary ofPaulrsquos times Portraying the ekklēsia in domestic rather thanpolitical terms Paul was merely following a process that wasalready taking place however he further accelerates this processin a way that involves the entire metaphorological register of the

29 Schmidt (2007) A more sympathetic exegesis of Taubesrsquos work Welborn (2013b)30 Badiou (1997)31 Agamben (2005)32 See Kroeker (2011) Badioursquos disavowal of a historical-theological approach to Paul

is explicit Agambenrsquos much less so33 Agamben (2005 57ndash9)34 Cf Paul and covenants Agamben (2005 121ndash2)


Christian lexicon The implications for the history ofWesternpolitics of the fact that the messianic community is representedfrom the beginning in terms of an oikonomia ndash not in terms of apolitics ndash have yet to be appreciated35

Although he refers in passing to texts from 1Corinthians Agamben is notengaging in traditional exegesis or in ancient comparative politicsRather he is attempting to trace the genealogy of two opposed politicalparadigms in the history of Western civilization However despite thislarger frame of his ongoing investigation into ldquoa properly human andpolitical praxisrdquo36 Agamben coincides with certain social historians weexamine later insofar as he recognizes the importance of hearing Paulrsquosletters as political discourse that distinctively interweaves ancient civicand household languages

In their pursuit of the political Paul these philosophers often sidestepquestions of historical setting in the interests of appropriating the apostleas a theoretical resource Nevertheless their insistence on attendingcarefully to Paulrsquos discourse to catch the shape of his political theologyoffers a confirmation of our politeia pattern of inquiry

1212 Paul and the Critics of Empire

In the same year as Taubesrsquos Heidelberg lectures NT scholar DieterGeorgi published the German essay that became Theocracy in PaulrsquosPraxis and Theology37 Through a historical and philological analysis ofkey Pauline terms such as ldquogospelrdquo ldquofaithrdquo and ldquosalvationrdquo Georgiargues that ldquoPaulrsquos gospel must be understood as competing with thegospel of the Caesarsrdquo38 Georgirsquos thesis formulated in the broad termsof ldquoimperial discourserdquo remains controversial in a discipline stillhaunted by the Judaism-Hellenism divide however it has spurredfurther generations of scholars to investigate the ldquocounter-imperialrdquoresonances of Paulrsquos letters39

Among those interpreters who have taken up the counter-imperialframework are Richard Horsley40 Neil Elliott41 and Davina Lopez42

35 Agamben (2011 24ndash5)36 Agamben (2011 xiii)37 Georgi (1991) German original Georgi (1987)38 Georgi (1991 87)39 Eg Harrison (2011 2ndash46)40 See the three edited volumes Horsley (1997b) Horsley (2000) Horsley (2004)41 Elliott (2006) Elliott (2008)42 Lopez (2008)


The emergence of these readings of Pauline texts in the context of Romanimperial ideology was driven on the one hand by seminal studies fromRoman historians43 and on the other by a desire to critique contemporaryclaims to empire and hegemony whether national or ecclesiastical44

Although there are important variations in these approaches the commonthread running through each is the empire-critical perspective they bringto PaulThese scholars propose a Paul whose Graeco-Roman setting and

experiences of civic culture lead him to an ideological engagementwith political values and structures of the Roman Empire They paintbroad strokes with their interpretive brushes utilizing conceptual cate-gories such as rule justice mercy sin faith lord and world in theiranalyses of Pauline texts45 Lopez who builds on and critiques the workof Horsley and Elliott provides a useful reflection on the empire-criticalapproaches on offer

There are sustainedmethodological inadequacies to recent workon Paul in his Roman imperial context Too often an empire-critical focus on Paul positions him as a Jewish cultural criticandor political opponent to the Roman imperial cult or socialorder yet still maintains [traditional] theological categor[ies]46

In her own work Lopez advocates further ldquore-imaginingsrdquo of Paulinecategories and focuses on ldquovisual and literary representationsrdquo of peoplesconquered by the Romans47 Lopez is not alone among these critics ofempire in focusing on iconographic as well as (or sometimes instead of)textual evidence Such methods that read for codes of cultural conflictagainst which to interpret Paulrsquos letters result in a bold use of iconogra-phy Furthermore the empire-critical framework has increasingly beenapplied by scholars not only to ldquoempirerdquo generally but also to specificlocal settings of Pauline communities such as Rome48 Galatia49

Thessalonica50 and Corinth51 This nuanced approach to local politics

43 Eg Price (1984) Zanker (1988)44 See Elliott (2006 ixndashx) for his ldquoexplicitly [contemporary] political agendardquo45 See eg Elliott (2008) and the rubrics of imperium iustitia clementia pietas virtus46 Lopez (2008 123)47 Lopez (2008 124) cf Kahl (2010) Both studies also share affinities with feminist

approaches48 Elliott (2008) Lopez (2008) Harrison (2011)49 Kahl (2010)50 Koester (1997) Donfried (1997)51 Eg Horsley (1997a)


and variation in the expression of ldquoimperial cultrdquo has advanced the claimsof the empire-critical scholars against some of their strongest critics52

In their reconstructions of Paulrsquos gospel the critics of empire attend toimportant Graeco-Roman political resonances and dissonances in histexts In addition the best studies organize their analyses according tofirst-century conceptual categories Nevertheless several leading scho-lars with their contemporary political concerns continue to assume aPaul whose politics seems too pointedly directed at Rome and theCaesars53 More and more however local controls are being establishedin the attempt to discern whether and to what extent Paul was truly acritic of empire

1213 Paul and the Feminists

Elizabeth Schuumlssler Fiorenzarsquos presidential address at the annual Societyof Biblical Literature meeting in 1987 ndash the same year as TaubesrsquosPauline overture and Georgirsquos publication on Paulrsquos theocratic politicalpraxis ndash proves to be a fountain from which a growing stream of feministapproaches to Pauline rhetoric and politics has flowed54 Her centralmethodological proposal is a call for a ldquode-centeringrdquo and ldquore-centeringrdquoin biblical studies She urges biblical scholars to engage self-critically ina discourse and praxis that reflects the ldquoethics of [contemporary] recep-tionrdquo and not only an ldquoethics of [textual] readingrdquo55 In short SchuumlsslerFiorenza argues that it is not enough to engage in what she decries as ascientistic-positivistic-antiquarian mode of descriptive analysis whenexegeting Paulrsquos texts (or politics) Rather scholars should also reflecton their own social-political (and ecclesial) locations and the potentialethical-political effects of their interpretations of Pauline letters56 Theparadigm involved in such an approach Schuumlssler Fiorenza argues isboth critical and integrative

The reconceptualization of biblical studies in rhetorical ratherthan scientist terms would provide a research framework not onlyfor integrating historical archaeological sociological literaryand theological approaches as perspectival readings of texts but

52 Caution regarding local and terminological differences Harrison (2011 17 336)53 Critique in Barclay (2011)54 Schuumlssler Fiorenza (1988)55 Schuumlssler Fiorenza (1988 5)56 Schuumlssler Fiorenza (1988 13ndash17)


also for raising ethical-political and religious-theological ques-tions as constitutive of the interpretive process57

Many have heeded Schuumlssler Fiorenzarsquos call for a ldquodouble ethicsrdquo ofhistorical reading58 One recent interpreter to apply the feminist approachto Thessalonica and 1 Thessalonians is Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre59

Building on the work of scholars such as Helmut Koester she notes thatjust as in Paulrsquos letter so for the city

The archaeological finds for first-century-CE Thessalonikē areequally sparse and do not provide easy access to the ancient cityin the time of the [Pauline] ἐκκλησία Observing how we fillsuch textual and material lacunae can be instructive for practi-cing critical reflection on the assumptions and procedures ofbiblical scholarship and early Christian historiography60

In response to the growth of empire-critical interpretations of1 Thessalonians Johnson-DeBaufre reflects on the ldquochallenges of histor-ical reconstruction raised by the unrelenting androcentrism of the textrdquo61

Johnson-DeBaufre makes at least two interesting maneuvers in thecourse of her reflection ndash both of which exemplify the feminist approachThe first is to demonstrate how scholars can be tempted to go beyond theavailable evidence in their imaginative reconstructions of the Sitzen imLeben of Pauline texts In reviewing the work of Donfried Jewett andAscough on 1 Thessalonians Johnson-DeBaufre reserves her greatestcriticism for what she describes as a tendency to privilege the Pauline textover the archaeological and epigraphic evidence particularly in terms ofthe categories of inquiry and the resulting reconstructions of the ekklēsiaShe argues that the continued invisibility of women is simply ldquothecollateral damage of approaching questions of origin and identity ofthe Thessalonian community in a way that privileges certain aspects ofthe language of 1 Thessaloniansrdquo62 In making this criticism Johnson-DeBaufre rightly underlines the difficult and tentative nature of historicalreconstruction of the settings of Pauline epistles and ekklēsiai fromnonliterary and other material evidence Apart from the normal chal-lenges of writing history from fragmentary sources there is the

57 Schuumlssler Fiorenza (1988 13)58 Besides Lopez and Kahl mentioned earlier cf Marchal (2008) on Philippians59 Johnson-DeBaufre (2010) cf Canavan (2012)60 Johnson-DeBaufre (2010 74ndash5)61 Johnson-DeBaufre (2010 75)62 Johnson-DeBaufre (2010 90) italics mine


additional question of interpretive stance and which set of evidence theexegete privileges

The second and related methodological strategy employed byJohnson-DeBaufre is her use of the hermeneutical figure she calls ldquoshift-ing the gazerdquo Appealing to a photographic metaphor she argues thatwhere one points the camera in taking a picture makes all thedifference63 To avoid privileging Paulrsquos androcentric perspective shecontends interpreters need to shift their gaze away from the rhetoric of hisepistle to the ldquoemptyrdquo spaces on the liminal edges of epistolary and civicspace Re-populating these spaces with the women slaves and thoseignored and marginalized by the letter allows scholars to imagineldquoresponses to Paulrsquos rhetoricrdquo64 In the work of Johnson-DeBaufre andother recent feminist interpreters of Paul these reimagined responses toPaul are most often couched as ldquoresistancerdquo to a hegemonizing andmanipulative rhetoric65 Paulrsquos politics and ethics are reconstructed andresisted with the aid of archaeological and epigraphical evidence

1214 Paul and the Social Historians

When we come to applications of the social-historical approach to PaulrsquosCorinthian correspondence we will see that 1987 was again an importantyear At this point in our survey however we note the critical momentmarked by the publication in 1983 of The First Urban Christians byWayne Meeks66 In concluding his introductory description of methodMeeks remarked

It has become customary among some scholars to speak of theldquosocial world of early Christianityrdquo and that term usefullydescribes the object of this inquiry It has a double meaningreferring not only to the environment of the early Christiangroups but also to the world as they perceived it and to whichthey gave form and significance through their special languageand other meaningful actions One is the world they shared withother people who lived in the Roman Empire the other theworld they constructed67

63 Johnson-DeBaufre (2010 77)64 Johnson-DeBaufre (2010 97ndash8)65 See Schuumlssler Fiorenza (2000 57)66 Meeks (1983)67 Meeks (1983 8)


Many scholars have followed this ldquooutside-inrdquo tactic to interpretingPaulrsquos texts attempting to listen to his arguments within the recon-structed civic worlds of the first century In focusing on urban settingsthese students of Paul also point to the political (in the broad sense ofpolis) as a fruitful category for exegesis68 Progress has been made in theldquocity-by-cityrdquo approach69 as interpreters have brought documentary andarchaeological evidence into constellation with the texts and commu-nities of the corpus Paulinum70

Three key emphases emerge from a survey of such interpreters Firstthe best practitioners have moved beyond the ldquoparallelsrdquo preoccupationof the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule Instead of backgrounds to Paulrsquostexts they speak of contexts or cultural settings Their emphasis on theldquosocial worldrdquo has broadened the question from one of genealogy or linesof influence detectable in Paulrsquos language and thought ndash a focus that hasoften led to the impasses of Hellenism and Judaism ndash to the question ofthe complex intertwining of Paul and those in the ekklēsiai with theircivic environments This shift in focus has been appreciated and appro-priated by many among the critics of empire and the feministsA second emphasis that has emerged from social-historical approaches

is the sustained attempt to think with first-century categories This focuson social patterns of organization and thought assumes that social realityis constructed in fundamentally linguistic ways and is accessible throughcareful old-fashioned philological spadework Social historians are gen-erally keen to avoid anachronism and therefore take the language of textsas primary for interpreting first-century forms of thought whether ofPaul or his auditors This leads them to be suspicious of approaches toPaul and his communities that seem to privilege theory or imaginationover (especially textual) evidence Despite serious disagreements overhow to construe sets of evidence and especially over the aim of inter-pretation both critics of empire and feminist interpreters of Paul oftenagree in practice with this emphasis on social patterns and checkingtheory against evidenceIf social world and social patterns are two important categories utilized

by social historians a third is ldquosocial locationrdquo The city-by-cityapproach emphasizes not only the general particularities of first-centuryMediterranean culture but also the local differentials of geographical and

68 See Still and Horrell (2010)69 Phrase coined by Judge (1980)70 Philippi Pilhofer (1995) Oakes (2001) Pilhofer (2000) Thessalonica Harrison

(2011) Ephesus Tellbe (2009) Galatia Hardin (2008) Rome Jewett (2007) Oakes(2009) Harrison (2011)


physical space This is just another way of saying that such a methodtakes the occasional nature of Paulrsquos letters seriously and assumes thatgreater clarity of interpretationmay comewith greater attention to locallynuanced evidence Again this is actually an emphasis in method thatfeminist and empire-critical scholars often agree with in principle

1215 Summary of Four Methodological Approaches

As we pause in sketching the four broad methodological approaches toPaul and politics we see among them commonalities as well as differ-ences Philosophers critics of empire feminists and social historians allagree that approaching the Pauline epistles with the category of politics isilluminating And apart from many of the philosophers they are allconvinced of the need to read Paul within the social context of the firstcentury In these respects there is significant although often unrecog-nized methodological overlap among them

What divides these four approaches more than method is their respec-tive aims It is their hermeneutical telos ndash that which they hope to find inand the uses to which they hope to put their interpretations ndash that mostsignificantly separates these interpreters On reflection most politicalreadings of Paul may be correlated with three aims

122 Three Interpretive Aims

Generally speaking those scholars who offer some kind of politicalprecedent for understanding Pauline texts have foremost in mind one ofthree interpretive aims they aim primarily to apply Paul to contemporarypolitics to resist Paulrsquos politics or to understand the kind of politics Paulconstructs and with which he engages

1221 Applying Paul

Despite their differences of method philosophical and empire-criticalapproaches to Paul coincide to a significant degree in their interpretiveaim of applying Paul to contemporary (civil more often than ecclesial)politics And while it is highly unlikely that any interpreter interested inPaul and his epistles is completely uninterested in the question of con-temporary application (whether ecclesial or otherwise) these two groupsof scholars in particular often fall prey in different ways to the tempta-tion to smooth the apostlersquos rough edges in their elision of historicaldistance or selective attention to the Pauline data


In the interest of destabilizing contemporary political discourseContinental philosophers lose or disregard the sense of historical distancebetween their own horizon and the first-century setting and fail toput proper historical and philological controls in place P Fredriksen71

D B Martin72 and L LWelborn73 ndash all of whom are oriented (stronglyif not exclusively) toward social history ndash have each made this point withregard to Badioursquos ahistorical reading of Paul although in divergentmanners and not without appreciation G Ward has recently offered asimilar critique of Badiou and Agamben (as well as Slavoj Žižek) from atheological angle

Unfortunately none of these thinkers are in dialogue with animportant reconsideration of Paul and the political arising fromNew Testament scholarship (see for example Blumenfeld2001 Elliott 2005) I say ldquounfortunatelyrdquo because this workemphasizing the transcendent rather than the immanent con-cerns of St Paul and the close relation between St Paulrsquoswriting his cultural and historical context and the faithcommunities he was speaking to point out the reductive andself-serving ways in which St Paul is being read by thesepostmodern thinkers74

If the aim of applying Paul in these philosophical overtures falls shortmethodologically on historical and exegetical grounds so too for thesame reasons do some of the counter-imperial interpretations Althoughhe hails Elliottrsquos Arrogance of Nations as a ldquopassionate and provocativenew reading of Romansrdquo J M G Barclay critiques its methodologicalldquoambiguities and instabilitiesrdquo concluding

[I]f one wishes to reorient Pauline theology in a political direction(as one could and should) it will not help the peoplewho aremostlikely to take Paul seriously (the churches) to move explicitly outof theological discourse into another domain with its own ideo-logical commitments (and weaknesses Marxism is hardly oursalvation) A theological-political reading that develops Paulineradicalism is still an option but it will have to bemore subtle andironically more theological than that offered here75

71 Fredriksen (2009)72 Martin (2009a)73 Welborn (2009)74 Ward (2012 477)75 Barclay (2010 87)


What Barclayrsquos criticism points to in Elliottrsquos work is true of many (butnot all) counter-imperial approaches to Paul namely that the method anddata are overdetermined by the interpretive aim In their zeal to applyPaul as a contemporary critic of (usually the American) empire someinterpreters seem to force Paul in a direction that renders him palatable toa certain kind of twenty-first-century political activism Feminist criticsoften agree with this assessment a fact that leads many of them to adifferent kind of application of Paulrsquos texts namely one that resists Paul

1222 Resisting Paul

If the primary aim in many philosophical and empire-critical readings ofPaul is to harness aspects of the apostlersquos thought to resist or deconstructcontemporary politics then a kind of inverse aim is present in manyfeminist approaches to Pauline texts Common to the feminist approachas we saw earlier is the attempt to de-center Paul and his rhetoricalstance to recover the lives and voices of women by opening spaces at theseams of Paulrsquos texts Earlier feminist interpretations often tried toreconcile what they perceived as apparent contradictions betweenPaulrsquos androcentric hierarchical discourse and feminist concernsIncreasingly however feminist scholars have disavowed such interpre-tive gymnastics and have focused instead on resisting Paulrsquos discourse byreimagining responses from various kinds of people (not only women)who may have questioned critiqued or denied Paulrsquos authority in theearly ekklēsiai76

As noted earlier many such scholars offer important challenges to theways Pauline interpreters bring together diverse sets of evidence in theirattempts to reconstruct plausible settings for understanding his texts Andthey rightly draw attention to the interested stance of the interpreter andits hermeneutical implications However despite these welcome spursto methodological reflection as M Y MacDonald has noted ldquoTheissue of what is actually warranted by the sources does offer animportant historical challenge to feminist work that often results inhighly plausible but ultimately hypothetical reconstructionsrdquo77 Thiscould also be said however of all the approaches canvassed hereincluding the sociohistorical given the unavoidability of reconstruc-tion and redescription in historical writing In this respect our ownapproach is not so different in that it attempts carefully to combine a

76 Oslashkland (2004 6ndash30) Macdonald (2004 291ndash4)77 Macdonald (2004 293)


variety of evidence in constructing a constitutionally comparative read-ing of 1 Cor 11ndash46Where our approach does differ however is that it is not interested in

reconstructing Paul and his opponents to resist the apostle Such an aimmay be legitimate as it seeks to give voice to liminal figures in andaround Paulrsquos discourse However it may also tend to privilege localevidence over Pauline comparanda in its insistence on de-centering bothauthor and text The results are stimulating reconstructions of localcommunities and figures some stridently opposed to Paulrsquos apostolicclaims of authority However the particularities of both apostle and textcan sometimes be eclipsed by such readings that aim at resistance Inwhat follows our primary concern is self-critically to engage the evi-dence in an attempt at understanding Paulrsquos text

1223 Understanding Paul

What sets social-historical exegeses apart from the approaches alreadymentioned is the very thing that has drawn the ire of some feminist criticsand the more theoretically oriented critics of empire namely the hand-ling of evidence in relation to theory and the primary aim of under-standing Paul The former exemplified by E A Judgersquos much-malignedinsistence on ldquothe proto-sociological work of descriptionrdquo78 presumes totake philological data in Paulrsquos texts as indicative of first-century cate-gories of thought and even of social reality In other words socialhistorians of various stripes read Paulrsquos letters as more (though notless) than mere rhetoric Carefully correlated with other sets of evidenceparticularly textual records the Pauline text itself is viewed as admissible(though not transparent) social-historical evidence While certainly notall reflect explicitly on their hermeneutical commitments very few ifany interpreters in this group are as theoretically naiumlve as their detractorspaint them Rather for a variety of reasons they have little interest inresisting Paul and before applying his ideas whether in ecclesial or civilpolitics they are most concerned with understanding Paulrsquos texts It is inthis stream of precedent that the present study fits most comfortably

123 Summary Political Precedents for Paul

There is strong precedent from the early fathers to contemporary scho-larship for approaching Paul as a political thinker Not all of these

78 This phrase summarizes Judge (1980) see Clarke (1993 5)


streams of precedent agree on what is meant by ldquothe politicalrdquo in Paulhowever nor on how and for what purpose we ought to approach theinterpretation of his texts

We have argued that those who approach Pauline texts with an eye tothe political generally fall into four categories methodologically SeveralContinental philosophers are interested in Pauline texts as a resource fordestabilizing contemporary civil politics Many historians and biblicalscholars read Paul as a critic of empire both ancient and modernFeminist scholars approach Pauline texts as rhetoric to be critiquedthey question the ways in which other sets of evidence are correlatedwith those texts and emphasize the role interests and responsibility ofthe interpreter in exegesis Social-historical interpreters acknowledge therole of the exegete in generating perspective and heuristic questions butinsist that evidence and self-critical attempts at historical description canand must act as controls on theoretical constructs and redescription

Among these four ways of approaching Paul one can discern in anygiven study a primary aim of applying resisting or understanding histext Moving too quickly to application has often resulted in a lack ofhistorical care in handling Pauline texts and related evidence An impulseto resist Paul primarily among feminist scholars has increasinglyprompted important questions of method and stimulated creative recon-structions of contexts for reading his letters However the urge to resistthe apostlersquos authority or ideas can too easily devolve into risky reima-ginings and may tend to drown out the voice of the apostle inscribed inhis text Our own concern is instead to understand Paulrsquos text beforeresponding to it in a contemporary setting79 In doing so we openlyacknowledge the eclecticism of the present approach We appropriatecertain theoretical emphases and concepts from the philosophers andcritics of empire but seek to avoid collapsing or ignoring historicaldistance We have strong sympathies with feminist approaches thatrecognize the importance of the rhetorical aspects of Pauline texts andthe location of the interpreter especially those that reflect carefully onhow evidence is brought into productive constellation However wemaintain the central role of Paulrsquos text in our interpretive reconstructionOur case for a certain kind of political interpretation of 1 Cor 11ndash46therefore has a strong but not uniform precedent in the history of

79 Cf Dahl (1967 335) ldquoFor the historian the chief task must be not to expresssympathy or antipathy or to evaluate virtues or shortcomings but to try to understandPaul as he wants to be understood as an apostle of Jesus Christrdquo Dahlrsquos apparent naiumlveteacuteremains a salutary corrective to post-Foucauldian interpretations


interpretation Beyond a generally sociohistorical approach aimed atunderstanding it will be helpful in moving forward to outline the parti-cular political pattern of inquiry we undertake to state how it differs fromsimilar approaches and to restate our case for the necessity of consider-ing constitution and covenant in 1 Corinthians

13 Paul and politeia the pattern of inquiry

Congruent with that of several ancient interpreters the approach adoptedin this book for the interpretation of 1 Cor 11ndash46 is a kind of compara-tive ancient politics The pattern of inquiry embraced throughout ischaracterized by three important elements the broad first-century cate-gory of politeia an understanding of 1 Corinthians as political discourseand the notion of alternative civic ideology Together these elementscomprise for us ldquothe politicalrdquo in Paulrsquos Corinthian correspondence andoffer a productive way to study the interface of constitution and covenantin Paulrsquos letterIf patristic interpreters help us see the constitutional aspect of this

comparison Paulrsquos Jewishness and Gospel aid us in perceiving its otheraspect Constitution is balanced by covenant both involve instrumentsand discourses of first-century politics The apostle to the Gentiles wasfirst a Jew trained in the categories of the Hebrew scriptures and familiarwith the concerns reflected in the covenantal discourses of SecondTemple Judaism80 Whether in the diaspora in Jerusalem or the aridwadis of the Dead Sea region political conversations among first-centuryJews never strayed far from the narrative of Israelrsquos constitution in thedivine covenants with Abraham Moses and David Matters of commu-nal structure confirmation authority exclusion and internal jurisdictionwere just as common to Jewish groups as they were to other politicalassociations and civic communities in the Graeco-Roman world If con-stitution serves as a Corinthian frame in the foreground then covenantmust never fade very far into the background of a political interpretationof the Pauline epistle 1 CorinthiansWhether Roman Greek or Jewish in accentuation these were debates

conducted in Hebrew Aramaic Greek and Latin in first-century com-munities of Paulrsquos world It was a world in which local forms of law andadministration were increasingly coming to terms with Roman rule andpresence81 Diverse groups of people at various social levels engaged in

80 Metso (2008)81 Cotton (2003)


political conversations that may be best described as sitting within thediscourse of politeia A Greek term capable of denoting a constitutionitself as well as the form of life and civic participation within a con-stituted community politeia is the category contemporary with Paul thatmost aptly describes the aspects of law and life taken up in these first-century conversations It is no surprise then that several modern inter-preters have approached the study of Paul and the Pauline ekklēsiai fromthe standpoint of politeia A brief summary of three such scholarsemphasizes important elements of our pattern of inquiry and guides usin demarcating the political in our investigation

131 E A Judge and Politeia

In an important 1960 essay E A Judge argues for the value of studyingNT texts and early Christianity generally through contemporary first-century social and cultural categories82 His aim is to trace the contoursof social institutions reflected in the NT documents themselves but withreference to the ideas and assumptions of the broader Graeco-Romanworld83 The first and broadest category Judge delineates is that ofpoliteia84 The term politeia has a classical pedigree shaped by discus-sions relating individuals to larger communities These discussionsJudge emphasizes ldquoworked equally from the assumption that humanitywas only given its proper expression through the association of indivi-duals in a republican communityrdquo85 Communal structures variedthrough time and across the Mediterranean however legal privilegeobligation and disability were constants in the social experience ofGraeco-Roman communities at large and therefore in the experience ofthe early Christians

Thus it is not surprising that the NT texts reflect at many points anawareness and engagement with local cultural and political forms fromthe standpoint of new commitments and ideas deriving from the gospelMany such texts Judge notes interact with the language and categoriessupplied by larger political structures and debates while also arguing forldquoa deflection of loyalty to other institutionsrdquo For the early Christians thisincluded both the Pauline constitutional reorientation of Phil 320 (ldquoour

82 Judge (1960) Judge notes in his preface p iii that ldquoit became apparent that thecontemporary writers were thinking in terms of a series of overlapping but not system-atically related circlesrdquo

83 Judge (1960 17)84 Judge (1960 18ndash29)85 Judge (1960 18)


politeia is in heavenrdquo) and a turning to other institutional models such asthe household (oikonomia) for self-understanding at the social level86

The early Christian assemblies were described by the NT writers inpolitical and household language as communities constituted on a newbasis and with a new organization and orientation87

Comparative politics in first-century local settings Judge suggestswas a fruitful lens through which to approach the interpretation of the NTdocuments Judge is among a generation of scholars who stimulatedmultiple trajectories of social-historical research into the local politicalsettings of the early ekklēsiai with some of his own students extendinghis insights to Paul and the Corinthian correspondence88 Nearly a halfcentury later Judge would reiterate with regard to the Pauline commu-nities ldquoAn essentially different manner of life was being created thatwas to provide an alternative structure and a potential conflict of obliga-tion in each dimension of the social order whether oikonomia koinoniaor politeiardquo89 Judgersquos work connecting the category of politeia to thePauline communities offers a valuable example to those studying suchcommunities within their local settings As Judge employs the categorypoliteia suggests a fruitful way of thinking about the structures anddiscourses of early Christian communities within their larger civic set-tings He exemplifies an approach to patterns of politeia in the NTdocuments Despite Judgersquos field-shaping work no one has yet appliedthe category of politeia systematically to 1 Cor 11ndash46 with particularreference to the Corinthian constitution90

132 B Blumenfeld and the Political Paul

Others have insisted on interpreting Paul in his ancient political contextIn 2001 B Blumenfeld applied the category of politeia to the apostlersquoswritings and thought91 In The Political Paul Blumenfeld argues that byhis use of political language and concepts Paul placed himself within thestream of Hellenistic political reflection Dealing primarily with Romans

86 Judge (1960 28ndash9)87 Judge (1960 72)88 Yale school represented by Malherbe (1977) Meeks (1983) Macquarie school

represented by Marshall (1987) Winter (1994) Forbes (1995) Winter (1997) Winter(2001) Winter (2003) Harrison (2003) Harrison (2011) The two schools mingle in thework of Hock (1980) Welborn (2011)

89 Judge (2008 649)90 Winterrsquos works discussed later come closest91 Blumenfeld (2001)


and Philippians Blumenfeld demonstrates the extent to which the nexusof politics and ethics (and of the polis and the oikos) was reflected in theinteraction of Paul and his communities Although he acknowledges thepotential of the epigraphic record for illuminating political structures andrelations Blumenfeld deals only with the literary sources related toHellenistic Pythagoreanism92 In discussing this background to Paulrsquosconception of the Christian ekklēsia he remarks

Borrowing amply from current popular philosophy Paul con-structs a political theory for Christianity He conceives it as atwo-tiered system the first level based on the oikos-polis blendpolitics proper and a basileia level which places a transcen-dental being atop the political structure He elaborates apolitical philosophy that makes a new type of polis theChristian polis the basis of his system Christ the master(κύριος kyrios) has also been one of the ruled himself knewthe condition of the slave He is Paulrsquos solution to the demand ofreciprocity in Aristotlersquos political construct Christ saves thepolitical game as well93

Blumenfeldrsquos study presents a Paul who was heir to many concepts ofancient political philosophy some of which he embraced and others ofwhich he modified in his letters Although he probably overplayed thedirect relevance of Hellenistic Pythagoreanism to Paulrsquos thought andcommunities Blumenfeldrsquos work is an important contribution in itsinsistence on the interpretive context of ancient comparative politicsfor Paulrsquos letters Popular philosophy played a role in shaping thediscourse of politeia And Paul draws distinctively on the language andstructures of polis oikos and basileia It is the first of these ndash politeia ndash

that plays the guiding role in our investigation of constitution andcovenant in Roman Corinth and 1 Cor 11ndash46

133 Y M Gillihan and Alternative Civic Ideology

If Judge proposes politeia as a category and Blumenfeld insists on thepolitical Paul a recent study by Y M Gillihan demonstrates a keenawareness of the political in its comparison of Qumran texts andHellenistic associations94 Gillihan accomplishes his comparative study

92 Blumenfeld (2001 13ndash24)93 Blumenfeld (2001 88)94 Gillihan (2011)


of these diverse groups on the basis of their texts within larger civicsettings What sets Gillihanrsquos study apart from the many previous com-parisons of early Christian or Jewish groups and contemporary associa-tions is the manner in which he constructs the political framework forcomparison The key is the notion of ldquoalternative civic ideologyrdquo vari-eties of which were espoused by the Epicureans Cynics Stoics Paul andhis ekklēsiai and the Covenanters associated with Qumran According toGillihan an alternative civic ideology is

a critical response to the state that includes in various formsrejection of claims about state authority and legitimacy acomprehensive description of a different ideal political author-ity organization law and citizenship all of which are superiorto that of the prevailing order [it] enables members ofassociations to imagine themselves as citizens of a superiorcommonwealth which is typically coextensive with or atleast includes the association itself95

These groups held in common the conviction that their members wereldquosubjects of a state different from and superior to that of the status quordquo96

As a result they cultivated both an alternative civic discourse and alter-native civic structures By the former these alternative politeiai offeredcritiques of larger patterns of civic life in developing the latter theyborrowed and adapted forms from surrounding political cultures In avariety of ways these groups ldquoinstructed members on how to interactwith the status quo alternative civic ideologies include practical strate-gies for negotiating the reality of life as subjects under the authority of apolis or empirerdquo97

Although Gillihan focuses on texts and groups from Qumran henonetheless briefly treats the Pauline version of alternative civic ideol-ogy He rightly observes that Paulrsquos occasional letters driven by specificpractical concerns within local communities do not amount to a literarypoliteia However from these ldquoscattered disclosuresrdquowe can reconstructsignificant aspects of the alternative commonwealth of which Paul sawhimself and the early Christians to be members98 In Gillihanrsquos view thisentails ldquoa critique of contemporary society aimed more at personalmorality and piety than at political institutions and lawsrdquo99

95 Gillihan (2011 73)96 Gillihan (2011 79)97 Gillihan (2011 73ndash4 79ndash80)98 Gillihan (2011 120ndash6 131ndash2 507ndash8)99 Gillihan (2011 120)


One immediately sees the political connections with the approachesthat Judge Blumenfeld and others have taken toward interpreting Pauland his assemblies One sees too the strong analogy between whatGillihan refers to as ldquoalternative civic ideologyrdquo and the more philoso-phical category of ldquopolitical theologyrdquo In terms of the first-centurydiscourse of politeia Paulrsquos letters may be fruitfully investigated forthe alternative civic discourse and structures they propose and the theo-logical basis on which that proposal rests Gillihanrsquos conclusions con-cerning the Qumran texts are suggestive at several points for the presentstudy First he notes that those texts often reformulate ldquoconventionalpolitical practices in the language of the Torahrdquo100 and when performingsuch adaptions attempt to anchor with a scriptural citation those con-temporary civic practices without an obvious scriptural precedent101

From the perspective of this investigation this is an interface betweenconstitution and covenant Thus what is true of the alternative civicstrategy in covenant communities such as Qumran may have certainanalogues in Paulrsquos Corinthian text Second Gillihan rightly notes notonly similarities but also differences among the various first-centurygroups and their texts both in their discourses and structures We dowell to emulate this attention to contrast in our study of constitution andcovenant in Corinth and Paulrsquos letter

134 Summary Politeia and Ancient ComparativePolitical Discourse

This brief review demonstrates three important elements of the pattern ofinquiry adopted in this study With Judge we take politeia to be a broadfirst-century category that connects the Pauline assemblies to their localcontexts In the case of Corinth we argue that this nexus is particularlytangible at several points in 1 Cor 11ndash46 as Paul engages with localizedelements of Roman law and colonial politics With Blumenfeld webelieve Paulrsquos discourse to be a species of practical political philosophyalthough the total shape of his politics is elusive The applied expressionof his political theology in 1 Cor 11ndash46 emerges as the exegeticalchapters show from the interface of constituted colony and covenantedassembly102 And finally to borrowGillihanrsquos language we see in Paulrsquos

100 Gillihan (2011 5)101 Gillihan (2011 514)102 For Paulrsquos rhetoric the phrase ldquotheologicalrdquo or ldquoecclesialrdquo politics might be prefer-

able to ldquopolitical theologyrdquo given the history of the latter phrase traced by Gereacuteby (2008)


text both an alternative civic-like discourse as well as alternative civic-like structures Traces of colonial constitution and its impress on life inCorinth surface noticeably at several points in Paulrsquos letter the sources ofJewish covenant refracted through the word of the cross guide many ofthe modifications Paul makes to colonial forms The features of ancientcomparative politics exemplified in the work of these scholars provide apattern for the specific constitutional comparison undertaken hereComparative politeia is the pattern of inquiry we employ as we investi-gate the interaction of colonial and ecclesial political theologies

14 Approaches to Paul and politics in Corinth

Several studies of 1 Corinthians have adopted elements of this heuristicpattern of comparative politeia Among them we find emphases onpolitical rhetoric and philosophy law civic administration and cultand even a few direct appeals to the Corinthian constitution A summaryof these narrows the field of precedents directly relevant to thisinvestigation103 The precedents we review demonstrate not only theplausibility of the current project they strengthen our case that an exeg-esis of 1 Corinthians with reference to the Corinthian constitution isoverdue

141 Political Rhetoric and Philosophy

An important advance in the political interpretation of the epistle camein 1987 with L L Welbornrsquos essay ldquoOn the Discord in Corinth 1Corinthians 1ndash4 and Ancient Politicsrdquo104 Welborn contendsldquo[H]owever strong the aversion may be to the presence of politicalelements in the Corinthian epistles it is impossible to resist the impres-sion that Paul describes the situation in the church in terms such asthose used to characterize conflicts within city-states by Greco-Romanhistoriansrdquo105 In laying out an agenda that stimulates subsequentinterpreters106 Welborn applies the paradigm of first-century

103 See Adams and Horrell (2004) who acknowledge Baurrsquos watershed study (1831)Cf the latterrsquos review of Schenkel Baur (1839)

104 Welborn (1987a 109ndash11) repr in Welborn (1997 1ndash42) Subsequent citations tothe latter

105 Welborn (1997 3)106 Noteworthy by their absence are the concepts of ancient politics and rhetoric from

the influential commentary published in the same year by Fee (1987 47ndash51)


comparative politics to Paulrsquos letter situating its language firmlywithin the discourse of civic political debate He concludes

The author of 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 was devoted to the greatpolitics the proclamation of the word of the cross Dissensionand party spirit belonged to the life he had left behind (Gal 520)Then came the discord at Corinth 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 embodiesthe shock with which Paul discovered that in the supposedlypeaceful assemblies of the Christians there had appeared ldquobillow-ing forms and patterns like waves of the seardquo107

Other studies follow the path charted byWelborn variously emphasizingthe importance of political rhetoric philosophy and patronage for theinterpretation of Paulrsquos language and argument in 1 Cor 1ndash4108 Whatmost of these studies have in common is a focus on the sources and socialdynamics of Pauline topoi or rhetorical and political commonplaces Assuch they tend to emphasize literary (and some documentary) texts fromthe larger Mediterranean world in their reconstructions of the conflictedexigence provoking Paulrsquos response These studies have undeniably castgreat light on certain passages especially in 1 Cor 1ndash4 and represent animportant precedent to the present study however by the nature of theirfocus and the sources adduced they have left other important areas of theCorinthian politeia unexplored

142 Law Administration and Cult

In the slipstream of these political-rhetorical interpretations came a seriesof studies in the 1990s dealing with aspects of law administration and cultin Roman Corinth and Paulrsquos epistle J D M Derrett109 B WWinter110

and A C Mitchell111 each applied aspects of Roman civil litigationcolonial administration and social status to 1 Cor 6 H A Stansburygathered literary epigraphical and numismatic evidence for colonialadministration politics and social dynamics as an important contextfor Paulrsquos epistles and ekklēsia112 A D Clarke reconstructed an ideology

107 Welborn (1997 42) citing Posidonius108 Among which are Watson (1989) Mitchell (1991) Chow (1992) Litfin (1994)

Winter (1997) Grant (2001) Mihaila (2009)109 Derrett (1991)110 Winter (1991)111 Mitchell (1993)112 Stansbury (1990)


of ldquosecular leadershiprdquo in the colony for a comparison with 1 Cor 1ndash6113

T Schmeller examined the politics and structure of the Corinthian assem-bly as part of larger comparisons with civic associations114 J R Lancicombined rhetorical and archaeological evidence for the functions oftemples as a political context for interpreting the temple and body meta-phors in 1 Corinthians115

Furthermore the past decade has seen several colloquia of archaeol-ogists historians and scholars of religion gathering to treat political andcultic aspects of Roman Corinth and the Pauline ekklēsia116 This inter-disciplinary trend has spurred recent studies that reconstruct politicalstructures and discourses of household identity and ethnicity in Corinthand the Corinthian epistles117 It is particularly among investigationsdrawing on these various aspects of political life in Roman Corinth thatthere have begun to appear with increasing frequency overtures to theCorinthian constitution as a relevant framework

143 Constitutional Precedent

It is a commonplace in studies of Paulrsquos Corinthian correspondence tomention the colonial status of Roman Corinth However it is only rela-tively recently that exegetes have connected this fact with the evidence ofextant first-century Roman colonial charters Those who have referred tothe lex Ursonensis and the lex Irnitana in relation to 1 Corinthians notethree areas of emphases disputes and litigation status and politicallyorientedmeals FirstWinter makes reference to the constitution in framinghis interpretations of litigious disputes in 1 Cor 6118 Together with ClarkeWinter also appeals to the constitution for establishing status ideology119

Finally J C Walters utilizes the constitutional evidence to reconstruct asetting for the politics of public and private meals in 1 Cor 11120

Despite the fruitfulness of these passing constitutional comparisonsneither an articulated basis for the comparison nor a systematic applica-tion of the constitutional evidence to the issues raised in 1 Corinthians

113 Clarke (1993) Cf Clarke (2000) Dutch (2005)114 Schmeller (1995)115 Lanci (1997) Cf Kim (2008)116 Schowalter and Friesen (2005) Friesen et al (2010) Friesen (2014)117 Miller (2008) Kim (2010) Goodrich (2012) Concannon (2014)118 Winter (1991) Winter (2001 21)119 Clarke (1993) Winter (2001) Winter (2003) Goodrich (2012 64ndash9)120 Walters (2010)


has been undertaken In 2010 Walters wrote simply ldquoIt is widelyassumed that the Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis was founded onthe basis of a similar charter [to that of Urso]rdquo121 A decade earlierB W Winter had suggested ldquoThe reconstruction of parts of the consti-tution of Corinth would be possible on the basis of extant [Spanish]constitutions from other Roman coloniesrdquo122 This study attempts not areconstruction strictly speaking but an application and adaptation of thecharter evidence from comparable Julio-Claudian colonies to RomanCorinth On this basis we are able to articulate the warrant for theseprecedents of constitutional intuition and apply constitutional categoriesin the exegesis of Paulrsquos argument in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians

144 Summary Precedents for Constituting Corinthand the Pauline Assembly

In this opening argument for our constitutional case we have demon-strated ample precedent for reading Paulrsquos texts as political discourseEarly patristic commentators represented Paul and even the Corinthiancommunity in political (and sometimes constitutional) terms The apos-tle and the Corinthian ekklēsia ndash likened respectively to a jurist aphilosopher of politeia and a constituted community ndashwere rememberedin political and legal language

However the fathers were not alone in reading Paulrsquos texts politicallyThe past decades have witnessed a resurgence of political approaches toPaul Philosophers critics of empire feminists and social historians allagree on the political Paul even if they disagree on the politics of Paulineinterpretation These approaches are valuable methodologically how-ever each differs in its aims some endeavoring principally to applysome to resist and others to understand Paulrsquos text Among these streamsof political precedent the present study fits most comfortably with socio-historical approaches that aim for understanding

Three such approaches supply helpful conceptual resources for thepattern of inquiry that characterizes this study Judgersquos emphasis on thefirst-century domain of politeia Blumenfeldrsquos insistence on reading Paulin the context of Graeco-Roman political-philosophical discourse andGillihanrsquos conception of alternative civic ideology each point us toancient categories appropriate to the constitutional comparison under-taken here

121 Walters (2010 343)122 Winter (2001)


Certain aspects of this political pattern of inquiry have surfaced inrecent interpretations of 1 Corinthians Welbornrsquos study on politics andrhetoric and various investigations of the colonial administrative legaland cultic structures of Roman Corinth have provided valuable tools forreconstructing the setting and occasion for passages in Paulrsquos first epistleSome of these studies have even referred to the Spanish charters assum-ing the relevance of their laws to life in Roman Corinth and the Paulineassembly What no study has yet done however is to establish securelythat constitutional link between law and life and to demonstrate the waysin which it opens up new interpretive possibilities for 1 CorinthiansHaving argued from precedent in this opening chapter we now turn toevidence and comparative method In Chapters 2 to 4 we introduce newtexts and arguments to contend for the interface between law and life andthe Auseinandersetzung between constitution and covenant in RomanCorinth and 1 Cor 11ndash46


2

LAW AND LIFE

[T]he complications of Roman law were not just professionalldquooverkillrdquo by and large the whole system as we learn of it wasa living and practised one and ndash and this is the important pointfor the general historian ndash can therefore be used to illustrateRoman society Crook (1996 34)

21 Lawrsquos Leben

Viewed only in a legal perspective constitution and covenant are bareinstitutional concepts too easily dismissed as symbolic instrumentsconstructed by elites for the expression of ideal norms and the exerciseof power Potentially serious objections to our argument arise preciselyfrom the nature of the Roman legal sources adduced and further fromthe comparative application of Spanish charters from the RomanWest toCorinth a city in the Greek East On the basis of these considerationsone may wonder if it is possible to move in anymeaningful way from lawto life if by ldquoliferdquo we mean the day-to-day experience of Paul or thepeople to whom he is writing in 1 Corinthians In this brief chapter weargue that one can in fact connect law to life ndash and particularly theevidence of the extant Spanish civic charters to Roman Corinth ndash in thefirst century and that the key concept in establishing this nexus ispoliteia the political category delineated in the previous chapter

In Roman Corinth constituted community was the framework of colo-nial politeia the site where lex and public life met in vital conjunction ForPaul and his communities shaped in part by Second Temple Jewishdiscourses covenant was an important correlated concept that structuredcommunities in relation to the divine presence In 1 Corinthians constitu-tion and covenant intersect as Paul constructs a particular kind of politeiathat he invites his Corinthian auditors to inhabit Therefore if we knewmore about the Corinthian constitution and theways it connected to aspects

44

of colonial life we would be able better to probe the sources of Paulrsquoslanguage the provocations stirring his responses and the purpose of thepoliteia he proposesOur opening argument in the previous chapter appealed to a variety of

political precedents for the interpretation of Paulrsquos letters and particu-larly of 1 Corinthians We placed our own interpretive approach to 1 Cor11ndash46 among those streams of political precedent identifying mostclosely with interpreters who aim at understanding Paulrsquos argument in itsRoman Corinthian setting Some important conceptual categories weborrowed were politeia (as an ancient heuristic and analytic category)political discourse (as an ancient register within which to evaluatelinguistic comparanda) and alternative civic ideology (as describingthe ancient rhetorical goal of a variety of documents) Together thesecategories direct us toward aspects of ldquothe politicalrdquo in Paulrsquos epistleIn Chapters 2 through 4 we use those categories to extend the largely

undeveloped intuition among scholars that the Corinthian constitutionholds promise for the interpretation of Paulrsquos epistle By laying out thecontours of Corinthrsquos charter locating it within the fabric of urbanspace and linking it to public life we lay the foundation for theexegetical arguments in Part Two Specifically we work in this chapterand the following two to substantiate three claims First a vital anddemonstrable nexus1 exists between law and life politeia accuratelydescribes in first-century terms the dynamic site formed by this bondThe work of J A Crook helps us test this claim in this chapter Secondthe constitutional evidence from the Spanish civic charters is highlyrelevant to Roman Corinth The application and adaptation of thecharters to the first city of Achaia deepens our understanding of coloniallife as we see in Chapter 3 Third the concept of covenant mediatedespecially through Deuteronomy and the Jewish community in Corinth(in both synagogue and ekklēsia) intersects explicitly with theCorinthian constitution in the text of 1 Corinthians at the levels ofpolitical discourse and alternative civic ideology Demonstrating thisin Chapter 4 helps us set covenant as the counterpoint to constitutionand to glimpse the outline of the Pauline politeia in 1 Cor 11ndash46 Tothe degree that these three claims fuse persuasively in this and the nexttwo chapters the historical and exegetical arguments of Part Two reston a firm foundation

1 Nexus appropriately describes the conjunction between Roman law and life expres-sing nuances of bond legal obligation or connected group see OLD sv nexus nectereRE Sup 7 col 407 sv nexum (Berger)

Law and life 45

22 Crookrsquos challenge

Perhaps no one has argued more strongly for the legitimacy of linkingRoman law and life than the late Cambridge ancient historian John CrookIn a methodological reflection toward the end of his career Crook returnedto his lifelong theme2 He reiterated that his instrumental use of Romanlegal evidence involved an important shift in interpretive stance ldquoThegeneral historian I insisted was not looking at the Sitz im Leben of thelegal institutions ndash that is done all the time by the legal historians ndash butlooking at the Leben in which the legal institutions have their Sitz and forthe sake of the Lebenrdquo3 This claim regarding lawrsquos Leben is our point ofdeparture in establishing decisively the relevance of the constitutionalevidence for colonial and ecclesial life in Roman Corinth

Crookrsquos Law and Life of Rome4 published three decades earlierargues for the special value of non-juristic Roman legal sources parti-cularly the documentary texts because of the perspective they offer onldquodaily legal relationshipsrdquo

[T]here survive in remarkable richness on stone and bronze andpapyrus and wooden tablets actual documents of day-to-daylegal business ndash instrumenta and negotia We can read thehumble manrsquos will the auctioneerrsquos receipt the sale of ahorse the minerrsquos contract of service Not only does this takeus down into the middle-class world of Pompeii ofTrimalchiorsquos Dinner Party and further down still to the bar-maids and common soldiers and apprentices and out into thecountryside and the provincial towns it also enables us to judgea little how far this lower world did order its lives according tothe rules made by the great men in Rome5

These documentary sources ndash a category that includes the constitutionalcharters other inscriptions and papyri that form the overwhelming basisof this study ndash contributed to what Crook describes as ldquoa vast network oflegal rulesrdquo in which first-century people were ldquoenmeshedrdquo often to amore conscious degree than in many other societies6 Legal language andcategories he reminds us ldquocould be used for literary metaphor could bethe foundation of stage jokes or [could] furnish analogy in philosophical

2 Crook (1996 32ndash6)3 Crook (1996 32)4 Crook (1967)5 Crook (1967 11ndash12)6 Crook (1967 7ndash8)


discussionrdquo7 The law not only prescribed but also reflected cultural andpractical values8 litigation itself was a public spectacle observed evenby those whose lack of status excluded them from legal protections andprivilege9

Crook challenges ancient historians (among them scholars of NT andEarly Christianity) to draw on the legal evidence in framing both theirquestions and their interpretations In his methodological essay of 1996he poses the challenge most sharply and in two parts On the one hand thelegal historians he notes devote their energies to tracing over time theevolution of Roman law under the influence of the politics and philosophyof diverse eras What if Crook asks we reverse that direction and lookinstead for the influence of the law on political and philosophical conversa-tions concepts and conflicts10 On the other hand if we take seriously theclicheacute that ldquothe Romans constitute a paradigm of legal thinkingrdquo howwould an awareness of the Roman characteristic of ldquothinking like a lawyerrdquoaffect our historical investigations Crook offers a considered provocation

Not everyone has the characteristic of ldquoThinking like a Lawyerrdquonot all individuals nor it seems all peoples not even all demo-cratic peoples So the question arisesWhat is the relationshipin a given society between this ldquoThinking like a Lawyerrdquo and thenature of the society And it has to be looked at two ways notonly the influence of the society on the legal thought but also theinfluence of the legal thought on the society [a goal] only to beobtained by a collaborative effort I offer it as a challenge tothe younger generation11

ldquoThinking like a [Roman] Lawyerrdquo captures Crookrsquos challenge to thosewhowould risk the operation of uncovering the delicate web of ligamentsbinding law and life in such a place and time as Roman Corinth in the firstcentury

23 Crookrsquos challengers

Although many in the ldquoyounger generationrdquo have enthusiastically takenup Crookrsquos challenge12 not all are so positive about the prospects for

7 Crook (1967 8)8 Crook (1967 9)9 Crook (1967 33)

10 See Johnston (1999)11 Crook (1996 36)12 See eg McKechnie (2002)

Law and life 47

Roman law and life Some argue that there is a fundamental disconnect alack of fit between the legal evidence and lived experience particularlyin a colony such as Corinth To answer the objections voiced by the mostthoughtful of Crookrsquos challengers it is necessary to meet them directly13

Only so may we suspend the disbelief of those skeptical about the vitalconnection between law and life in Roman Corinth in particular

One central thread among the objections to Crookrsquos connectivist viewof Roman law and life is the contention regarding the nature of the legalsources whether literary or documentary In its basic form this objectiontypically runs something like this legal documents and sources areformal jurisprudential and normative texts that prescribe certain socialnorms but do not describe social reality That is to say texts such ascolonial constitutions are elitist legible only to the highly literate avail-able only to the rich and powerful and most damningly in the presentcase understandable only as formulaic and rhetorical constructions ofpoliticians and advocates To borrow Lessingrsquos metaphor well known toNT scholars we might say that in this view there is an ugly andunbridgeable ditch between Roman law and life in Roman social con-texts Such a chasm opens up because of the legal character of legal textsLaw and life simply do not connect at very many points and certainly notacross enough of the social spectrum towarrant the interpretive trajectorycharted in this study from colonial constitution to 1 Corinthians

As if this challenge emphasizing the nature of the legal sources werenot enough some of those who know Roman Corinth may offer yetanother this one emphasizing the Greek milieu of the colonyrsquos regionalsetting They are skeptical of the possibility of connecting law and life onthe ground that the colonia Corinthiensis though Roman in politicalstructure and its administrative epigraphy is demonstrably hybrid in thecomposition of its colonial life On this view the present project founderson the Graeco-Roman rocks of the Isthmus because of the complexintermingling of ldquoGreekrdquo ldquoRomanrdquo and other ethnic identities andmodes of interaction14 If we take the particularities of local and regionalevidence into consideration as we must this objection forces any whowould undertake such a constitutional comparison to anchor the evidenceas much as possible in a regional setting rather than naiumlvely assuming theldquoRomannessrdquo of life in the social domains and at the social levelsinvolving Paul and his Corinthian auditors On this objection it is the

13 Inter alia A Watson in Cairns and Du Plessis (2007)14

ldquoGreekrdquo and ldquoRomanrdquo were mingling in complex ways in Rome itself in the sameperiod See Wallace-Hadrill (2008) Spawforth (2012)


Roman nature of Roman law that calls into question the fit betweenconstitutional and colonial (or ecclesial) life Law and life remain uncon-nected because the Roman status of Roman Corinth is like a veneerwhen one scratches at it the grain of Greek identity and practice under-neath is revealed Corinthrsquos colonial Roman persona is therefore allegedto be an unreliable or at least irrelevant basis on which to construct aconstitutionally comparative interpretation of Paulrsquos epistleThese challenges to the Crookean view are serious but not indefeasi-

ble Crook himself was aware of certain aspects of these objections andhis own methodological cautions are the best starting point for formulat-ing an answer to each

24 Crookrsquos conditions

If we can demonstrate that the legal nature of our primary evidence doesconnect to a cross section of life in early Roman Corinth and that it is infact appropriate to speak of the Roman nature of first-century Corinth inways that evidence nuanced interaction with regional Greek culture thenthere is at the very least no a priori objection standing in the way of thisstudy On the contrary such a demonstration would indicate that there isevery reason to bring the Corinthian constitution and 1 Corinthians intocareful comparative conjunction To do so it is imperative to heed threecautions that Crook urges on those who would take up his challenge15

First Crook cautions that documentary evidence must function criti-cally in our thinking about the question of fit between law and society Asan example he refers to the question of the Roman law of sale Thiscategory of law discussed as emptio venditio in the juristic sources hasbeen discounted by many social historians as failing to grant access to theeconomic affairs of most people in most Roman social contexts becauseit is seen as idealizing and suspect from the vantage point of modernWeberian economic theory But Crook rightly points to the tabulae(wooden waxed tablets) discovered in Pompeii and Puteoli over thepast century as a challenge to this theory-driven skepticism The docu-ments which grant access to what some real people in these places weredoing do in fact confirm that legal and economic categories found inRoman law had traction on the ground in the first century16 What such

15 Crook (1996 33ndash6) ldquoconditions under which my enterprise ndash to use Roman law toillustrate Roman society ndash has to be conductedrdquo I combine and condense many of Crookrsquosconditions

16 Crook (1996 35ndash6)

Law and life 49

texts demonstrate is indeed a level of fit albeit with nuance betweenelite juristic categories and everyday practices in Roman colonies such asPompeii The constitutional texts from Roman coloniae andmunicipia infirst-century Spain that form the evidentiary basis for this study arethemselves documentary and may be checked against local and regionaldocumentary and archaeological evidence in a way that takes intoaccount Crookrsquos caution

Second Crook advises avoiding the straitjacket of the internal bound-aries of formal Roman law The Roman jurists and the modern legalhistorians who study their texts work with the legal categories of personsthings obligations and actions Each category is then further subdi-vided and custom opinion and precedent are applied to typical as wellas problematic cases that nest within the larger set17 But argues Crookhistorians have good reasons to disregard the traditional legal bound-aries reasons both ancient and modern Indeed the network of socialrelations in a colony such as Corinth (or in the ekklēsia Paul addresses)often necessitates the blurring of such categories if we are to trace legaland economic relations and effects among diverse actors In addition it isappropriate to bring contemporary legal and social questions to theancient evidence questions stimulated by our own concerns but onlyinsists Crook ldquowith the proviso that if there turns out to be little ornothing to say it mustnrsquot be inventedrdquo18 This is highly relevant for thepresent study as we link the constitutional categories laid out Chapter 3 toregional Corinthian evidence and the text of 1 Corinthians in Part Two

Third Crook warns historians to consider carefully the nature of legallanguage the normative character of the legal sources and the multi-valence of the law in its relation to society Roman legal language as wesee in the constitutional charters is often redundant and elaboratelyspecific As Crook reminds us ldquothe refinements of the law are up to apoint that may be very difficult to estimate professional over-elaborationrdquo19 Furthermore the normativity of official legal texts suchas colonial charters demands that we ask ldquoto what extent the laws wereobeyed and what practical effect they actually had without at the sametime forgetting that parts of the law are self-fulfillingrdquo20 Finally themultivalent relationship of law and life in the Roman world requires anacknowledgment that the law is ldquonot only a set of rules that people are

17 See the inexorable juristic logic in Gaius Zulueta (1946) eg G 18ndash1218 Crook (1996 33)19 Crook (1996 34)20 Crook (1996 34)


supposed to obey it is also with equal importance a system of enablingpeople to settle their disputesrdquo21 These issues of legal language legalnormativity and multivalence must inform our investigation of how theconstitutional evidence can be connected first to Roman Corinth and thento 1 CorinthiansWith Crookrsquos cautionary conditions in mind we now turn to the task of

restoring the constitution to Corinth in a way that seeks both to take up hischallenge and to bear in mind his cautions We must establish a vital linkbetween Roman law and life in the colony and we must defeat theobjections to the legal nature of constitutional texts and to the Romannature of first-century Corinth E A Meyer another who has followedCrookrsquos lead in her recent study of Roman tabulae characterizes herattempt as throwing ldquoa rope bridge across the chasm between the studyof Roman history and the study of Roman law a crevasse that has beengrowing broader and more forbidding for nearly a centuryrdquo Among hermotivations is this conviction ldquothe law cannot safely be left out of a visionof [the Roman] world because it was anchored fathoms deep in Romanculturerdquo22 We might well replace ldquoRomanrdquo in that statement withldquoCorinthianrdquo according to evidence adduced in the following chapter

21 Crook (1996 34)22 Meyer (2004 3)

Law and life 51

3

THE CORINTHIAN CONSTITUTION

Rather than take the purpose and form of colonies forgranted we need to test precisely whether they did in factldquohave all the laws and institutions of the Roman peoplerdquo

Ando (2007 432)

Corinthrsquos oft-mentioned refounding in 44 BC marks it as a colonyconstituted on a Roman model and places it at the start of the third andfinal chapter of the story of Roman colonization1 Kornemannrsquos formula ndashldquoDie Geschichte der roumlmischen Kolonisation ist die Geschichte desroumlmische Staatesrdquo2 ndash continues to remind us that the founding of coloniesmust always be situated in the larger narrative of Roman political andcultural history It is therefore important to set the evidence for compar-able Julio-Claudian colonial constitutions in historical perspective beforedetailing the sources of that evidence its features and its relevance to lifein first-century Roman Corinth The epigraphical and archaeologicalwork necessary to do so will be valuable for NT interpretation a factpresaged by the increasing overtures to colonial charters by scholars of1 Corinthians

Prior to the second century BC most colonies were small and withinstriking distance from the city of Rome3 With the Gracchan scheme ofthe late second century a new era of transmarine colonization graduallygained momentum culminating in the colonial foundations of Caesar

1 Corinthrsquos colonial status and refoundation is de rigeur in the commentaries as is AulusGelliusrsquos description of colonies as ldquosmall effigies and replicasrdquo of the Roman people(Noct att 16138ndash9) But see Ando (2007 432)

2 E Kornemann RE IV (1901) sv coloniae col 560 Cf H Galsterer Neue Pauly svcoloniae Valuable though dated is Levick (1967 1ndash5) A recent synopsis with theoreticalconsiderations is Woolf (2011) See also Vittinghoff (1952) Jones (1967 61ndash4) Salmon(1969 76ndash95) Sherwin-White (1973) Keppie (1983) Alcock (1993) Lintott (1993)Gargola (1995) Spawforth (2012 45ndash58)

3 Levick (1967 1ndash3)

52

and Augustus It was at a key moment in this late phase of overseassettlement that Corinth and Carthage were birthed from the travail ofbrutal power politics at Rome in 44 BC4 both becoming epitomes ofcoloniae transmarinae5 and subsequently figuring as icons of Romanimperial thought6 Caesarrsquos choice of Corinth as a site for a colonialfoundation was strategic in a variety of ways By the end of the firstcentury Corinth stood as a political and economic crossroads in Greecelocated symbolically and mathematically at the center of the Romanprovince of Achaia7 Displayed prominently in the monumental Romancenter of Corinth from early in its first century of existence was itscolonial constitution

31 Sources for first-century Roman civic constitutions

We have at our disposal rich sources for modeling Corinthrsquos missingconstitution Evidence for colonial and municipal charters ndash some of itquite recently discovered ndash comes to us primarily on bronze tablets fromfirst-century Roman Spain It is helpful at this point to lay out the primarysource material The two extensive charters most relevant for Corinth arethe lex colonia Genetivae Iuliae of Urso (hereafter lex Urs) and the lexFlavia municipalis attested at Salpensa Malaca and Irni (hereafter lexFlavia)Urso in the public province of Hispania Ulterior Baetica was

founded contemporaneously with Corinth and Carthage in 44 BC8 It

4 Neither the problem of the precise date of Corinthrsquos foundation nor the associatedproblem of the relation between Caesarrsquos acta and the lex Antonia de actis Caesarisconfirmandis needs concern us here primarily because of the Julio-ClaudianFlavian dateof the extant leges (see Section 32) and the apostle Paulrsquos midndashfirst-century visit toCorinth) On the foundation date see Amandry (1988 13) Walbank (1997) forAntonyrsquos and Caesarrsquos commentarii in relation to leges coloniae et municipiae seeFrederiksen (1965 194ndash5)

5 Plut Caesar 575 Paus 212 Appian Pun 136 Dio Cass 435036 Vittinghoff (1952 86ndash7) at 87 ldquoDie Roumlmerkolonien Karthago und Korinth sind

Sinnbilder caesarischen Reichsdenkensrdquo Cf Levick (1967 4)7 See eg the estimate of the current director of excavations at Corinth in Sanders

(2005 15) ldquoThe historical communications network of southern Greece has recently beentreated purely as a problem in graph theory Corinth was unsurprisingly found to be atthe mathematical and geographical center of the Roman province of Achaiardquo Cf Sandersand Whitbread (1990) Williams (1993) Spawforth (2012 47ndash8)

8 Kornemann RE IV (1901) sv coloniae col 527 no 84 cf col 573 for featureslinking the three In the application and adaptation of the charter evidence to Corinth thatfollows there are certain similarities with Rives (1995 17ndash99)

The Corinthian constitution 53

is an irony of history that the bronze charter of this relatively unim-portant Spanish city has survived to such a significant degree whereasthe constitutions of the famous colonies in Achaia and Africa haveperished (see map in Figure 1) Although the first record of bronzetablets from Urso (modern Osuna in Andaluciacutea) dates from 16089 itwas not until the discovery of four bronzes in 1870ndash71 that our under-standing of colonial administration in late Republican and earlyimperial Roman foundations was set on an entirely new footing In1925 twelve additional fragments two joining added modestly to ourknowledge of the lex10 Since then two more supplements have beenfound one small fragment ndash possibly part of the preamble to theconstitution ndash was acquired on the antiquities market and first pub-lished in 199111 the other ndash a substantial tablet in its own right ndash wasunearthed during preparation for a suburban construction project in1999 and only published in full in 200612

Urso

CarthageCorinth

Figure 1 Corinth Carthage and Urso in the First-Century MediterraneanWorldArtist Scott Spuler One Hat Design Studio LLC

9 Recorded by Antonio Garciacutea de Coacuterdoba in his 1746 essay Historia Antiguumledad yexcelencias de la villa de Osuna See Caballos Rufino (2006 21)

10 Primary bibliography for the 1870ndash71 and 1925 discoveries in RS I 25 393ndash4Periodically updated bibliography may be found at The Roman Law Library site (httpwebu2upmf-grenoblefrHaitiCoursAk accessed November 5 2013)

11 Fernaacutendez Goacutemez (1991 127) Caballos Rufino (2004) Caballos Rufino (200626ndash7) See further Crawford (1998 42) esp Appendix 3 (ldquoA Possible Reference to aLex Iulia municipalisrdquo)

12 Caballos Rufino (2006 35ndash45 [provenance] 49ndash101 [physical features and restora-tion] 105ndash304 [text translation and commentary])


Altogether the fragments of the lex Urs attest some 62 of approxi-mately 144 chapters that spanned nine tablets13 As we will see later thephysical features of these bronze tablets and the content of the extantchapters provide us with important information concerning the applica-tion and adaptation of Roman law to colonies such as Urso Corinth andCarthage This data allows us to outline the contours of Corinthrsquos charterto place it within the physical and symbolic life of the colony and tobring it to bear on the interpretation of the Pauline textIn addition to the lex Urs and even more impressive in terms of scale

nearly two-thirds of the lex Flavia survives To the fragments of theso-called legesMalacitana and Salpensana both discovered in 1851 nearthe Spanish city of Maacutelaga on the Costa del Sol of Andaluciacutea14 wasadded in 1981 the extensive and partially overlapping text preserved onthe six bronze tablets and associated fragments of the lex Irnitana (here-after lex Irn)15 In the same 1986 issue of the Journal of Roman Studiesin which the text and an English translation were published JoyceReynolds hails the discovery of the lex Irn considering it to be ldquoin aclass of its ownrdquo on account of the detailed insight it gives us into civicconstitutions16 Subsequent pieces purchased on the antiquities markethave not added substantially to our knowledge of the lex Flavia17

although it is unclear whether there remain unpublished fragments18

13 These figures apply if we accept the identification of fragment MAS REP 199085 asforming part of the preamble andMallonrsquos reconstruction of Tablet d (or something like it)Caballos Rufino (2006 26ndash7) See Crawfordrsquos comments RS I 25 394 410ndash14 It shouldbe noted that some chapters are barely preserved (eg Ch XXQuicumque comitia id[ ndash ])while others are quite extensive (eg Ch XCV 36 lines of text running over two columnsdealing with judgment by recuperatores for civil proceedings) All fragments are now inthe Museo Arqueoloacutegico Nacional Madrid

14 Texts translations and important bibliography Rodriguez De Berlanga (1853)Mommsen (1965 265ndash382) Spitzl (1984)

15 Text and translations Gonzaacutelez (1986) DrsquoOrs (1986) AE 198633 (text only)excellent diplomatic text and images in Fernandez Gomez and Del Amo Y De La Hera(1990) references here are to the widely available text in Gonzaacutelez (1986) Crawford whojudges the time to be ldquounriperdquo for a new (but desirable) critical edition supplies correctionsto the text in Crawford (2008) Mourgues (1987) Galsterer (1988) Lamberti (1993)Metzger (1997) are significant

16 Reynolds et al (1986 134 cf 125)17 Fernaacutendez Goacutemez (1991) Caballos Rufino and Fernaacutendez Goacutemez (2002) Tomlin

(2002)18 The promise of further publication of fragments by Gonzaacutelez (1986 147) Galsterer

(1988 78 n3) Fernandez Gomez and Del Amo y De La Hera (1990 35ndash8) ie Ch 18partially preserved on Tablet II included in Lamberti (1993) It is unclear if this comprisesall the fragments originally referred to by Gonzaacutelez


Irni was one of several towns in Spain to receive the legal status andadministrative structure of a Latin municipium under the Flavians Suchmunicipia legally distinct from Roman coloniae were preexisting citiesraised to municipal status by the granting of a charter Thus the chaptersof the extant tablets served to reconstitute the forms of civic life in theselate first-century Spanish communities19 Despite the nuance between thelegal status of municipia and coloniae the lex Flavia in its compositeform overlaps to a significant degree with the lex Urs in its contents andconcerns and is therefore of great value for modeling the Corinthianconstitution20 The text of the lex Irn is particularly valuable because itpreserves evidence of Augustan legislation and Julio-Claudian influenceon civic constitutions over the course of the first century it even providesa window into the manner in which elements of such charters wereclarified and amended after their initial drafting and publication21 Insum the lex Flavia is an important companion to the lex Urs Both to acertain degree were living documents exerting an ongoing influence intheir respective communities over the course of the Julio-Claudian andinto the Flavian periods By analogy the Corinthian constitution wouldalso have been a dynamic monumental text in the first century ndash presentpertinent and perhaps expanding along with the colony it chartered

Other important legal documents certainly have implications for layersof public life in Corinth and other first-century Roman communities ofboth the Latin West and Greek East ndash some very recent discoveries andsome that will in fact feature as supplementary evidence in laterchapters22 But the lex Urs and the lex Irn from Roman Spain providethe template by which we evoke Corinthian constitutional categories andcolonial politeia as a setting for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians

32 Physical features of extant civic constitutions

Before considering either the manner of display or the contents of thesecharters it is vital to note their diplomatic features When epigraphists

19 This difference is observable in the internal perspectives of the lex Urs and lex Irnthemselves Barja De Quiroga (1997 47ndash61)

20 See Crawford RS I 25 398ndash99 On the close association of municipia and coloniaesee also Garnsey and Saller (1987 27ndash8)

21 Gonzaacutelez (1986 150) Mourgues (1987) Lamberti (1993 220ndash27) Crawford (1995)22 Others include the lex Tarentina (RS I 15) Tabula Heracleensis (RS I 24) lex

municipii Compsani Folcando (1996) sc de Cn Pisone patre Eck et al (1996) TabulaSiarensis Saacutenchez-Ostiz Gutieacuterrez (1999) Caesarian treaty of Rome with Lycia of 46 BC(PSchoslashyen I 25) lex rivi Hiberiensis Lloris (2006) lex portorii Asiae Cottier (2008)


speak of the diplomatics of texts such as the lex Urs and lex Irn they arereferring to the physical characteristics and layout of the text as it appearson (in this case) bronze tablets Features such as letter size and stylearrangement of paragraphs and columns and overall use of space andformatting are important to mention briefly because they provide awindow for us into various aspects of the life of the charter in relationto the city it constitutes In considering the diplomatics of the bronzecharters we begin to understand them not simply as abstract legal textsbut also as physical functional and symbolic elements of communal lifeover time We therefore focus on the diplomatic features of the lex Urs23

before summarizing their implications for three phases in the nexus ofcharter and city drafting and publication layout and consultation andadditions and emendationsAs Emil Kieszligling noted in 1921 ldquoDie Hauptschwierigkeit die die lex

Ursonensis bietet ist die Frage nach ihrer Entstehungrdquo24 Happily wehave important data for approaching this problem of the formation of thelex Urs as well as that of the final form and ongoing function of civicconstitutions generally This data comes as a result of careful attention tothe physical details and letter-forms of the bronze charter tablets byepigraphists and paleographers especially those who have built on thework of Kieszligling (and Huumlbner before him)25 Of these none has hadmore influence than the French paleographer Jean Mallon whose pub-lications on the diplomatics of the bronzes continue to influence allattempts at reconstructing the textual history and contexts of displayfor both the lex Urs and the lex Irn26 Although important recent studies

23 The focus here is solely on the diplomatics of the lex Urs for two reasons First thephysical features of the lex Irn have occasioned less scholarly discussion Second whilethe tablets of the lex Flavia are datable to the Flavian era and apply to preexistingmunicipia those of the lex Urs may date from the Julio-Claudian era and present theclosest model for coloniae such as Urso and Corinth For diplomatics of the lex Irn seeGonzaacutelez (1986 147ndash9) Fernandez Gomez and Del Amo Y De La Hera (1990 31ndash3)

24 Kieszligling (1921 258)25 Kieszligling (1921) Kieszliglingrsquos great insight was that the engraver of Fragment E (Tablet IX)

of the lexUrs initially jumped in column II from the end of Ch 128 to the beginning of Ch 131by an error of haplography because of the almost identical Schluszligsaumltzen of Chs 128 and 130Having proceeded to the end of the lex before noticing his error he solved the problem byhammering out just enough space to cram Chs 129ndash131 into columns II and III This provesthat the final extant chapters are not a supplement added by a later hand but a self-correction bythe same scribe responsible for the rest of the lex the entirety ofwhichwas thus engraved at onetime See also E Huumlbnerrsquos observations in Mommsen (1965 194ndash239)

26 Especially the two essays transl and repr in Mallon (1982 47ndash54 55ndash73)


particularly by Spanish epigraphists update Mallonrsquos conclusions ourdiscussion must begin with him

Five rectangular bronze tablets were known to Mallon each measur-ing 59 cm high by 90ndash93 cm wide and designated by him fragmentsAndashE27 By careful observation of these dimensions the layout of col-umns and what remains of framing edges and peripheral holes Mallonargues for a new reconstruction of the lex according to which it consistedof nine tablets joined in one horizontal band of 131 m (= 2 times 40 Romanfeet) its 42 columns symmetrically arranged28 Mallon further suggestedthat the entire bronze display was modeled on the papyrus volumen onwhich the text of the lexwas originally brought from Rome thus evokingin its final form the original exemplar on which it was based29 When thenewer fragments published in 2006 are added toMallonrsquos reconstructionwe arrive at the overall schematic shown in Figure 230

In the late 1990s A Stylow conducted a more thorough autopsy thanMallon had been able to do of the gathered and (largely) cleaned tabletsnow in the Museo Arqueoloacutegico Nacional de Madrid with importantnew results Stylowrsquos conclusions are of the utmost significance for ourcomparison of the lex Urs and Paulrsquos Corinthian letter because theyemphasize the Julio-Claudian contents and context of the former Whilehe agrees with Mallonrsquos general reconstruction of the lex Stylow chal-lenges the paleographer on two key points to which we return in the nextsection regarding the fabrication and display of the bronzes Firstwhereas Mallon suggests that each of the tablets was mounted so asto be removable thereby facilitating changes or additions within thelex Stylow argues otherwise On the basis of holes and border elementsvisible to him Stylow concludes that the tablets once mounted weresoldered at the edges in such a way as to emphasize and secure theunity and permanence of the lex31 Second although Mallon hadrisked a further hypothesis that the bronzes may have been cast ndash text

27 Mallon (1982 47) Updated description of these fragments Caballos Rufino (200679ndash82)

28 Symmetry of the columns spread over the nine tablets 2+3 (Tablet I) 2+3 (Tablet II)2+3 (Tablet III) 3 (Tablet 4) 3+3 (Tablet V) 3 (Tablet VI) 3+2 (Tablet VII) 3+2 (TabletVIII) 3+2 (Tablet IX) Columns vary in the amount of text (from 32 to 52 lines) but averagearound 38ndash9 lines per column

29 Mallon (1982 48ndash53) This suggestion has gained universal acceptance but see thegeneral cautions vis-agrave-vis Mallonrsquos paleographical approach to the processes of epigraphi-cal production Susini (1973 31ndash4) Stylow (1997 39ndash42)

30 A newer reconstruction adding two tablets Caballos Rufino (2006 172ndash5)31 Stylow (1997 39ndash40) cf Meyer (2004 35)


(Frsquo Ersquo) (Trsquo Srsquo) (Drsquo Crsquo) (Rrsquo) A

131 m (= 2 times 40 Roman feet)

B (R) C D (S T) E (F)

424140393837363534333231302928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Figure 2 Reconstruction of the lex Ursonensis Showing tablets column distribution extant sections and total length(modified from Mallon Les bronzes drsquoOsuna fig 5)Artist Simon Harris

and all ndash by the method of cire perdue32 Stylow disproves this conjec-ture demonstrating instead that the lettering was indeed engraved afterthe tablets were cast What Stylow makes of these observations is criticalfor the dating of the lex Urs

According to the communis opinio the lex Urs was engraved anddisplayed in the Flavian era The reasons for this dating are twofold bothderiving from nineteenth-century analysis Huumlbner compares the letter-forms of the lex Urs to the only other Spanish bronzes known at the timethe leges Malacitana and Salpensana As the latter were datable oninternal grounds to the Flavian era Huumlbner used them to date the formerHe also advanced an argument from orthographic variants and apparentinterpolations within the lex Urs again concluding that it dated toFlavian times Stylow however argues that both lines of Huumlbnerrsquosargumentation supported by Mallon and others are now demonstrablyinvalid on the basis of the evidence of newer bronze inscriptions fromRoman Spain Stylow contends that not only the letter-forms of the lexUrs but also the manner in which its respective tablets were soldered toone another are much closer by comparison to the Tabula Siarensis andthe senatus consultum de Cn Pisone Patre both of Tiberian date than tothe bronzes of the lex Flavia known to Huumlbner33

We may now summarize the implications of Stylowrsquos findings for therelationship of lex to colonia in the Julio-Claudian period First Stylowconcludes that there is no diplomatic or paleographic evidence for phasesof engraving or additions to the lex The lex as we have it on bronze is aunitary work probably executed by a single engraver and is free frominterpolation34 Second on the basis of letter-forms and traces of carefulsoldering Stylow contends that the extant copy of the lex Urs wascomposed inscribed and displayed sometime in the second quarter ofthe first century that is between the time of Tiberius and Claudius35

Third Stylow goes on to postulate that this new publication of the lexsome seventy to eighty years after the foundation of the colony in 44 BCwas occasioned by a need to update substantially the original text of thecharter Finally Stylow concludes that this revised chronology for thedrafting and publication of the extant bronzes of the lex Urs opens for usa new diachronic vision of the development and relevance of the colonial

32 Mallon (1982 53) Cire perdue or ldquolost waxrdquo casting is one ancient (and modern)method of casting bronze Cf eg Pliny NH 3497ndash9

33 Stylow (1997 42ndash3) See Saacutenchez-Ostiz Gutieacuterrez (1999) Eck et al (1996)34 Stylow (1997 42ndash5)35 Stylow (1997 43)


constitution between the time of Caesar and Augustus and that of the lexFlavia36

What the observations of scholars such as Mallon and Stylow demon-strate is that the physical features of the lex Urs in particular grant us awindow into the life of the constitution and by extension the life of thecommunity it constituted Arriving from Rome on an officially sanc-tioned papyrus volumen the charter was carefully engraved on purpose-cast bronze tablets and monumentally displayed Once engraved andmounted the tablets were permanent and no interpolations were madeWhen substantial changes or additions became warranted in the form ofnew and relevant legislation new tablets were apparently cast andinscribed with the updated text The evidence of the extant bronzesfrom Roman Spain suggests at least two moments in the first centurywhen such updates may have occurred for legislative and political rea-sons one Julio-Claudian and one Flavian These diplomatic features ofthe bronzes offer as we have glimpsed a further window into the life ofthe constitution in its colonial and monumental setting and it is to theseaspects of display and function that we now turn

33 Display and function of constitutions

We have seen that civic constitutions such as the lex Urs and the lex Irnwere impressively large inscriptions composed of multiple bronze tabletswith several columns of small text each With this basic image in mindwe must now ask further questions to situate the constitutions in bothcivic space and time Where would such inscriptions be displayed Andonce displayed what function would they play in the life of the city Inthis section we discern a pattern of monumental display and ongoingfunction emerging from the evidence of the Spanish charters especiallywhen set beside the supporting evidence of the agrimensores Romansurveyors whose tasks frequently brought them into contact with civiccharters This pattern of display and function provides us with a basis forreconstructing a plausible physical and functional setting in RomanCorinthBronze tablets engraved with the texts of leges coloniae and munici-

piorum would have been displayed prominently on public monuments inthe evolving civic forum As Crawford has acknowledged

36 Stylow (1997 45)


The mere acquisition of a municipal statute of the rules bywhich the community was to live is itself in the Roman worldan essential part of becoming a city But it is additionally thecase that communities often went through the two processes ofacquiring a charter and a monumental urban centre at the sametime or in the same period Nor should we forget that thesestatutes normally contained chapters which dealt with the urbanframework itself37

Although the tablets of the lex Urs were recovered from the area ofUrsorsquos urban center there is no way to link them to any monumentalstructure38 Nevertheless the 131 m total length of the lex and theevidence of rivets upper and lower frame and holes for mountingsuggest a major civic monument such as a Capitolium amphitheateror some other grand public building39 The same holds true for the nearly9 m length of the lex Irn40 which preserves holes and traces that suggest9 mm diameter nails or rivets helped hold it in place41 When the weightof the bronze tablets is taken into consideration the most likely scenariofor display would involve a recessed monumental niche with a ledgesupporting the base of the tablets and hooks affixing their upper portionto the wall42 We should also take seriously the evidence of the constitu-tions themselves when they dictate the condition of their own visibledisplay with the formula u(nde) d(e) p(lano) r(ecte) l(egi) p(ossit) ldquoso

37 Crawford (1995 421)38 Caballos Rufino (2006 80ndash2)39 See Tacitus Ann 360ndash63 bronze tablets in civic temples in the Greek East (in

templis figere aera sacrandam ad memoriam) Caballos Rufino (2006 82) points toanalogous technology and display setting at the amphitheater of Itaacutelica (Spain) albeit forinscribed plaques of marble

40 Gonzaacutelez (1986 147ndash8) ldquoThe height of the tablets is 57ndash8 cm their width 90ndash1 cmeach tablet bears three columns the whole law will have covered the walls of a publicbuilding for a distance of some nine metres like an unrolled volumen The height of theletters varies between 4 and 6 mm The text is framed above and below by a simplemoulding Each tablet has three holes at the top and three at the bottom for fixing it tothe wall The Lex Irnitana then when complete will have consisted of 10 tabletscontaining 30 columns and about 1500 lines altogether since we possess 6 tablets and theequivalent of about 2 columns of Tablet VI from the Lex Malacitana we know the contentof 20 columns or 23 of the totalrdquo (Note Mallonrsquos influence)

41 Despite a disappointing archaeological context for the lex Irn see the commentsrelated to these features by Fernandez Gomez and Del Amo Y De La Hera (1990 33) alltablets are now reunited in the Museo Arqeoloacutegico de Sevilla see Lamberti (1993 7)

42 Variants on this reconstructed context of display Mallon (1982 53) Stylow (199739ndash42) Caballos Rufino (2006 80ndash82) Cf Corbier (1987 27ndash60)


that it is able to be read from ground levelrdquo43 It is further possible that aform of lead carbonate may have been applied to highlight in white theletters of the inscription44 Among the many inscriptions monumentsand statues in a colonial forum a burnished bronze constitution45 ndash withtext visible and accessible to passersby scrolled across a major publicbuilding ndash is the vision we ought to have of the display of legescoloniarumBut what role would such striking bronze tablets play in the ongoing

life of a colony Before answering that question directly it is necessaryto draw attention to a companion piece to the lex coloniae another largeinscribed text with which it would have been associated in display andwhich provides a bridge to the question of functionality In the extendedprocess of colonial foundation the publication of the lex coloniae wasjoined by the forma coloniae the map of the colonial territory with itslimites and internal land divisions Together the publication of lex andforma marked the legal and ritual birth of the colony and constituted itsadministrative structure and lived spaces46 Recognizing the linkbetween lex and forma brings us into contact with real people in thiscase the agrimensores or land surveyors who were involved in theformation of and ongoing consultation about constitutions at variouspoints in colonial life47

In the foundation of a new colony land surveyors were deployedahead of the body of colonists to carry out the centuriation or territorialdivision of the colony Once the surveyors had completed their initialwork the colonial commissioners ndash those authorized to lead the coloniststo the site and to conduct the rituals of foundation ndash were able to performtwo important enactments (among others) that constituted the colonyFirst they read out and published the colonial constitution Second theydivided the land assignments among the colonists by the process ofsortitio (drawing lots) and recorded assignments on the colonial mapFormally enacted and published in this manner both lex and forma were

43 lex Irn Ch 9544 Caballos Rufino (2006 72) notes the absence of chemical traces on the new fragment

of the lex Urs but points to the presence of lead carbonate on the bronzes of the lexTarentina and the Tabula Heracleensis

45 See Pliny NH 3499 for the care of public bronzes46 Gargola (1995 39ndash50 71ndash101) For Corinth see Walbank (1997) Romano (2003)47 Also called the gromatici veteres a name taken from the groma or surveying

instrument See Campbell (2000) who uses the Latin text of Thulin (1971) I refer totexts by ancient author work and the page and line number in Campbell


documents available to future surveyors who were often called on to helpin the adjudication or arbitration of public and private land disputes48

One early agrimensor Hyginus 1 active at the end of the first centurycommented on the importance of the colonial constitutions He insiststhat a colonial charter was of more than symbolic importance when hewrites ldquoTherefore we must always pay attention to the laws of all thecolonies and municipia and we must also enquire if after the law wasissued anything was added or removed in commentaries letters oredictsrdquo49 Referring to specific clauses in leges coloniarum that findtheir match in the lex Urs and lex Irn50 Hyginus 1 details scenarios ofdisputes a surveyor may face and urges him to know and consult both lexand forma He concludes

So as I have said the laws must always be carefully scrutinizedand interpreted word by word Disputes often arise aboutpublic roads right of way for driving cattle right of passageright of way round buildings right of access streams valleysditches and fountains All these situations require not ourservices but the intervention of the legal process that is thecivil law We take part in these (disputes) when something haseither to be demarcated by investigation [in the field] or recov-ered if something is discovered written on a map51

This excerpt reprises a major theme in the writings of the agrimensoreswho were occupied extensively with land disputes a key concern wastherefore the location and correct interpretation of colonial laws andmaps52 Such disputes ndash some visible in the epigraphic record53 ndash

might embroil entire communities wealthy landowners contractorsand their laborers54

48 For the full ritual process including lex and forma see Gargola (1995 9ndash10 80ndash98)cf Keppie (1983 96ndash7) Both link between the evidence of the agrimensores the lex Ursand a variety of colonies See also Walbank (1997 98ndash9)

49 Campbell (2000 xxxv 78ndash90 8431ndash3)50 Campbell (2000 8435ndash8 866ndash17 364)51 Campbell (2000 9834 37ndash1003) De generibus controversiam52 Campbell (2000 475ndash77) ldquoAppendix 6 Surveyors and the lawrdquo53 Campbell (2000 454ndash67) ldquoAppendix 3 Epigraphic evidence for the settlement of

land boundaries and disputesrdquo provides an annotated collection of inscriptions organizedregionally Baetica at 456 Achaia at 461

54 Cf Lloris (2006) The new evidence of the Hadrianic bronze lex rivi Hiberiensisshows three rural communities (two pagi and one district) belonging to two separateterritoria (one colonial one municipal) working within a legal framework of a singleldquoirrigation communityrdquo to manage a conflicted water supply and adjudicate disputes


It was not however only in such cases that a colonial constitutionmounted prominently in the forum extended its reach through territorialspace and civic time Other moments in the first-century internal life ofcolonies such as Urso Carthage and Corinth included annual electionsof magistrates the business of the decurional council arrangements forpublic contracts festivals or public spectacles adjudication and otherforms of everyday business55 Visible in the monumental heart of thecolony from its earliest days the lex coloniae was a presence exerting anongoing influence in the life of the colony over the course of the firstcentury To argue otherwise is to deny at the very least the importantmanner in which the constitution knit together and undergirded thephysical space and multiple domains of colonial life This presence andwide influence were a function of the structure and content of the con-stitution which we now outline

34 Structure and content of constitutions

Both the lex Urs and the lex Flavia borrow from earlier Roman law bothwith discernible layers of late Republican and Augustan legislationThese layers together with the template-like nature of the constitutionsresult in a less than tidy flow of thought from chapter to chapterNevertheless according to Crawford a ldquocoherent and intelligiblerdquo struc-ture unfolds applying Roman law to areas of public life and adapting it atpoints to the local setting of a Roman colony56 The contents of thosechapters show just how comprehensively the constitutions framed civiclife Here we outline the chapters of each charter to demonstrate thevaried domains of politeia to which they relate Certain constitutionalchapters are discussed in more depth in our later exegetical chapters(Chapters 6 and 7)

offering a fascinating window into the practical function of Roman law in the coherence ofrural life and urban nodes

55 For Corinth see later in this chapter For Carthage see Rives (1995 28ndash76)C Umbrius Eudrastus a municipal magistrate in Italy executed a monumental benefactionin accordance with his civic constitution (CIL IX 9803 lege civitatis) discussed in light ofother similar texts by Folcando (1996) For attention to the leges civitatum of Bithynia seePliny Ep 10114 sequendam cuiusque civitatis legem puto (Trajanrsquos reply) Prof MichaelPeachin kindly pointed me to the Folcando reference

56 Layers of late Republican and Augustan legislation Crawford (1995 423ndash9) Ursoand Irni DrsquoOrs (1997) Urso Gonzaacutelez (1986 150) Flavian charters local adaptationand amendment Frederiksen (1965 197ndash8) Gonzaacutelez (1986 149) but see Crawford RSI 25 397


Altogether the lex Urs would have contained some 144 chaptersframed by a preface (praescriptio)57 and a concluding clause (sanctio)58

Table 1 summarizes the structure by tablet and chapter

Table 1 The lex Ursonensis

Tablet Chaptersa

Tablet Ib 2+3 cols largely lost praescriptioc Chs 1ndash24d

Chs 1ndash12 religious matterse

Ch 13 securities required of elected magistratesCh 14 colonial property requirement of electedmagistrates in first two years of the colony

Ch 15 names and voting procedure for colonial tribes(curiae)f

Ch 16 assignment (adscriptio) of colonists to curiaeCh 17 election of colonial senators (decuriones)Ch 18 process for electing magistrates and investmentwith imperium

Ch 19 posting candidates for election on public tablets(alba)

Ch 20 elections

Tablet II 2+3 cols lost Chs 24ndash61Tablet III 2+3 cols lostTablet IV 3 cols lostTablet V[=Mallon A+B]

3 + 3 cols Chs 61ndash82Ch 61 laying on of hands guarantors and use of force indebt cases

Ch 62 rights powers and staff (apparitores) ofmagistrates (duoviri and aediles)

Ch 63 pro rata payment of duoviral apparitoresCh 64 setting festival days (dies festos) and publicsacrifices (sacra publicae)

Ch 65 proper uses of public penalty moniesCh 66 status and exemptions of priests augurs and theirfamilies

Ch 67 replacement of priests and augursCh 68 assembly to elect priests and augurs

57 Crawford RS I 15 notes the partial model of a praescriptio in Cicero Phil 126Such prescripts recorded details such as those who proposed the statute

58 The sanctio of the lex Urs may or may not have mirrored that preserved in the lex IrnCh 96 for other late Republican models see Crawford RS I 20ndash24 It probably concludedthe lex with a closing formula relating to the scope and validity of the statute prescribing apenalty for contravening or evading its provisions


Table 1 (cont)

Tablet Chaptersa

Ch 69 duoviri responsibility for payment of publiccontract work

Ch 70 duoviri responsibility for dramatic shows (ludiscaenici) and spectacles (munus)

Ch 71 aediles responsibility for shows (ludi and munus)Ch 72 restrictions on expenditures for sacraCh 73 corpses and burials outside civic boundariesCh 74 regulations for crematoriaCh 75 regulations for demolition and reconstruction ofbuildings

Ch 76 limit on capacity of tile-worksCh 77 aediles and management of public worksCh 78 right of way and public accessCh 79 public access and control of waterCh 80 rendering accounts for public businessCh 81 administration of oath to public scribes (scribae)Ch 82 use of public lands

Tablet VI 3 cols lost Chs 82ndash91Tablet VII[=Mallon C+D]

3+2 cols Chs 91ndash106Ch 91 domicile requirements for magistratesCh 92 regulations for sending embassiesCh 93 limits on magistratesrsquo acceptance of giftsCh 94 jurisdiction and administration of justiceCh 95 procedures for appointment and judgment by apanel of judges in a civil trial (recuperatores)

Ch 96 initiation of a senatorial court (quaestio) toinvestigate corruption

Ch 97 adopting a colonial patron (patronus)Ch 98 public works constructionCh 99 public water worksCh 100 private use of overflow waterCh 101 assembly to elect or replace magistratesCh 102 public trials (quaestiones) conducted by duoviriCh 103 putting colonists under armsCh 104 boundary ditch maintenanceCh 105 accusation or condemnation of a senator(decurion)

Ch 106 forbidding of unlawful assemblyTablet VIII[=Mallon D]

3+2 cols lost Chs 106ndash123 g

Tablet IX[=Mallon E]

3+2 cols Chs 123ndash144 sanctioCh 123 accusation and acquittalCh 124 condemnation of a senatorCh 125 seating of senators at ludiCh 126 assigning seats at ludi


Even a cursory glance at the chapters of the lex Urs demonstratesjust how comprehensively the constitution regulated the primaryaspects of public life in a Caesarian colony such as Corinth Coloniallife in many of its facets ndash the organization of the citizen body theelection rights and privileges of magistrates the administration ofpublic space contracts cult and spectacle and the adjudication ofdisputes relating to citizen and noncitizen residents ndash is structuredand directed by the constitution

The lex Flavia contained fewer (but not necessarily shorter) chapters59

and their content overlapped to a certain degree with that of the lex Urs60

as Table 2 demonstrates

Table 1 (cont)

Tablet Chaptersa

Ch 127 seating in the orchestra at ludiCh 128 appointment and management of masters oftemples (magistri fanorum)

Ch 129 senatorial oversight of magistratesCh 130 adoption of a Roman senator as a colonial patron(patronus)

Ch 131 adoption of a Roman senator as a formal guest(hospes)

Ch 132 benefaction limits for magisterial candidatesCh 133 wives of colonists subject to lawsCh 134 restrictions on public funds with respect tomagistrates

a In the lex Urs Roman numerals are inscribed ldquojust below the outspaced firstlinerdquo of the chapter they number See Crawford RS I 400 Caballos Rufino(2006 105ndash27)

b I follow the general model of Mallon and Stylow inserting the new fragmentspublished by Caballos Rufino (2006 171ndash5) who offers a novel reconstructionwith eleven total tablets

c Possibly preserved in the fragment published by Caballos Rufino (2004)d See chapters 13ndash24 in Caballos Rufino (2006 181ndash304)e A possibility suggested by Crawford RS I 397f See Crawford RS I 401g See RS I pp 410ndash13 for fragments of Ch 108 and other chapters of uncertainnumber

59 Gonzaacutelez (1986 148) argues that the 96 chapters of the lex Irn (composed of 1500lines) spread across ten tablets of three columns each

60 See Crawfordrsquos comparison of the lex Urs and the lex Flavia RS I pp 398ndash9


Table 2 The lex Flavia

Tablet Chapters

Tablet I 3 cols lost Chs1ndashpraescriptio citizen body religious affairsa

Tablet II 3 cols lost Chs Tablet III 3 cols Chs 19ndash31

Ch 19 rights and powers of aedilesCh 20 rights and powers of quaestoresCh 21 magistrates (and families) who may acquire Romancitizenship

Ch 22 those acquiring citizenship remain in power of the samepersons

Ch 23 those acquiring citizenship retain rights over freedmenCh 24 honorary imperial duovirate and imperial praefectusCh 25 rights of a magisterial praefectusCh 26 oath taken by magistratesCh 27 vetoes and appeals among magistratesCh 28 manumission of slaves before duoviriCh 29 granting of guardians (tutoris nominatio)Ch 30 rights and status of senators (decuriones) and others inthe senate

Ch 31 summoning senators by edict to choose replacementsenators

Tablet IV 3 cols lost Chs Tablet V 3 cols Chs AndashLb

Ch A how a magistrate is to raise a matter for considerationCh B voting orderCh C reading out and archiving of municipal decreesCh D annulment of decreesCh E proper dismissal of senatorsCh F senators divided into three decuriae for the performanceof embassies

Ch G sending ambassadors and accepting excusesCh H per diem assignment for ambassadorsCh I proper way to undertake an embassyCh J eligibility for public contractsCh K postponement of businessCh L establishment of curiae by duoviri

Tablet VI 3 cols the first lost Chs 51ndash9 (from the lex Malacitana)Ch 51 nomination of candidatesCh 52 holding the electionCh 53 in which curiae incolae may cast votesCh 54 eligibility for electionCh 55 casting votesCh 56 breaking a tie


Table 2 (cont)

Tablet Chapters

Ch 57 checking votes by curiaeCh 58 elections not to be preventedCh 59 oath administered to the one elected

Tablet VII 3 cols Chs 59ndash68Ch 60 security given by candidates into the municipal accountCh 61 co-opting a patronusCh 62 lawful demolition of buildingsCh 63 public display and recording of public contractsCh 64 giving of securities for public contractsCh 65 administration of justice regarding securitiesCh 66 imposition of public finesCh 67 management of municipal fundsCh 68 appointment of advocates in cases of public finances

Tablet VIII 3 cols Chs 68ndash79Ch 69 trials over public financesCh 70 appointment of a public legal representative and his feeCh 71 right of public legal representative to summon witnessesCh 72 manumission of public slavesCh 73 oath for public scribes and payment to apparitoresCh 74 illegal gatherings societies and collegesCh 75 prohibition against hoardingCh 76 visiting and inspecting of municipal territories andrevenues

Ch 77 expenses for sacra games and public dinnersCh 78 senators have discretion over the roles of public slavesCh 79 quorum of senators for public expenditure

Tablet IX 3 cols Chs 79ndash87Ch 80 raising a public loanCh 81 seating arrangement at gamesCh 82 oversight of roads ways rivers ditches and drainsCh 83 building projects and compulsory public laborCh 84 matters and monetary limits for municipal jurisdictionCh 85 display of the album of the provincial governorCh 86 choosing and publishing single judges (iudices)Ch 87 rejecting and granting iudices

Tablet X 3 cols Chs 87ndash97 + appended letter of DomitianCh 88 rejecting choosing and granting a panel of judges(recuperatores)

Ch 89 appropriate cases for iudices and for recuperatoresCh 90 granting notice for the third day (intertium)Ch 91 postponement of trial and intertiumCh 92 appropriate days for judgment and for intertiumCh 93 matters not covered by the lex should be dealt withaccording to Roman law


The lex Flavia overlaps at many points with the lex Urs demonstrat-ing continuity in the content of civic constitutions from the death ofCaesar through to the end of the first century but it also adds signifi-cantly to our understanding of provincial communities constituted byRoman charters Gonzaacutelez draws our attention to two important points(1) the two-thirds of the law that we have allows us to see the structureand arrangement of municipal charters as they had developed by theend of the first century and (2) the new section on jurisdiction(Chs 84ndash93) orients the community in a thoroughly Roman way inmatters of civil law61

Taken together the lex Urs and lex Flavia provide a robust portrait offirst-century civic life Four important observations relating the constitu-tions to civic politeia are warranted at this point First of all the con-stitution plays an important role in the structuring of the physical space ofthe colony From the monumental forum to the network of roads on tothe boundaries of the colonial territory magistrates and slaves alikemoved through spaces that were constructed by the dynamic contactbetween lex topography and local culture Second various chapters ofthe lex connect to the economic life of the colony Those involved for

Table 2 (cont)

Tablet Chapters

Ch 94 incolae subject to the lex in the same way as municipalcitizens (municipes)

Ch 95 lex to be inscribed on bronzeCh 96 sanctioCh 97 patrons retain same rights as before over freedmen whoobtain Roman citizenship after serving municipal magistrates

Letter of Domitian indulgence for irregular marriages

a Gonzaacutelez (1986 148 200)b Gonzaacutelez (1986 148) ldquoThe chapters of the Lex Irnitana are not numbered butsince the Lex Salpensana and the Lex Malacitana do number the chapters wenow know that the Flavian municipal law contained 96 chapters including aSanctio But there is a gap of the equivalent of about one column between theend of Tablet V and the beginning of the text of the Lex Malacitana we cannottherefore at the moment know the chapter numbers of this part of the law andthey are here numbered Chs A to Lrdquo Cf fig I Pl XXIII

61 Gonzaacutelez (1986 148ndash9) calls this ldquoperhaps the most dramatic section of the newmaterialrdquo On Corinthrsquos Roman ldquoidentityrdquo in this period see Chapter 5


instance with public contracts for public works construction mainte-nance and the necessities of sacra ndash from contractors to craftsmen andmanual laborers ndash carried out their work within a framework establishedby the colonial charter Third ritual time and spectacle spaces wereregulated by the constitution For colonial festivals games and gladia-torial shows the charter underwrote important aspects of the way colo-nial time was marked and spectacle space was constructed Finally theconstitution prescribes the forms procedures penalties and jurisdictionrelevant to the administration of justice and resolution of disputesMagistrates citizens and incolae all find places in these legal scenariosstructured by the constitution In these ways we see that the extantchapters of colonial constitutions touched on a network of spacesexperiences and concerns of daily public life

We have begun to see how constitutional content and concerns meantthat in first-century colonial communities lex and politeia would inter-sect in a variety of significant ways That this was true for Roman Corinthjust as for the Spanish cities whose bronze charters have come down to usis confirmed by three modes of argument discussed in the followingsection

35 The validity of applying the constitutions to Corinth

It is a valid enterprise to apply the evidence of the Spanish colonial andmunicipal constitutions to Roman Corinth This validity may be demon-strated in three ways all of which combine to undergird the argumenta-tion throughout the course of this study

First it is a priori valid given Corinthrsquos acknowledged status as aRoman colony to use the constitutional evidence from other contem-poraneous Roman colonies for evoking the pattern of Corinthian politeiaIn its simplest form this is the argument that we know with certaintythat Corinth as a Roman colony had a Roman constitution Since wehave constitutions from other colonial and municipal foundations ofexactly the same period they may safely be applied to Corinth It isnot without good reason that Aulus Gelliusrsquos dictum is so frequentlyinvoked by Corinthian scholars Roman colonies considered as a cate-gory were ldquolittle images and replicasrdquo (effigies parvae simulacraque) ofRome her people and her legal institutions62 In constitutional terms a

62 Aulus Gellius Noct att 16138ndash9


recognizable template63 underlay the legal and political forms realized inCaesarian and Augustan coloniesAnd yet as Clifford Ando and Greg Woolf have separately pointed out

we must be cautious with the ldquogeneralizing and normalizing discourserdquo ofRoman colonization64 Colonial life did in fact vary from place to placeResearch linking civic and landscape archaeology has shown the need formoving beyond a reified pattern of ldquoRoman colonyrdquo in our study ofparticular colonies65 It is therefore important to work in a careful analo-gical mode when comparing and evaluating evidence among coloniesThis leads to the second reason for the validity of our use of the

Spanish comparanda A close analogy can reasonably be made in thecase of the constitutional forms of Corinth and Urso (as well asCarthage) colonial foundations connected by political circumstance toCaesar and therefore so often linked in modern scholarship These arecolonies from a specific and well-documented period of Roman historyeven in the absence of evidence in one location it is worth consideringthe carefully calibrated application and adaptation of certain politicalfeatures of one to the other The care taken in such calibration must ofcourse be coordinated with the evidence we do have and this leads to ourthird argument for the cogency of utilizing the Spanish charters forreconstructing the Corinthian politeiaThis third reason is the existence of evidentiary traces ndash epigraphical

archaeological and even as we will argue traces in Paulrsquos letter itself ndashthat Corinthrsquos political form of life was to a significant degree generatedby and rested within a constitutional framework of the type we see in theSpanish evidence This is an inductive argument from the Corinthianevidence itself that allows us to apply and adapt the data from the Spanishcharters Woolf recommends that to test properly our colonial templateagainst the larger picture of urban and landscape archaeology ldquoabsolutelyrequires that the [colonial] foundations themselves be set within complexpatterns of land-holding and occupation whether reconstructed fromancient texts or inscriptions or else modern maps generated byaerial photography and surface surveyrdquo This is exactly what many

63 Despite variation especially in our period Roman colonies were ldquoeine einheitlicheStaumldteformrdquo Vittinghoff (1952 22)

64 Ando (2007 432) critiques modern scholarsrsquo (over)reliance on Gellius cf Woolf(2011 151ndash2) See also Bispham (2006 78ndash85)

65 The critiques of Bispham and Woolf pertain less to constitutional structure and moreto the unfounded assumptions in scholarship about the urban archaeology and ldquoidentityrdquo ofRoman colonies But see Bispham (2006 75)


studies in the past several decades have done and in doing so most ofthem apply the Spanish constitutions to Corinth66

In summary there are good reasons a priori on the basis of consideredanalogy and in light of local evidence to bring the Spanish constitutionsto bear on first-century Roman Corinth and its early Christian commu-nity The validity of this crucial basis for our comparative endeavor isfurther strengthened by the following discussion that seeks to locate theCorinthian constitution in the physical space and lived experience ofearly Roman Corinth

36 Plausible contexts for display in Corinth

Giancarlo Susini the great Latin epigraphist of the previous centuryreminds us that ldquoto read an inscription we must go to the place where it islocatedrdquo67 To do this in the case of the inscribed lex coloniae of RomanCorinth presents us with a difficult but not insurmountable challengeSince we are alluding to a text no longer extant at Corinth68 we mustcombine our knowledge of the physical features of the Spanish evidencewith the Julio-Claudian archaeological data from Corinth to proposeplausible contexts for display that are both physically possible andinherently probable

A colonial constitution would be displayed in association with animportant monument in the civic center Before attempting to describesuch a monument it must be acknowledged that the Corinthian chartermay have remained un-inscribed for the first several decades of thecolonyrsquos existence awaiting the first major phase of monumental con-struction that appears to have come in Augustan and Tiberian times69

Nevertheless in the Roman forum of Corinth the combination of evi-dence suggests at least two strong possibilities for display It is likely thatthe Corinthian constitution was mounted prominently in the first centuryon either the Julian Basilica in the southeast of the forum or as part of theTemple E complex at the elevated west end of the forum Both scenariosare sketched briefly in what follows

66 For NT studies see Chapter 167 Susini (1973 62)68 H S Robinson former director of excavations at Corinth suggested in 1975 that a

(marble) fragment of Corinthrsquos colonial charter had been recovered Subsequent analyses ofthe text however have demonstrated the ldquocharter-likerdquo language more likely commemor-ates public business related to or governed by the Corinthian constitution See discussion ofthis and associated fragments to be published by P Iversen in Chapter 7

69 Stansbury (1990 212ndash27 313ndash27) Walbank (1997) DrsquoHautcourt (2001)


Construction work on the Julian Basilica70 the seat of the provincialgovernorrsquos tribunal71 and possible site of the colonial tabularium(archive)72 began no earlier than the reign of Tiberius73 During asecond building phase in the time of Claudius or Nero74 multiplebenefactors financed a marble revetment most likely for the inner-facing walls of the large rectangular structure75 With its westwardstuccoed wall facing the lower Roman forum the Julian Basilicaprovided the architectural anchor for the eastern edge of Corinthrsquosurban core76 This west wall measured approximately 3845 m (130Roman feet)77 and may have had one or two doors by which one couldenter the interior cryptoporticus a space composed of four colonnadedaisles in the Julio-Claudian era78 As the only one of Roman Corinthrsquosthree basilicas with wall-space facing the forum79 the Julian Basilicawas in many ways ideally suited for the display of the inscribed colonialconstitution80

By analogy with the Spanish evidence three major conditions werenecessary for any constitutional locus of display Inscribed bronze tabletsbearing the lex coloniae would have required approximately 13 m (43 ft)

70 Scotton (1997) reviews and builds on the earlier work of Weinberg (1960)71 Scotton (1997 261ndash6)72 Scotton (1997 262ndash3) cf Kent (1966 327) Others prefer to see the SE Building as

a tabularium See Weinberg (1960 11ndash12)73 Scotton (1997 109ndash10 188ndash91)74 Scotton (1997 110ndash15 190ndash92)75 Scotton (1997 190) West (1941 130) SA[ndash]T[ndash] | [ndashmarmoribu]s [ndash] | in[cru]

staver | [ ndash et ornaver]unt [ ndash ] | [ ndash eid]em [ ndash ] | [ ndash de s]uo [ ndash ]76 Scotton (1997 50ndash1 165 227ndash8)77 Scotton (1997 34 109 153)78 Scotton (1997 34ndash5 153ndash60)79 Corinth also had the Lechaion Road Basilica flanking the cardo maximus (Lechaion

Road) on the west as it entered the Roman forum and the South Basilica to the east of theroad from Kenchreai just as it entered the South Stoa Work remains to be done on theprecise form and function of these other two Roman Corinthian basilicas see Scotton(1997 261ndash6)

80 Sanders (2005 11ndash24) Current director of excavations Guy Sanders gives thefollowing summary of the structure at 23 ldquoOn the east side of the forum stood the JulianBasilica At forum level this was a cryptoporticus basement The first story approached bya staircase of fourteen steps leading up to a porch was an open rectangular space measuring38 times 24 m with Corinthian columns supporting a clerestory and a marble dado Inside weresculptures of the imperial family including Augustus in Pentelic marble dressed in a togawith a fold draped over his head and portrayed engaged in sacrifice He was flanked by hisadopted sons Caius and Lucius Caesar each portrayed in heroic nudity with a chlamys overthe shoulder perhaps as the Dioscuroi Clearly this building had some high civic functionrdquo


of linear wall-space81 sufficient weight-bearing walls and would need tobe visible and readable from ground level Each of these conditions waswell met by the physical structure of the Julian Basilica82 As Figure 3demonstrates the forum-level west wall and not the main-story wall(which was interrupted visually and materially by pilasters) wouldprovide more than adequate space (more than 15 m [49 ft] on eitherside of the stairs leading to the main story) for an uninterrupted inscribedcharter of the description we saw earlier for the lex Urs

Apart from suitable physical conditions several other features of theJulian Basilica would have rendered it an attractive context of display forthe constitution As the law court dedicated to litigation and arbitrationinvolving the provincial governor it was a powerful and visible symbolof Corinthrsquos Roman connections and uncontested regional status as aprovincial assize center In connection with this function and in additionto being a potential repository for colonial legal documents the JulianBasilica also housed the highest known concentration of imperial statu-ary and the second highest of dedicatory imperial inscriptions uncoveredby more than a century of Corinthian excavations83

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 3 Julian Basilica West Elevation Augustan PeriodArtist Paul D Scotton permission

81 This need not necessarily be uninterrupted linear space It is possible to envision theconstitution variously laid out For one well-examined pattern of display related to a sizablelegal inscription on a public building in Aphrodisias see Crawford (2002 145ndash63)

82 Unfortunately we cannot know whether there were any clamp marks or remnants ofmetal implements in the blocks of the West Wall where a large inscription may have beenaffixed because the blocks in situ do not rise above the first few courses For a visualdelineation see Scotton (1997 405)

83 Scotton (1997 244ndash66) cf Kantireacutea (2007 144ndash7)


This combination of architectural sculptural and epigraphical evi-dence renders it highly plausible that the west wall of the Julian Basilicapresented itself to the magistrates of Julio-Claudian Corinth as an idealspace to display their lex coloniae as a crowning jewel of their politicalstatus within Achaia and in relation to Rome Paul Scotton concludes histhorough examination of the Basilica evidence by noting that its spatialand iconographical coordinates may well have contributed to an imperialdiscourse wherein the Augusti both dominated and underwrote the pre-sence and power of provincial and colonial magistrates84 As a burnishedsymbol of colonial status the inscribed Corinthian constitution wouldhave spoken comfortably within the grammar of this Roman publicspace85

Another possibility for display is the imposing architectural complexof Temple E at the opposite end of the east-west axis of the Romanforum86 Current director of excavations Guy Sanders offers a usefulbasic orientation

To the west of the forum stood Temple E a 6 times 11ndashcolumnperipteral temple on a low base with long stoas flanking it to thenorth and south The identification of the temple has been hotlydebated Some think that it was dedicated to Jove or Zeus basedon its size and location while others regard it as the temple ofOctavia In front of the temple was a range of more typicallyRoman temples and monuments87

Key archaeological issues involved in the debate over the function ofTemple E to which Sanders refers are beyond the present authorrsquosexpertise But the Templersquos identification does bear on the possiblelocation of display for the Corinthian constitution Former director ofexcavations C K Williams II has contended that Temple E developedfrom the midndashfirst century as an imperial cult temple88 Mary Walbankhowever has presented compelling arguments for seeing Temple E as animportant element in the earliest Roman planning of the forum area She

84 Scotton (1997 264ndash5)85 For the Roman grammar of public space and inscribed legal documents pertaining to

civic life see Wallace-Hadrill (2011)86 Laird (2010) notes the Augustales base in the lower forum is orientated to connect the

Julian Basilica with Temple E allowing a viewer in the shadow of the Augustales monu-ment excellent sightlines toward both cf Romano (2005 32ndash8)

87 Sanders (2005 23)88 Williams (1989) Williams and Zervos (1990)


interprets the temple as the Capitolium of Roman Corinth the focal pointof official colonial religion89

If Temple Ewas indeed the RomanCorinthian Capitolium it becomesby analogy with the Capitolium at Rome another strong competitor forthe display of the colonial constitution As a central space for publicreligion with Jupiter at the center of the divine Roman triad Temple Emay have presented the colonists with a natural option for the divineoversight and guarantee of the constitutional privileges etched inCorinthrsquos charter90 Provided the three conditions for physical displayenumerated here could be met such a celeberrimus locus91 would offer apractical and symbolic context for mounting an inscribed lex coloniae92

But were the physical and material conditions of display met in thestructural space of Temple EWalbank envisions an early phase in whicha simple altar and temenos (sacred precinct) adequately supplied theneeds of the colonial sacra publica followed by the erection of the firststructure of Temple E from the Augustan period93 In its first phaseTemple E probably stood until an earthquake in AD 7677 led to itscomplete demolition and the subsequent reconstruction of a larger templeand temenos on the same site

On a foundation measuring 44 times 235 m (144 ft times 77 ft) the firstTemple E stood within a temenos entered by stairs leading from theterrace that lay between the west edge of the forum and the structuresreferred to as the West Shops Unfortunately as a result of the thorough-ness of the demolition of Temple E in its first phase next to nothing of thesuperstructure remains by which to reconstruct its surfaces or elevationsIt is possible however that Temple E either on its north or south wall or

89 Walbank (1989) Walbank (1997) and with slight modification Walbank (2010)Walbankrsquos observations in the latter on the implications of the temple image on the reverseof a Domitianic Corinthian coin have not to my knowledge been responded to in publishedform Her identification builds on the earlier conclusions of Stillwell et al (1941 234ndash6)Torelli (2001 161ndash4) prefersWalbankrsquos argumentation See also Rives (1995 39ndash42 170)for the Capitolium and forum context of Carthage and his use of the charter evidence

90 Williamson (1987) collects ancient testimonies and scholarship since Mommsen forthe symbolic display of legal bronzes on the Capitoline area in Rome cf Meyer (2004) OnJupiter Capitolinus as the guarantor of (Roman) oaths and treaties in the Greek East seeMellor (1975 130)

91 lex Irn Ch 95 Qui IIviri in eo municipio iure d(icundo) p(raerit) facito uti haec lexprimo quoque tempore in aes incidatur et in loco celeberrimo eius municipii figatur ita utd(e) p(lano) r(ecte) [l(egi) p(ossit)]

92 Corbier (2006 35ndash7 60ndash71)93 Walbank (1989 363ndash6) Walbank (1997 122) cf Williams (1989 160ndash62)


on the wall-space leading to the pronaos or entryway into the templemight have borne the inscribed Corinthian charter94

Both of these scenarios for the display of the inscribed Corinthianconstitution are exercises in informed contextual speculation Thereare certainly other possibilities95 Indeed it is possible that at certainpoints over the first century of the colony the charter may have beenre-inscribed and repositioned at different locations around the forumNevertheless we have seen that the archaeology of early Roman Corinthprovides multiple plausible options for restoring the lex coloniae to itscontext of monumental display On either hypothesis advanced ndash theJulian Basilica or the Temple E complex ndash we may envision the charterinscribed and displayed at a central functional and symbolic node of thecolony And though the text once inscribed on bronze96 and affixed to amonumental wall became a reasonably static symbol of colonial statusrights and obligations it exercised a dynamic presence with lines ofpoliteia emanating outward in many directions throughout the territor-ium of Roman Corinth Indeed with the help of a recent archaeologicalreport we may trace that emanation in one direction and thereby exem-plify the connection between Corinthian law and life

37 Constitution and the Corinthian politeia

Pausaniasrsquos description of his walk through Corinth in the second centuryhas generated both insights and intractable problems for scholars ofRoman Corinth97 As a periegete interested in the sacred and the

94 Cf Cooley (2009 1ndash22) for the display of the inscribed Res Gestae of Augustus onthe temple in Ancyra

95 Also worth considering are two other locations the face of the rostra (bēma) podiumwas highly visible as crowds would gather in the forum for elections public oratory andproclamations Scranton (1951 91ndash109) Plan F Walbank (1997 120ndash21) The SoutheastBuilding adjacent to the Julian Basilica and next to what was likely the curia (councilmeeting hall) at the easternmost end of the South Stoa may have functioned as a tabulariumearly in the life of the colony It had the advantage of proximity to spaces for publicadministration since the rooms directly west of the curiawere likely the offices for colonialmagistrates See Weinberg (1960 1ndash13) Walbank (1997 119ndash20) From the physicaldescriptions and restored plans both structures appear suitable for the display of theinscribed charter Wallace-Hadrill (2011 121 151ndash6) cautions us against pushing suchidentifications too strongly on the basis of incomplete evidence

96 Corinth was known in antiquity for its bronze production see Mattusch (1977)Although marble is possible the availability and symbolic value of bronze make it a farmore likely medium for the inscribed constitution Cf Williamson (1987 179ndash82) Meyer(2004)

97 Torelli (2001)


sensational Pausanias left a literary trail of statues monuments andoccasional inscriptions98 Modern scholarship has tended to follow hislead and mirror his interests99 But recent excavations outside the forumand off Pausaniasrsquos well-worn track have uncovered a road that offers aless monumental space through which to approach the colonial centerand by which to demonstrate the pertinence of the constitution for across-section of people in the early Roman politeia of Corinth

Results from excavations southeast of the forum from 1995 to 2004 ona section of road in the Panayia Field were published in 2011100 Thiscontrolled study uncovered the detailed and complete stratigraphy for six(Roman) centuries of varied use the earliest of which are relevant to ourinvestigation It is the intersection of law and life ndash of constitution and theconstruction of civic space outside the forum ndash that makes the research ofPalinkas and Herbst so important for our purposes

Contextualizing the significance of their study the authors remark

At the urban scale roads are a principal component in thestructure and organization of a city and at a human scale theyare a significant urban spatial component whose edges oftenlink interior and exterior private and public personal and civicRoads link points or nodes in a network of streets concep-tually and physically they allow people to navigate space to getfrom place to place Technologically roads were not onlyconduits for people goods and wheeled traffic but they werealso arteries for facilitating the transport of water and waste viaunderground utility networks101

In its initial phase (44 BCndashmid-AD I) the Panayia Field road was athoroughfare passing amid modest structures102 Its unpaved surfaceaccommodated pedestrians and two-way wheeled traffic allowingusers to skirt the forum103 Sometime later domestic assemblages aporch covering a portion of road and drainage channels were added in

98 See Tzifopoulos (1991)99 On difficulties in following Pausaniasrsquos route into Corinth Hutton (2005 146ndash57)

100 Palinkas and Herbst (2011)101 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 290)102 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 292ndash5) Structures include the so-called Early Colony

Building the Building withWall Painting and the Late Augustan Building The authors arenot able to describe the precise function of the first or the third but refer to the second ashaving a ldquoresidential-typerdquo Roman wall painting

103 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 311)


Phase 2 (mid-late AD Indashmid-AD II)104 At this point the presence ofinsulae and large walls cut off surrounding views for pedestrians as thosein the neighborhood altered and developed the space to suit their needsDemand for clean water and the need to manage waste and runoffbrought in groups of contracted laborers to undertake the constructionwork105 As the excavators summarize

Throughout its history the road in the Panayia Field was animportant utilitarian route Its excavation has shifted our focusfrom the broad colonnaded paved avenues of the city wherechange occurred slowly to the changing urban character of theeveryday ordinary neighborhood street106

It is precisely in this ldquoeveryday ordinary neighborhood streetrdquo that weglimpse an often unseen aspect of the nexus between law and lifeAlthough the excavators refer in passing to modes of urban planningand contracted labor for domestic structures and public services107 theynowhere make the connection to the constituting legal framework of thecolonial charter But such connections are writ large in the vivid urbanstreetscape they have revealed Laws underlying the changing fabric andexperience of space in the Panayia Road ndash from construction and demoli-tion of structures108 regulation of drains and ditches109 limits on hoursthat wheeled traffic was permitted110 to the process of letting publicworks contracts111 ndash were inscribed in Corinthrsquos constitution Therewere some who skirted the forum by means of the road who nevernoticed or if they did could not read the charter so proudly and promi-nently displayed in the civic center And yet even for them the politeiagenerated by the lex coloniae extended to touch their domestic pedes-trian and economic experience Whether as residents laborers passersthrough or colonial officials providing oversight the law of Corinthrsquosconstitution impinged in variegated and mundane ways on the livesof many

104 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 296ndash302)105 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 311ndash12)106 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 324)107 Palinkas and Herbst (2011 289 302 323ndash4)108 lex Urs Ch 75109 lex Urs Chs 79 99 100 lex Flavia Chs 82110 Cf the Tabula Heracleensis RS I 24 ll 56ndash61111 lex Urs Chs 69 77 80 98 lex Flavia Chs J 63 64


38 Conclusion

In this chapter we have traced the contours of the inscribed lex coloniaeof Roman Corinth and restored it to the first-century colonial forumAuthors ancient and contemporary have held up Corinth as an exemplarof a Caesarian colonial foundation constituted on the basis of a legalcharter These same scholars have frequently and rightly associatedCorinth with the contemporaneously founded colonies of RomanCarthage and Urso in Spain Thanks to the discoveries of the Spanishcharters especially the lex Urs and the overlapping copies of the lexFlavia our knowledge of the constitutional template for a Roman colonyin the period from Julius Caesar to the Flavians has increased enormouslyin recent years NT scholars have begun in the past decade to draw on therich data from Spain to make very limited colonial comparisons withCorinth What we have tried to do here for the first time is demonstrate asound theoretical and material basis for these and many more suchcomparisons

In articulating this basis for comparison we have drawn attention tothe physical features contents and functions of inscribed constitutionsClose study of the diplomatics of the Spanish bronzes has providedevidence for the diachronic development of first-century colonial char-ters and for possibilities of display Stylowrsquos work in particular allows usto locate an important phase in the updating engraving and publicationof the charters in the Tiberian or Claudian period That this was so for theUrso charter suggests that in the same period Corinthrsquos constitution mayhave also been modified re-inscribed and freshly displayed TheSpanish evidence also allows us to envision a prominent monumentalcontext of display in Corinthrsquos Roman forum

We have proposed two such plausible contexts in the forum of first-century Corinth Both the Julian Basilica and Temple E offer a combina-tion of physical space symbolism and practical associations suitable fordisplaying the lex coloniae If mounted on the former Corinthrsquos consti-tution would have been visible and immediately accessible at the south-east end of the forum where nearly all the legal and administrativecolonial spaces appear to have been If associated with the architecturalcomplex of the latter the charter would have been at the heart of publicreligion in Corinth partaking in the elevated display of early CorinthrsquosRoman political identity and orientation

No matter which location(s) in the forum accommodated theCorinthian constitution its presence and force extended well beyondthe monumental colonial center There was a dynamic relationship


between its display and the development of the colony As the contents ofthe lex Urs and lex Flavia show the charter regulated an expansive arrayof public life And as reflection on the case study of the Panayia Fieldroad reveals the nexus of law and life was not only a matter of magis-tracies and literate elites in the forum Rather the archaeology demon-strates that lex and politeia were interconnected in the noisyneighborhoods and unpaved streets the sewers and the sidewalks of amore pedestrian Roman CorinthWe may therefore conclude this chapter by noting the secure founda-

tion on which the first half of our comparative framework is erectedGiven the Spanish evidence and the political circumstances of Caesariancolonial foundations the Corinthian constitution certainly deserves to berestored to Roman Corinth Furthermore in light of its content and thearchaeological context of Corinth we have seen that constitutional lawcategorically intersects with colonial life Our constitutional frame isnow in place for an examination of colonial and ecclesial life in first-century Corinth What remains however is to do the same in the nextchapter for the other half of the comparative framework There weattempt to locate covenant in the life of the Corinthian Jewish communityand in Paulrsquos Corinthian correspondence Only then may we demonstratethat both instruments function in analogous ways in the creationand regulation of communal politeiai As we will see constitution andcovenant in 1 Corinthians fund competing political discourses andalternative civic ideologies


4

TRACES OF COVENANT IN CORINTH

Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything ascoming from us our competence is from God who has made uscompetent to be ministers of a new covenant not in a writtencode but in the Spirit for the written code kills but the Spiritgives life 2 Cor 36

Roman Corinth had its constitution In writing to the Corinthian assem-bly Paul speaks of a new covenant1 Juxtaposing constitution andcovenant in our investigative framework holds out the promise ofavoiding some of the perennial pitfalls of the scholarly constructknown as the HellenismJudaism divide (or in this case the RomanJewish-Christian divide) in relation to the study of Paul It allows us toformulate a structural comparison that takes seriously important vec-tors of culture influence and exigence that converge in 1 CorinthiansFrom the outsider view of first-century Roman Corinth the compara-tive framework thus constructed is admittedly asymmetrical Notionsof covenant and covenantal community were present in the lives and onthe lips of a distinct minority in the Roman colony And yet a study ofthe Corinthian correspondence presses such covenantal concerns on theinterpreter2 Paulrsquos presuppositions concerning the relevant template ofIsraelrsquos covenant charter (ie Deut 64 in 1 Cor 84ndash6 Deut 1915 in 2Cor 131) and the adaptive application of the paradigm of Israelrsquoscovenant community to the assembly in Corinth (1 Cor 101ndash22)bring the political discourse of the new covenant to the fore and suggestthe fruitfulness of this comparative approach We are justified in mov-ing inductively from Paulrsquos premises and the politicalethical rhetorical

1 1 Cor 1125 2 Cor 362 In contrast to either Philo or Josephus see Barclay (1996 175 359 443)

84

pattern with which he operates in the Corinthian correspondence to thecomparative category of ldquocovenantrdquo3

If we roughly follow the pattern of argument elaborated in the previouschapter for constitution where in Corinth are we able to locate this notionof covenant Does the legal notion of covenant with its physical orembodied features or practices intersect with life in Roman Corinth atany point How are constitution and covenant analogous in their respectivecommunal spheres Two anchor points provide a beginning to ground thecomplex of covenantal discourse and praxis in first-century Corinth Thefirst is the Jewish community within the colony known to us in outline byunmistakable traces Second is Paulrsquos Corinthian correspondence itself inits argument allusions and tone In what follows we present the evidencefor both and begin to draw out the implications for Paulrsquos construction of adistinctive vision of covenantal politeia for the ekklēsia

41 The Jewish community in first-century Corinth

One natural place to begin our search for a community impinging on thePauline assembly is among those Jews resident in Corinth Establishing thepresence and character of the Jewish community in first-century RomanCorinth however is a matter of handling the available evidence with acareful touch4 Literary evidence comes to us from Philo the NT docu-ments generally and Paulrsquos use of Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians Weexamine the data in that order

411 Philo

In the Legatio ad Gaium Philorsquos Agrippa refers to the Jewish coloniessent out from Jerusalem to the cities of Asia Africa and Europe Amongthem were groups of Jews settled in ldquoArgos and Corinth and all the mostfertile and wealthiest districts of Peloponnesusrdquo5 Philorsquos testimonycorroborated it would seem by Strabo appears to confirm the presenceof Jews in early Roman Corinth6 There certainly was a sizable Jewish

3 This is an inductive argument for taking covenant as an apposite interpretive categoryfor the politicalethical discourse observable in 1 Corinthians not a deduction based on anyset of necessary attributes of ldquocovenantrdquo in Second Temple Judaism Cf Christiansen(1995) Metso (2008)

4 The extreme pessimism of some is unwarranted eg Rothaus (2000 31 n79) ldquoTheevidence will not allow a discussion of Jews in the Korinthiardquo

5 Philo Legat 281ndash2 Cf Barclay (1996 10 n3 260 422) Millis (2010 13ndash35 at 30)6 Josephus AJ 14110ndash18 (citing Strabo)

Traces of covenant in Corinth 85

population on the Isthmus by the Flavian period7 The combined testi-monies of Strabo Philo and Josephus create a strong presumption infavor of a Jewish population in Roman Corinth over the course of the firstcentury And where there were Jews in diaspora communities theretended to be synagogues Furthermore in such synagogue communitiesthere was bound to be covenantal discourse emanating particularly fromthe language and influence of Deuteronomy8 a discourse adapted byvarious speakers authors and communities9

412 Acts and 1 Corinthians

More specific data on the Jewish presence in first-century Corinth comesfrom the testimony of Acts In Acts 181ndash191 we hear of at least onesynagogue10 by the midndashfirst century AD and of six figures associatedwith the Jewish community Aquila and Priscilla who became Paulrsquoscoworkers in Corinth and Ephesus11 are the first Jews whom Paulldquofoundrdquo12 on his arrival in Corinth After some opposed Paul in thesynagogue he relocated to the home of the Gentile God-fearer TitiusJustus owner of the structure adjacent to the synagogue13 Luke informsus of two ldquosynagogue rulersrdquo Crispus who together with his entirehousehold ldquotrusted in the Lordrdquo14 and Sosthenes who was beaten

7 Josephus BJ 3540 mentions 6000 Jewish slaves sent by Vespasian to work on thecanal crossing the Isthmus Cf Millis (2010 30)

8 See now Lincicum (2010)9 On which varied phenomena often without the explicit use of (and occasional

avoidance of) the term ldquocovenantrdquo see Barclay (1996 134ndash5 175 197ndash9 358ndash9 442ndash4)10 While Acts 184 could be interpreted as referring only to a communal gathering Acts

187 clearly refers to a synagogue structure Cf De Waele (1961 96)11 Acts 182ndash3 cf 1 Cor 1619 Rom 163ndash5 Scholars acknowledge the issues involved

in correlating Acts 182 with Suetonius Claudius 25 on the expulsion of the Jews fromRome with many interpreters accepting the names included in Lukersquos testimony as reliableand relevant for our understanding of the Corinthian correspondence Cf Weiss (1910viii) Conzelmann (1975 13) Luumldemann (1989 10ndash12 195ndash204) Gill (1994 450)Barclay (1996 283 383 417 423) Welborn (2011 392ndash8) On the composition chron-ology and possible compression of events in Acts 18 see the summary of Pervo (2009445ndash61) Following convention I refer to the author of Acts as Luke

12 On Lukersquos narrative use of εὑρίσκω for introducing characters see Pervo (2009 451n53)

13 Acts 186ndash7 See Luumldemann (1989 203) Barrett (1998 867ndash8) Pervo (2009 453)Welborn (2011 233) Barrett (1998 867) adds ldquoIt is possible that Lukersquos reticent statementconceals the fact that Paul was expelled from the synagogue (became ἀποσυνάγωγοςndashJn922)rdquo Cf Hemer (1989 208)

14 Acts 188


before Galliorsquos tribunal15 After Paulrsquos departure from Corinth theAlexandrian Jew Apollos arrived making a powerful impression anddisputing publicly with certain Jews16

Some scholars17 inclined to view the testimony of Acts skepticallydoubt the usefulness of these details for the interpretation of PaulrsquosCorinthian letters Many would date Acts late and see chapter 18 as acompressed literary composition repeating an established narrative pat-tern of Paulrsquos urban ministry Yet most of these scholars also recognizestrong points of correspondence between certain details supplied by Lukeand Paul18 In 1 Corinthians Paul also mentions by name Aquila andPrisca Crispus and (a) Sosthenes19 The naming of Crispus in 1 Cor 114in particular requires us to take seriously the testimony of Acts 188 inwhich Luke alleges that the public decision of this leader in the Jewishcommunity20 to believe and be baptized into Christ21 was influential indrawing ldquomany of the Corinthiansrdquo (Jews and God-fearers) to trust inthe Lord Furthermore that Titius Justus a Gentile God-fearer offeredhis home as a venue for Paulrsquos ministry is also telling It indicates that theJewish presence in Roman Corinth was significant enough to attractRoman adherents of some means to synagogue instruction22 Finally

15 Acts 181716 Acts 1824ndash19117 Eg Pervo (2009 18)18 Skeptics should recall the judgment of Haenchen (1971 537) ldquoIt would be senseless to

pass off all details as a creation of the authorrsquos fantasyrdquo See further Hengel (1979 60ndash2)Luumldemann (1989 10) notes ldquothe concrete character of the [Acts 18] information and theevidence that a by no means inconsiderable part of the information is at least partiallyconfirmed by Paulrsquos lettersrdquo

19 It is impossible to prove (or disprove) the identification of the Sosthenes of Acts 1817with the brother (letter carrier) named by Paul in 1 Cor 11 Cf Theissen (1982 94ndash5)Horrell (1996 91ndash2)

20 As ἀρχισυνάγωγος Crispus himself may or may not have been a Jew If so he mayhave exercised an authoritative liturgical function perhaps initially inviting Paul to speak inthe synagogue cf Acts 1315ff It is possible however that Crispus was a Gentile God-fearer acting as benefactor and patron to the Jewish community in Corinth Cf Theissen(1982 73ndash5) Meeks (1983 57 76 119 221 n3) Horrell (1996 91ndash2) For evidencerelated to the status and function of archisynagōgoi see Rajak and Noy (1993)

21 Immediate context urges that the proper object to be supplied after the participleἀκούαντες in Acts 188 is the faith of Crispus (ldquoand many of the Corinthians when theyheard [of Crispusrsquo faith] believed and were baptizedrdquo Cf Haenchen (1971 535) Barrett(1998 868ndash9) Pervo (2009 443ndash5 453)

22 The name certainly points to Roman (possibly freedman) status HoweverGoodspeed (1950) went beyond the evidence to identify the figure of Acts 187 with theGaius mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 114 and Rom 1623 See the analysis of Welborn (2011299ndash300)


that both Acts and Paul attest the broad appeal of Apollos in the assemblyalso points to a Jewish population at Corinth According to Acts1824ndash26 Priscilla and Aquila first heard this eloquent Jewish orator(ἀνὴρ λόγιος) when he began to speak boldly in the synagogue atEphesus It was a social network connected to this synagogue that wasresponsible for the invitation extended to Apollos to visit Corinth23

While there as one ldquopowerful in the [Jewish] scripturesrdquo Apollos likePaul before him ldquoclashedrdquo24 publicly with certain Jews the clash wasover the interpretation of the scriptures with reference to the MessiahJesus25

This mutually reinforcing evidence of names and circumstances fromActs and 1 Corinthians sketches for us a portrait of the Jewish synagoguecommunity in midndashfirst-century Roman Corinth Richardson rightlyclaims that if we consider the combination of evidence ldquowe might bejustified in looking at 1 Corinthians in the context of a relatively discretecommunity of Jews even though wemight wish to allow for a good bit ofvariation within that communityrdquo26 The image of that community andof those who shifted their loyalty from it to Paulrsquos new assembly andMessiah is given further definition by the argument allusions and toneof the Corinthian epistles At several points in his correspondence Paulwrites in terms explicable largely if not solely to Jews and thoseconversant with the Jewish scriptures and their covenantal discourseThis fact may be best illustrated by an examination of Paulrsquos use ofDeuteronomy arguably the covenantal text of the Second Temple periodin 1 and 2 Corinthians

413 Deuteronomy and the Corinthian Correspondence

Deuteronomy cast a long shadow over Jewish communities in theSecond Temple period often acting as a filter for Sinai traditions and

23 Acts 1824 27ndash28 Cf Pervo (2009 458ndash61)24 On the probable force of this compound hapax see Barrett (1998 891)25 Acts 1828 The D Text of Acts has Apollos taking up residence in Corinth and

possibly using it as a base for evangelism in the region See Barrett (1998 890) Pervo(2009 460) Welborn (2011 406)

26 Richardson (1998 63ndash4) adduces six additional reasons from 1Corinthians that warrantthe presence and significance of Jews in the Pauline assembly at Corinth (1) Paulrsquos concernfor Jews (1 Cor 919ndash23) (2) his explicit contrast between Jewish and Greek responses (1 Cor118ndash25) (3) his exhortation to ldquogive no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of Godrdquo(1 Cor 1032) (4) the possibility that Cephas visited Corinth (5) the evidence for Apollos and(6) further questions and social problems attributable to the JewGentile dynamic that appearthroughout the letter


providing the substructure for the political and ethical formation ofldquonew covenantrdquo communities27 Studies in recent decades have high-lighted the fact and the contours of Paulrsquos dependence on Deuteronomyin both 1 and 2 Corinthians B Rosner has repeatedly explored Paulrsquosuse of Deuteronomy first with reference to 1 Cor 5ndash7 and more recentlyregarding the entire Corinthian correspondence28 According to RosnerDeuteronomy plays a global and covenantal role in the shaping of Paulrsquostheological eschatological and ethical discourse in 1 and 2 Corinthians29

In particular Paulrsquos instruction concerning exclusion from the communityin 1 Cor 5 and adjudication of disputes within the assembly in 1 Cor 61ndash11are compelling instances Rosner points to that signal a Deuteronomic-covenantal influence30

In a more recent study D Lincicum introduces further considerationsinto the debate concerning ldquothe shape of Paulrsquos Deuteronomyrdquo31 Heargues that in general Paul ldquoreads Deuteronomy backwardsrdquo in twoimportant respects First Lincicum notes ldquoPaul reads Deuteronomyretrospectively from the standpoint of an apostle of Christ to the nationsrdquoSecond Paul begins at the end (ie Deut 27ndash32) with the covenantalelection of Israel and the covenant blessings and curses only then work-ing backward to a selective adaptation of the ethical material to theCorinthian new covenant community32 These observations offer a gen-eral justification for our reading of 1 Corinthians and especially 1 Cor11ndash46 in a Deuteronomic-covenantal frame Additionally helpfulhowever for our purposes are two particular emphases of Lincicumrsquosstudy (1) his analysis of Paulrsquos use of Deuteronomy in the Corinthiancorrespondence and (2) his investigation of the embodied practicesforming the setting for the encounter with Deuteronomyrsquos covenantaldiscourse and praxisEmploying specific criteria Lincicum identifies the following six

instances of Paulrsquos use of Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians33

27 See eg Tso (2008 120ndash22)28 Rosner (1991) Rosner (1994) Rosner (2007)29 See esp Rosner (1994 61ndash93) for the motifs of covenant corporate responsibility

and holiness Rosner (2007) examines four explicit citations of Deuteronomy and ldquonumer-ous clusters of allusionsrdquo scattered throughout the Corinthian correspondence

30 Most recently Rosner (2007 121ndash6)31 Lincicum (2010 167)32 Lincicum (2010 164ndash8)33 Lincicum (2010 119ndash20)


1 Cor 513 Deut 17734 Implicit citation35

1 Cor 84ndash6 Deut 64 Echo1 Cor 99 Deut 254 Explicit quotation1 Cor 1020 Deut 3217 Echo1 Cor 1022 Deut 3221 Echo2 Cor 131 Deut 1915 Implicit citation

This list underlines Lincicumrsquos observation that Paul ranges widelythrough the text of Deuteronomy in constructing key sections of hisargument When set within the larger context of Paulrsquos citation practicegenerally it is further evident that certain favorite texts tend to reappear36

Paul Lincicum contends employs Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthiansin three distinct ways as an ethical authority (1 Cor 51337 9938 2 Cor13139) a theological authority (1 Cor 81ndash640) and the interpretive lensfor reading the history of Israel (1 Cor 1020 2241) Lincicum is not alonein demonstrating that in his reliance on Deuteronomy Paul is situatedamong other Second Temple figures who combine concerns of com-munal polity and purity in an eschatologically charged covenantaldiscourse42 But the great advantage of his study is in posing thequestion what embodied practices related to the experience of cove-nantal Deuteronomy might account for the patterns we see in Paul andother Second Temple Jews

The answer Lincicum offers is what he calls the ldquoliturgical-anamneticrdquoexperience of Deuteronomy This experience was rooted in the physicalfeatures spaces and liturgical practices in which the text of Deuteronomywas encountered Lincicumrsquos research complements and complicates thesometimes ahistorical investigations of Paulrsquos use of the OT by reintrodu-cing ldquomaterial exigenciesrdquo that point to the ldquolong tradition of viewingDeuteronomy as divinely authorized Torah recited in synagogue affixedto onersquos very body in the tefillin and the doorposts of onersquos house in the

34 The same citation appears in Deut 1919 2121 2221 24 247 cf 1712 2222135(6) 1913 219 Cf Rosner (1994 61ndash80) Lincicum (2010 127ndash30)

35 See Lincicum (2010 13ndash15) for methodological difficulties in studying Paulrsquos use ofscripture

36 Lincicum (2010 119ndash21) Deut 51ndash69 1012ndash1121 321ndash4337 Lincicum (2010 127ndash30)38 Lincicum (2010 130ndash33)39 Lincicum (2010 133ndash5) on the use of Deut 1915 in 2 Cor 131 see Welborn (2010)40 Lincicum (2010 138ndash40)41 Lincicum (2010 158ndash66)42 Eg Blanton (2007) Hultgren (2007) Newsom (2007) Metso (2008) Bitner

(2013a)


mezuzah debated in scribal circles actualized for legal guidance [and]supplying lenses for the interpretation of Israelrsquos historyrdquo43 He arguescompellingly that Paul (as well as other Jews and perhaps God-fearers)would have encountered Deuteronomy in the physical form of a singlebook-roll in the shape of worn phylacteries (tefillin) and the slips ofparchment (mezuzot) affixed to private doorposts in the public spacesand sabbath liturgy of the synagogue and in the private daily recitationof the Shema (Deut 61ndash4) and other Deuteronomic excerpts44 Thesesettings and practices imply that the excerpts of Deuteronomy widelyattested in the material evidence and regularly employed by Paul areldquoless the product of an atomizing tendency than an epitomizingtendencyrdquo45 Crucial portions of Israelrsquos central covenant documentwere excerpted for recitation as well as for private and liturgical useboth because they epitomized the larger covenantal shape of the dis-course and to perpetuate its constituting function in the lives of certainSecond Temple Jews and their communitiesWith this overview of Paulrsquos invocation ofDeuteronomy in 1Corinthians

in mind as an exemplar of covenantally shaped discourse wemay apply theinsights of Lincicum to our search for the location and significance ofcovenant in RomanCorinth Reflection on the embodied andmaterial realiaof the Jewish encounter with Deuteronomy leads us to the consideration ofcommunal spaces and practices available for Paul and the Corinthian Jewswith whom he interacted both in the synagogue and in the ekklēsia

42 The synagogue inscription in Corinth

Philo Luke and Paul each supply in varying detail information that allegesand presumes the presence of a Jewish community in first-century CorinthThis conjunction of literary evidence is important46 Furthermore as Levineobserves ldquoIt is reasonable to assume that almost any Jewish communitywould have had its own lsquoplacersquo [h]owever the information availableregarding the pre-70 Diaspora synagogue relates only to a very smallpercentage of these places and what is more varies greatly in what ispresented and howrdquo47 Archaeological evidence for first-century synago-gues falls far short of the numbers of such structures we must assume given

43 Lincicum (2010 11 16ndash17)44 Lincicum (2010 21ndash58)45 See Lincicum (2010 58)46 Cf Horrell (1996 75)47 Levine (2005 82)


other data concerning diaspora Judaism Nevertheless some scholarsunwilling to accept the combined weight of the literary evidence andthe a priori likelihood of a synagogue in Paulrsquos Corinth have soughtother forms of corroborating evidence Thus a marble fragment (seeFigure 4) discovered during the 1898 season of the Corinth excavationsand clearly (though inelegantly) inscribed [ΣΥΝ]ΑΓΩΓΗΕΒΡ[ΑΙΩΝ](=[συν]αγωγὴ Ἑβρ[αίων]) has featured in the scholarly debate over thepresence of a Jewish community in Paulrsquos Corinth

Although scholarly consensus has gradually shifted to the view that theinscription probably dates to the fifth century AD48 it is worth askinghow and why dates ranging from c 100 BC to AD VI have been putforward over the past century The short answer is that the judgments of afew key scholars have been selectively repeated amplified and con-fused Thus the most recent epigraphical volume to treat the synagogueinscription lists no fewer than twelve scholars who offer among them atleast seven different dates or date ranges The editors conclude as ifsettling for an average ldquoIt is preferable then to date this inscription

Figure 4 Detail of synagogue inscription (Corinth Inv 123) Archive of theAmerican School of Classical Studies Corinth ExcavationsPhoto I Ioannidou and L Bartzioti American School of Classical Studies atAthens Corinth Excavations Used by permission

48 Eg Adams (2000 10)


broadly to the late 3rd century or laterrdquo49 On this rather unconvincingbasis ought we to rule out as some have done this inscription in anyconsideration of a first-century Jewish community in Roman Corinth50

Or is it possible that by carefully unraveling the tangled web of dates andjudgments that have led to such contradictory conclusions wemight gainclarity on the relative value to NT studies (or lack thereof) of the archae-ological evidence for a Corinthian synagogue As we will see a date forthe synagogue inscription in the fifth century is no more (nor less) likelythan a date in the first century51

As it turns out among the many publications and reexaminations ofthis stone not a single comprehensive and reliable treatment exists evenamong the epigraphists It is no wonder then that NT scholars relyingon the epigraphical judgments of experts have been misled and con-fused The following narrative demonstrates why this is the case andleads us to a point where we may examine the inscription afresh Firstpublished in 1903 the synagogue inscription was immediately linked toPaul and Acts 18452 In that publication Benjamin Powell first gave acareful description of the find spot and physical features of the stone andits inscribed lettering Formerly an ornamented cornice block the stonewas apparently recut rather crudely inscribed and used as a lintel over adoorway (see Figure 5) Powell then made three understandable butquestionable deductions First in relation to Acts 18 he concluded ldquoIfour restoration be correct this stone was part of that synagoguerdquoHe thenadded ldquoThe poor cutting displayed in the letters may point to thepoverty of this foreign cult at Corinthrdquo Furthermore Powell supposedthe size of the stone meant it was unlikely to have moved very far andthis justified the conclusion that the ldquoPaulinerdquo synagogue in question waslocated just north of the Pereine Fountain on the east side of the LechaionRoad in what he termed ldquoa residence quarterrdquoSince his was the earliest publication of a set of Greek inscriptions

uncovered by the American School excavations at Corinth it would betendentious to fault Powellrsquos treatment Yet the inscription often withPowellrsquos interpretation of its date its implications for the social status ofthe Jewish community and the alleged location of the synagogue was

49 IJO vol I Ach47 182ndash4 at 18450 Oster (1992 56) ldquoIt is illegitimate to assume the presence of an architectural structure

in the Julio-Claudian period on the basis of such a later dated artifactrdquo51 Concannon (2013) provides an overview of the tangled relationship between

Corinthian archaeology and NT scholarship52 Powell (1903 60ndash61 no 40)


immediately picked up by scholars who repeated his conclusions53 Aswith many such discoveries at the time it was Adolf Deissmann who inhis Licht vomOsten introduced the synagogue inscription to the world ofNT scholars54 Deissmann having visited Corinth in May 1906 pub-lished a figure depicting a rubbing of the inscribed letters He alsoextended Powellrsquos supposition regarding the low social level of theJews Finally Deissmann expanded the date range for the inscription toc 100 BCndashAD 200 (on the basis of the opinion of renowned epigraphistBaron Hiller von Gaertringen communicated per litteras) With thetranslation and publication of Light from the Ancient East in 1927 the

Figure 5 Two views of inscribed synagogue block (Corinth Inv 123) Adaptedfrom F J M de Waele Studia Catholica 4 (19278) 164Artist Scott Spuler One Hat Studio Design LLC

53 Initially the Germans and the French inter alia Wilisch (1908 427) Oehler (1909538) Juster (1914 188 n2)

54 Deissmann (1908 8ndash9)


connection between the Corinthian synagogue inscription and thePauline mission definitively entered NT scholarship55

An important shift in the interpretation of the inscription came withBenjamin Merittrsquos 1931 publication of Greek inscriptions found atCorinth between 1896 and 192756 Without citing Deissmann Merittquoted the physical description given by Powell but added ldquothe style oflettering indicates that the inscription is considerably later than the timeof St Paulrdquo57 Meritt instead connected the stone to a later synagogue butrepeated Powellrsquos judgment about the location concluding ldquoit is perhapsa fair presumption that the synagogue in which St Paul preached may belocated in the same areardquo Despite the ldquoconsiderably laterrdquo date urged byMeritt a decade later Bees would echo Powell returning to a Paulinedate for the inscription58 On the other hand Urdahl suggested in 1968 adate range of AD IIIndashV basing this solely on his impression of the letter-forms59 By the time we reach the 2002 edition of Murphy-OrsquoConnorrsquosSt Paulrsquos Corinth Texts and Archaeology we are told ldquothe inscriptioncould be as late as the fourth centuryrdquo60 It is not surprising then that inIJO I (2004) after reviewing much of this literature the editors appar-ently decide to split the difference A better analysis is however not onlydesirable but possible

55 Deissmann (1927 15ndash16) Through subsequent editions Deissmannrsquos date rangeexercised strong influence Frey (1975 518 no 718) adopted Deissmannrsquos date withoutcitingMeritt 111 cf the review ofCIJ by Robert (1937) Apparently the first commentatorson the Corinthian correspondence to refer to the synagogue inscription each citingDeissmann were Windisch (1924 351) Allo (1934 xii)

56 Meritt 111 pp 78ndash957 In this judgment Meritt may have been influenced by conversation with F J M de

Waele whom he cites Cf De Waele (1927 163ndash6) who cites communication with Merittat 165 n69

58 Bees (1978 16ndash19 no 6) gives an image of a squeeze but it is unclear whether hebased his conclusions on an autopsy of the stone itself He also weighs the inscriptionagainst later comparanda and concludes that the very same synagogue in which Paulpreached was perhaps later remodeled intimating that this may account for the conditionof the stone Horsley (1983 121ndash2 no 94) refers to Beesrsquos analysis but gives Deissmannrsquosdate range

59 Urdahl (1968 54) ldquoThe lettering is inexpert as crude as any to be seen at Corinth Its dateis second century AD at the earliest and might be as late as the fourth or fifthrdquo De Waele(1961 174) who by then suggests the fifth century AD again on the basis of letter-forms

60 Murphy-OrsquoConnor (2002 79) Murphy-OrsquoConnor apparently relies on Furnish as thebasis for his shift from his earlier judgment that the inscription ldquomay belong to the oldestsynagogue in Corinthrdquo [1990 ed p 81] to his later fourth-century AD dating Furnish(1984 21) bases his description of the inscription (ldquoit could be as late as the fourth centuryCErdquo) on a conversation he had in Old Corinth on June 14 1979 with C K Williams IIformer director of excavations Furnish cites Meritt 111 incorrectly as West p 79


It should be obvious by now that the central feature giving rise to theshifting dates for the synagogue inscription is the nature of its letter-forms61 Merittrsquos ldquoconsiderably later than the time of St Paulrdquo hasundoubtedly exercised the most far-reaching influence The cautionarystance of those accepting the judgment of the Greek epigraphist wouldbe commendable if that judgment were indisputably demonstrable As itturns out it is not There are in fact two serious problemswith any attemptto date the inscription securely solely on the basis of its letter-forms

In the first instance it is possible to show that both Corinthian epi-graphists have occasionally erred sometimes by as much as four cen-turies in their dating of fragmentary Corinthian inscriptions by the styleof their lettering By Kentrsquos own admission ldquoIn some cases the letterforms seem to be reasonably reliable especially when they are virtuallyidentical with the forms of a second text whose date is assured In manyother cases however the criterion is so unavoidably subjective that anyassigned date is little better than an educated guessrdquo62 Two such ldquoedu-cated guessesrdquo by Meritt both of which have been undermined by morerecent scholarship are relevant to our reconsideration of the synagogueinscription Meritt 15 dated to ldquothe latter part of the second century ADrdquoand Meritt 18 which he originally placed ldquoperhaps in the first centuryADrdquo were shown to join by Spawforth who securely dated them toAD 13763 Even more germane is the secure redating to the early secondcentury ADof a fragment of a Greek artistrsquos signature (Kent 41) originallythought by Kent to date to the second century BC This redating madepossible by joining Kent 41 to Meritt 71 clearly demonstrates the inade-quacy of dating by letter-forms alone in Corinthian epigraphy especiallywhere small fragments bearing Greek letters are concerned64 And this isprecisely the issue with respect to the synagogue inscription

This problem regarding fragmentary inscriptions at Corinth generallyis rendered more acute if that were possible by the actual forms of theletters incised on the synagogue inscription Described as poorly cut65

61 The additionally entangling issues of the find spot and the questionable associationwith a carved marble impost are addressed later

62 Kent p 19 n7 (italics mine)63 Spawforth (1974) I thank Dr B WMillis for pointing me to this and for his valuable

comments and criticisms of my treatment of the synagogue inscription Millis (201024ndash25 esp 25 n39) suggests that a bilingual epitaph (Meritt 130) dated to the ldquolatterpart of the second century ADrdquo by Meritt ldquois probably much earlierrdquo

64 Sturgeon (2004 211ndash13)65 Powell (1903 61)


miserable66 and crude67 the letters are in fact quite clearly and reason-ably laid out (see Figure 4)68 But they are just as clearly not of the qualityfound on public and even some private Greek inscriptions across thecenturies at Roman Corinth Diagnostic in this particular case is theldquolunaterdquo omega Ω not Ω Regrettably to our knowledge nothing inthe way of indisputably datable close comparanda appears among theepigraphic remains at Corinth that could help us in assigning a date to thesynagogue inscription on the basis of letter-forms as so many haveattempted to do69

It is important to underline the implication of this conclusion wecannot speak with any confidence of the date of the synagogue inscrip-tion solely on the basis of its letter-forms70 On that basis it might just aswell be from the first as the sixth century AD71 Its lettering simplycannot help us decide It should not therefore be ruled out in ourinvestigation of all the available evidence for the Jewish community ofJulio-Claudian Corinth But neither can it provide unassailable archae-ological confirmation of the claims made by Philo Paul and LukeOne possible way forward in establishing a more precise date for the

synagogue inscription would be to follow Sturgeonrsquos painstaking exam-ple in her work on the theater sculpture she labored over the smallest ofepigraphical fragments and associated finds with the aid of the excava-tion notebooks on site at Corinth72 If one were to do the same in the caseof the synagogue inscription the starting point would be the originalexcavation notebook there we find that along with the discovery of theinscription in Trench 13 S O Dickerman mentions as associated finds a

66 Deissmann (1923 9)67 Urdahl (1968 54) Murphy-OrsquoConnor (2002 81)68 Dr P Iversen has suggested to me per litteras that the lettering is ldquoirregularrdquo the

letter-forms increasing in size as the line ldquotrails upwards relative to the preserved border atthe toprdquo I thank him for his comments

69 See eg Meritt 135 A better image of this stone is available on ascsanet CorinthImage 1927 1615 (Inv 156) Cf Kent 578 and Pl 48 also available as Corinth Image 19497153 (Inv 992) through ascsanet It is the Ω that is most distinctive in the synagogueinscription In Dr Iversenrsquos opinion it appears as early as I BC (but rarely) and is morecommon beginning in AD IIIndashV

70 The other approach taken by editors of cross-regional corpora such as IJO I usuallyfails to adduce convincing securely datable comparanda (at least any that are not subject tothe criticisms of circularity or irrelevance) that would allow us to fix the date of the Corinthinscription by its letter-forms See IJO I Ach47 p 184

71 If all relevant factors (letter-forms reuse etc) are taken into consideration howeverit is understandable that epigraphists have tended to place the inscription around the fourthcentury or later

72 Sturgeon (2004 211ndash13)


ldquomarble piece with a lionrsquos head and other fragmentsrdquo73 It might provepossible to learn more about the synagogue inscription with extensivetime combing through notebooks and artifacts at Corinth But the poten-tial payoff is quite uncertain74 The same holds true for anyone whomight pursue the matter of the relationship so often drawn between thesynagogue inscription and the marble impost carved with menorotlulabim and etrog75 It is possible that more clarity might emerge as tostratigraphy contexts of reuse and original contexts of display for theseenticing artifacts But the prospect of diminishing returns in this caseseems very real76 Amore likely option might be to pursue a comparativeexamination of the architectural features of the cornice block to establisha firmer terminus post quem for the reuse evidenced by the inscription

We have painted this history of the scholarly reception ndash and itsreasons ndash of the synagogue inscription at Corinth with a more detailedbrush than others who have studied the issue This was necessary giventhe distorted image passed down to us over the past century Such detailallows us to see the problems inherent in the positions of those who insiston either an early or late date Furthermore it highlights an importantmethodological point for those seeking to interweave various strands ofliterary epigraphical and archeological evidence while interpreting NTtexts Artifacts do not speak with the clear voice of textual evidence nordo they tend to answer unequivocally the sorts of questions NT scholarsoften ask therefore they can rarely if ever ldquobe the final court of appealrdquoin settling questions of NT interpretation77 ldquoOnlyrdquo as Oster contendsldquoby an imperious use of the argumentum e silentio of the architectural

73 Corinth Notebook 7 pp 10ndash11 Trench XIII entry for Wednesday April 13 1898(accessible through httpascsanet)

74 Adding to the difficulty are the well-known waves of destruction that have left us withsuch a fragmentary epigraphy and disturbed stratigraphy at Corinth See Kent p 17

75 Scranton (1957 25ndash6 116 [no 130] Pl 30) Also available on httpascsanetCorinth Image 1964 015 25 and Corinth Image 1990 054 21 The reception history of thisJewish artifact from Corinth mirrors that of the synagogue inscription only to a slightlylesser degree There is at least as much danger of circularity in dating the impost solely onthe basis of iconography unless there is a securely datable comparandum The discussion inIJO I Ach47 p 184 is confused andor misleading in its entangling of the impost with theissue of dating the synagogue inscription Dinkler (1967 131) is more balanced

76 Oster (1992 56) notes ldquoeven if this inscription were to be dated with certainty to theJulio-Claudian era it would still be hazardous to infer anything at all about the location ofthe meeting places of the Jewish community or Paulrsquos own personal ministry and work inCorinthrdquo I am sympathetic to Osterrsquos caution even if he overstates his case in reaction toNT commentators who have run too far with the evidence

77 Oster (1992 57ndash8) This is not to imply that textual evidence always speaks clearlyand unequivocally


record can one override the clear evidence from literary papyrologicaland epigraphic sourcesrdquo78 This is a sobering reminder in the case of thesynagogue at Corinth where the interpreter is faced with a literary recordof embarrassing detail as opposed to an archaeological record composedof mere tantalizing fragments79

We may now conclude our review of the evidence for a Jewishsynagogue community in midndashfirst-century Roman Corinth and summar-ize its significance for our investigation The combined weight of evi-dence points to a Jewish presence in Corinth most likely from early inthe first century on into late antiquity There was at least one synagogueby the time of Paul and certain of its members had a complicated andconflicted relationship with him and the early Christian assembly SomeJews were persuaded by Paulrsquos messianic proclamation others activelyrejected his message and some joined themselves to the assembly hefounded The clearest glimpses of this complex relationship come fromthe combination of Acts 18 with 1 and 2 CorinthiansOn the other hand we have no indisputable material evidence for a

first-century synagogue structure in Corinth Despite understandableexcitement over the discovery of the synagogue inscription in 1898 thetangled web of scholarship related to this stone has been subject tomethodological problems Most prominent among these has been thetendency to date the inscription on the basis of letter-forms alone withoutappeal to securely datable comparanda at Corinth What the letter-formsdo indicate is a limit to both the skill of the engraver and the budget of thesynagogue community Linking the architectural vestiges on the ldquounder-siderdquo of the reused inscribed block to a known typology may providemore help in narrowing the date range for the inscription its relativelylarge size suggests it is unlikely to have moved far from its original sitenorth of Peirene At the end of our scholarly excavation the results offerless precision than we would like Without further study the synagogueinscription must be said to have a broad possible date range of AD IndashVITo say more would be to speculate beyond the evidence to say less or torestrict the range on either end would be a premature foreclosure

78 Oster (1992 57)79 Other epigraphical traces of Jewish presence at Corinth are rarely mentioned because

they are usually presumed to be late (although the basis for this tends with regrettablefrequency to be letter-forms alone) See eg IJO I Ach48ndash50 also the unpublished()Corinthian inscription preserving parts of four lines of Hebrew text in the ascsanet databaseCorinth image 1962 049 05 (Inv 1773) excavated in 1936 (Notebook 159 p 85) Adams andHorrell (2004 10 n61) refer to an unpublished ldquoJewishrdquo cooking pot mentioned to them byDr Nancy Bookidis assistant director emerita of the Corinth Excavations


43 New covenant community in Corinth

If we add to our consideration of the synagogue evidence Lincicumrsquosconclusions regarding the liturgical-anamnetic encounter withDeuteronomy we may more readily conceptualize an important site ofcovenant community and discourse in midndashfirst-century Roman Corinth Itwould be surprising if in Paulrsquos sojourn with Aquila and Priscilla he didnot engage with Deuteronomy at the level of tefillin and mezuzot that isseeing touching and reciting the Shema and other excerpts regularly80

The same is likely the case during Paulrsquos initial shabbat interactions withthe synagogue where there may also have been readings from the scrollof Deuteronomy featured in the liturgy and teaching (Acts 184)81

Perhaps Deuteronomy played a role in debates over the Messiah82 andin Pauline claims concerning a new covenant83 Certainly the Jewish(and God-fearer) members of the Corinthian ekklēsia were familiarenough with key texts and concerns of Deuteronomy for Paul to beable to make explicit appeals later in his epistles concerning politicaland ethical matters such as purity exclusion identity and adjudication(1 Cor 59 1020ndash22 2 Cor 131)

If the Corinthian synagogue shared features with other Second Templecommunities that sought to adhere faithfully to their scriptures within alarger civic environment it is not difficult to imagine the grammar of thecovenant discourse by which they attempted to articulate and sustaintheir diaspora politeia84 By the Second Temple period a certain shift inemphasis had occurred in the covenantal cluster or pattern and thediscourse it instantiated Some studies have traced various aspects ofthis evolving covenantal discourse and have demonstrated that alongsidethe legal elements of oath stipulation and sanction was a markedemphasis on wisdom Law and wisdom blessing and cursing functionedto define and order communities that characterized themselves withrespect to a divine covenant85

Several studies have examined the ways in which this shifting cove-nantal discourse relates to Paul and his communities as well as to the

80 Lincicum (2010 47ndash8)81 Lincicum (2010 53)82 See Lincicum (2010 138ndash40 48) cf Waaler (2008 49ndash122)83 Paulrsquos paradosis of Jesusrsquos new covenant claims to the ekklēsia (1 Cor 1123ndash26) may

well have played a prior role in his debates with the synagogue (covenant) community (Acts184ndash5)

84 Troiani (1994 11ndash22) Barclay (1995 81ndash106) Lincicum (2010 169ndash83)85 Eg Metso (2008)


communities associated with the texts from Qumran86 Many of thesehave shown that Paul is one voice among others attempting to constructnew covenant communities in the first century Our interest here is toanalyze his distinctive covenantal accent as it relates to the assembly atCorinth Not only does Paul write in 1 Corinthians with reference to thenew covenant originating in the crucifixion of the Messiah he alsoaddresses the ekklēsia as a kind of covenant community in which historyoath stipulations sanctions and wisdom ndash often cast in Deuteronomicterms ndash play an important constituting and regulating role87 His reasonsfor doing so appear to be linked to a particular necessity at Corinth toreconstitute covenant community in a certain way and to do so carefullywith reference (sometimes approving sometimes rejecting) to theCorinthian constitution One additional line of argument this time withreference to our focal text highlights the centrality of Paulrsquos covenantalresponse within colonial contexts of conflict

431 Covenantal Cruxes in the Rhetorical Flow of 1 Corinthians

It has long been noted that Paul exhibits almost exclusively in 1Corinthians a stylistic penchant for the phrase οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι88 Whathas received less attention is the way these rhetorical questions some-times function as lociwherein covenant collides with constitution Of theten occurrences of this phrase in 1 Corinthians fully half emerge at keypoints in the early argument of the epistle (11ndash611)89

316 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐνὑμῖν

56 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ62 ἤ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἅγιοι τὸν κόσμον κρινοῦσιν63 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν69 ἤ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν

These five instances occur at rhetorical cruxes of Paulrsquos argument in35ndash45 51ndash13 and 61ndash11 respectively the first of which forms thefocus of our exegesis in Chapter 7 In each of these sections Paul offers aforceful response to what he perceives as serious problems within the

86 Blanton (2007) Hultgren (2007)87 Bitner (2013a) For the political role of covenant (and its Deuteronomic accent) in

Medieval Judaism see Brague (2007 123ndash6)88 Outside 1 Corinthians only at Rom 616 112 but cf Rom 63 71 Cf Edsall (2013)89 Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 615 16 19 913 24


assembly What is worth noting preliminarily and what we work tosubstantiate is that these problems are at least in part the result ofmembers of the ekklēsia thinking and acting in colonial rather thanproperly ecclesial modes and manners In each instance Paul adoptsadapts or echoes certain constitutional language and categories pertain-ing to status authority and social relations only to punctuate his argu-ment with a covenantal riposte These rhetorical responses each in theform of the damning rhetorical question οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι κτλ assume inthese five instances a familiarity90 with a larger pattern of Pauline teach-ing and thought that comprises covenantal elements of temple (316 17)holiness (316 17 56 62) judgment (316 17 56 7 63) inheritance(69 10) and kingdom (69ndash10)91 These are responses ndash cruxes onwhich much of the intelligibility and force of Paulrsquos argument hangs ineach occurrence ndash in which Paul appears to confront constitutional-colonial approaches to various issues by means of a covenantal modeof thought If this is correct it implies that Paul is depending on for theeffectiveness of his case the traction such a covenantal mode of persua-sion would have among some in the community And although Paulrsquosappeal is certainly broad in each instance (ldquoDo you not knowrdquo) for onegroup within the assembly such a covenantal mode of communicationwould particularly resonate those Jews who had been called into thecommunity

The form content and force of these emphatic points in Paulrsquosrhetoric suggest therefore that he chooses covenantal discourse toengage with constitutional assumptions Paul communicates in such away both because there is a Jewish presence within the assembly andbecause there has been a certain exposure for Jews and Gentiles throughhis own teaching in their midst to the Jewish scriptures as an author-itative and understandable covenantal framework92 One such rhetoricalclimax 316ndash17 has been carefully crafted93 And despite evidentGraeco-Roman resonances94 the larger rhetorical unit within which itsits (35ndash45) provides us with an important clue to the specific new

90 This rhetorical catchphrase implied a rebuke See Robertson and Plummer (1971 66)and probably appealed to elements of Paulrsquos earlier proclamation Weiss (1910 84 133146 153) Hurd (1965 85ndash6) But see Edsall (2013)

91 Note the shift in the covenantal content and character of the οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι phrases in913 24

92 Further reasons for these communicative assumptions appear in Chapter 593 On the balanced construction sharp tone and themes of temple and holiness see esp

Weiss (1897 208) Weiss (1910 84ndash6)94 Mitchell (1991 103ndash4) See further Chapter 7


covenantal accent with which Paul speaks as he addresses himself to theCorinthian assembly That accent has general affinities with the cove-nantal discourses of Second Temple Judaism95 and special correspon-dences with the commission of Jeremiah the prophet of the newcovenant (see Section 724)

44 Conclusion

We are now able to connect the elements of our comparative frameworkand by its elaboration to move toward the exegetical chapters of Part Twothat it embraces Both the Corinthian constitution and the Deuteronomiccovenant were political instruments founding sustaining and regulatingimportant aspects of life in the communities they created Constitution andcovenant generated distinctive and in the case of colonia and ekklēsia inCorinth overlapping and sometimes conflicting politeiaiThis framework of constitution and covenant might be helpful for the

interpretation of any of Paulrsquos letters written to a Roman colonial settingwith a Jewish community96 So why should it be applied to 1 Corinthiansin particular There are good reasons for doing so in light of the shapePaulrsquos argument assumes and the issues it appears to presume In a wordPaul thought the ekklēsia at Corinth needed a strong reminder of itsconstitution and the political theology it implied The reports he receivedprovoked Paul to clarify and to draw more starkly the boundaries and thedifferences between covenanted ekklēsia and constituted coloniaScholars have recognized largely as a result of the formulation of

J M G Barclay that 1 Corinthians evinces a need to shore up ldquoweakgroup boundariesrdquo97 By emphasizing the contrasts between the exigenciesevoking 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians Barclay demonstrated thatthe divergent social contexts of the respective assemblies to which Paulwrote influenced the shape and concerns of his epistolary responsesBarclay concluded (in 1992) ldquoAfter a period of intensive study of thesocial status of Paulrsquos converts it is high time to explore further thequestion of social interaction ndash and to take care in so doing not to subscribeto the false assumption that all Paulrsquos churches were of the same stamprdquo98

95 Hogeterp (2006 322ndash31) Vahrenhorst (2008 145ndash57)96 In light of Acts 1611ndash15 and statements about the heavenly citizenship in Phil 320

(ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει) one might pursue for example thisconstitutional framework with regard to Philippians although the internal covenantalsignals of that epistle seem far less obvious

97 Barclay (2011 181ndash203)98 Barclay (2011 203)


In the 2011 reprint of his essay Barclay notes several recent studies thathave attempted to do this in various ways99 Paul in 1 Corinthians saw aneed to define and contend for a certain kind of ecclesial structure andpraxis one that he set off from that of the larger colonial community bothby comparison and especially by contrast His epistle bears therefore thepolitical and ethical marks of an alternative civic discourse that has at itscore the new covenant proclaimed in the word of the cross This covenantalkerygma challenges the constitutional paradigm of Corinthian politeia

As we conclude this chapter we should note proleptically three ben-efits of the constitution-covenant framework we have constructed Firstsuch an interpretive model has the advantage of not limiting our searchfor structural models for the Corinthian assembly to any single socialgroup (ie household synagogue association)100 Rather than devotingour interpretive energy to any one exclusive ancient model for theekklēsia we are directed by the notions of constitution and covenantrather to expect at least with regard to 1 Corinthians overlapping circles(ie colonia sub-civic associations household) This point reiterated byAdams101 was first made eloquently in 1960 by Judge In the latterrsquosreflection on the social patterns within which the early Christians livedand wrote he argued that they ldquowere thinking in terms of a series ofoverlapping but not systematically related circlesrdquo102 Both constitutionand covenant were political instruments with public and private demandsand implications both cutting across the overlapping social spheres andlevels of social status in colony and assembly And both constitutedcomplex and multilayered patterns of life or politeiai

For this reason the framework of constitution-covenant holds promisein a second area namely describing and interpreting the collision ofpolitical structures and ethical norms visible in 1 Corinthians103 Thefraught interaction between the two aspects of our framework suggestsnew ways to attend to tensions over rights and privileges social hier-archy networks of obligation and honor dynamics of exclusion andmodes of litigation and conciliation that lie on and under the surface ofthe text of the epistle As we shall see constitution provides on occasiona positive analogy or metaphor for Paul to work with But more often itacts as the foil against which he frames his argument It is instead the new

99 Barclay (2011 203 n40) Particularly relevant to Corinth Adams (2000 85ndash103)De Vos (1999 205ndash32)

100 See Adams (2009)101 Adams (2009 78)102 Judge (1960 iii) cf Judge (2008 597ndash618)103 See Martin (2009b)


covenant implications of his proclamation of Christ that he holds out asoffering the possibility of political and ethical transformation It is notonly that there are social patterns that overlap in unsystematic waysthese patterns of life propel detectably if sometimes unsystematicallydistinct patterns of belief and patterns of ethical reflection The inverseis of course true as well104

A third benefit of the constitution-covenant frame employed in thefollowing exegetical chapters flows from the second Although othershave noted that 1 Corinthians shows a sustained use of political and legaltopoi the overwhelming focus has been on the rhetorical and literarynature of these commonplaces With our heuristic lens in position ourattention is focused on political sites where Paulrsquos rhetorical emphasesconnect communicatively with and challenge many of the assumptions ofhis auditors That is to say our framework may well help us be attuned tothe ways in which Paul attempts to correlate and contrast two broadpatterns of life and of belief that were necessarily coextensive but oftenconflicted Constitution-covenant offers us a hermeneutical apparatus toprobe Paulrsquos communicative strategy in making his political and ethicalargumentsThe burden of the following chapters will be to realize some of these

potential benefits of the framework of covenant-constitution The follow-ing short chapter concludes Part One by making explicit the final requi-site methodological tools for our project of interpretive reconstitutionThen Part Two opens by probing exegetically 1 Cor 14ndash9 to see how andwhy Paul self-conscious of his role as a minister of the new covenant(διάκονος καινῆς διαθήκης 2 Cor 36)105 and as one who saw himself asunder legal obligation to Christ (ἔννομος χριστοῦ 1 Cor 921)106 worksto constitute the Corinthian assembly as a certain kind of covenantedcommunity (ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίουἡμῶν 1 Cor 19)

104 Cf Martin (2009b 133)105 Van Unnik (1960 175ndash7) notes Paul can express new covenant themes apart from

the term ldquocovenantrdquo He comments that Paul seems to assume his readers will understandhis meaning in 1 Cor 1125 and 2 Cor 36 but that as the history of scholarship indicatessubsequent interpreters have not always found these compressed covenantal phrases soclear

106 See Dodd (1953) Weiss (1910 245) aligns 921 with Barn 26 (ldquothe new law [ὁκαινὸς νόμος] of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo) Cf Thiselton (2000 703ndash5)


5

CONSTITUTING CORINTH PAULAND THE ASSEMBLY

Every commentary on a Pauline letter relies also upon anassumed portrait of the church body which Paul is addressingthe most notorious example of this is perhaps the Corinthiancommunity whose unruly group personality has greatly exer-cised the imagination of readers of the Corinthian correspon-dence from the earliest days of the church (1 Clement 47) to thepresent Exegesis and portraiture therefore always go handin hand Mitchell (2002 410ndash11)

51 Rendering 1 Corinthians

In previous chapters we constructed a comparative framework withinwhich to interpret the text of 1 Cor 11ndash46 The aim of the presentchapter is to build a bridge to our exegesis Before turning in Part Twoto two exegetical studies it is necessary to step back from the emergingportrait we have been rendering and to place within it the figures of PaulCorinth and the early Christian assembly We hope in what follows toorient the reader by defining the elements of composition we employ andthe figures that populate the scene

In Chapter 1 we drew three interpretive concepts from certain lines ofPauline political precedent politeia political discourse and alternativecivic ideology These offer categories for conceiving respectively theinterface between constitution and covenant the register appropriate tospeech about law and life and the rhetorical aim of political discourseThese concepts provide an overlapping space within which to evaluatethe competing claims and functions of the Corinthian constitution and1 Cor 11ndash46 Chapter 2 drew on the work of John Crook to demonstratethe appropriateness of using legal ndash especially documentary ndash evidencefor understanding life in a first-century context Evidence related to thesources contents and display of colonial constitutions was adduced in

106

Chapter 3 to show the applicability of the Spanish charters to RomanCorinth There too archaeological case studies revealed that this evi-dence connects with Corinth at a variety of levels (legal ritual eco-nomic) and for a variety of persons (elite and non-elite) Chapter 4examined evidence related to the sources emphases and encounterwith covenant particularly in its Deuteronomic form vis-agrave-vis CorinthThe notion and discourse of covenant and especially the shape Paul gaveto his new covenant ministry in the assembly emerged as a politicalframework that was asymmetrically analogous to though often in con-flict with that of constitutionThe focus of this chapter which concludes Part One and its constitu-

tion of the comparative framework for the exegesis that follows istwofold First it clearly defines the method of comparison and thecharacter of communication assumed in the remainder of the studySecond it sketches our view of key figures visible in the portrait weassociate with the Pauline text Since asMitchell rightly argues exegesisand portraiture are ineluctably coupled the reader deserves an advanceviewing of the canvas we believe simultaneously emerges from andshapes our understanding of the text and related evidence

52 Comparative method

Of the drawing of comparisons as with the making of Qohelethrsquos manybooks there is apparently no end in NT scholarship This is becausecomparative analogy is an important mode of interpretation We seekanalogically to understand the unknown by the known and the partiallyknown by appeal to larger context We attempt to make strange toourselves the too well known so that we may begin to know it anewAnd yet not all comparisons are of a kind It is important to know what ndashand how ndash one is comparing Although the overarching comparison ofthis study ndash constitution and covenant ndash has already been framed thespace within that frame must be filled in with exegetical detail It is aframe constructed for the purpose of viewing our object of inquirynamely two textual units in 1 Cor 1ndash4 that bear traces of a Corinthianpoliteia shaped by Roman law To be clear about the kinds of compar-isons that will facilitate our exegesis in Part Two we must do thefollowing in the present chapter (1) probe the difficult nature of theenterprise of comparison (2) begin to define what ldquolegal languagerdquo isand (3) outline the layers of comparison and communication that willresult in a more thickly drawn portrait of Paul his epistle and theCorinthians

Constituting Corinth Paul and the assembly 107

521 Quod Est Comparandum The Enterprise of Comparison

Within NT studies the enterprise of comparison has especially sinceWettstein been characterized by a philological focus and expressed inthe language of ldquoparallelsrdquo1 This search for and use of parallels becameincreasingly fragmented and complex over the course of the twentiethcentury for a variety of reasons Among these were the development ofmethodological approaches to the NT such as the ReligionsgeschichtlicheSchule the decision to distinguish between (and publish separately)Hellenistic and Jewish comparative material and the accidental historyof newly emerging documentary evidence (in the form of papyri inscrip-tions and texts from the Judean desert)2

In the latter half of the past century however NT scholars began tourge more caution in the use of comparative material3 With the growingrecognition that ldquoparallels ndash no matter how striking the similarity ndash [do]not exist outside of an historical and social contextrdquo4 the philologicalfocus expanded to embrace the sociological and the language shiftedfrom ldquoparallelsrdquo to ldquobackgroundsrdquo5 More recently the palette of com-parative methods has evolved from a less-sophisticated notion of ldquoback-groundsrdquo to more complex categories of ldquoculturerdquo ldquosocial patternsrdquoldquosocial worldrdquo or ldquosymbolic universerdquo One salutary effect of this shiftfor Pauline studies has been the insistence that Paul his texts and hiscommunities be investigated within the matrix of the first-century worldand neither systematically abstracted from nor pitted against it6 Buthelpful as this shift has been it has not solved all the methodologicalproblems facing the Pauline scholar One such lingering difficulty is thedelicate matter of where to place the comparative emphasis ndash on simi-larity or difference

Notable among those who have warned against simplistic and ideolo-gically driven comparisons is J Z Smith In his 1988 Jordan lecturesSmith calls attention to the problematic discourse of ldquouniquenessrdquo in thecomparative study of early Christianity He highlights the hazardouspossibility that comparisons are too easily constructed such that they

1 Fitzgerald and White (2003)2 Fitzgerald and White (2003 19ndash27)3 Sandmel (1962) was one such early caution4 Fitzgerald and White (2003 34)5 Fitzgerald and White (2003 27ndash39)6 There are other historical literary and theological matrices (eg diachronic-

canonical reception-historical) within which to investigate NT texts

108 Constitution and Covenant in Corinth

only mirror the assumptions of the scholars who construct them7 WhileSmith reasonably asks of the scholar a clear articulation of intellectualpurpose in any given comparative enterprise his insistence on theanthropological and deconstructionist mode of comparisons8 has in hisown case led to peculiar interpretations of the Corinthian evidence9

Others in their eagerness to avoid the category of uniqueness haveelevated similarity over difference10

Protesting against this rhetorical and ideological turn in historical(including biblical) studies and describing what he saw as the subse-quent collapse of historiography into fiction Arnaldo Momigliano justprior to Smithrsquos lectures penned this advice

I ask myself where a classical scholar can help biblical scholarsmost usefully My answer would be that in the field of politicalsocial and religious history differences are more importantthan similarities ndash and therefore knowledge of Greco-Romanhistory can be useful only for differential comparison11

From his following discussion it becomes clear that by ldquodifferentialcomparisonrdquo Momigliano intends the historical examination of texts intheir complex cultural settings he advocated a self-critical engagementwith evidence and a reflection on the patterns emerging from suchevidence It is these patterns marked out by difference that help fore-ground for the interpreter distinctive features of the object of inquiryOne must resist Momigliano urged the temptation either to draw homo-logous lines of genealogy or to allow the focus of investigation tofragment iteratively both of which often (and paradoxically) result in acollapse into sameness ndash Paul his rhetoric and his communities are

7 Smith (1990 36ndash53) is interested in undermining ndash by theorizing ndashwhat he terms ldquotheProtestant apologetic historical schema of lsquoorigins and corruptionsrsquordquo and its historical-ontological-theological claims of uniqueness vis-agrave-vis the death and resurrection of Jesus

8 Smith (1990 115) for one critique see Klippenberg (1992)9 Smith applied his view to 1 Corinthians (re-)describing it as the arch-contaminating

text of early Christianity and proposing ldquoa redescription of the Corinthian situation inrelation to a set of data from Papua New Guineardquo in ldquoRe Corinthiansrdquo now reprinted inCameron and Miller (2011 17ndash34)

10 Eg Engberg-Pedersen (2001 2) ldquoMethodologically the presumption must alwaysfavor similarity rather than difference Only on that basis will any claim about differencesbe validrdquo (italics mine) But this claim is not consonant with all the essays in the volume

11 Momigliano (1987 3ndash8) italics mine In principle Smith (1990 118) seems to agreeldquodifference rather than identity governs the comparisons the language of lsquouniquenessrsquo isincreasingly eschewed and analogy rather than genealogy is the goalrdquo In any caseMomigliano cannot be accused of ldquohistorical positivismrdquo


frequently explained away in terms of the ancient (or modern) culturalcontext12 The equation sometimes remains too simple X is (or is nearly)just like Y in respect of Z13 We find Momiglianorsquos arguments to bepersuasive on these points particularly because the method he commendstakes seriously both structural similarities in ancient cultures and theparticularities of time place and personality The historian must holdthese in creative and controlled tension to grapple with the complex datain any given case We therefore attempt in the exegetical chapters tofollow to engage in the difficult task of differential comparison

In this study the language of parallels and backgrounds is avoidedinstead language related to social pattern context setting and discourseis employed The avowed purpose of our comparative investigation is theunderstanding of the Pauline text within the frame of covenant andconstitution mediated by the nexus of politeia14 If we are able also tomake cautious gains in our understanding of Paul himself of somemembers of the assembly to whom he wrote or of the colony in whichthey resided so much the better15 Throughout the emphasis in ourcomparisons is on contrast for the sake of appreciating distinctiveness16

The manner in which our argument repeatedly unfolds in the followingchapters is one in which we begin from (but do not end with) words inPaulrsquos text that have ldquolegalrdquo resonance For that reason we must tacklean elusive phrase that appears with surprising frequency in the literatureon 1 Corinthians legal language

522 The Problem of Legal Language

Interpreters have often commented in passing on the presence of legalterminology in 1 Corinthians and not only within the letterrsquos moreobviously ldquolegalrdquo sections (eg 61ndash8)17 This terminology is the subject

12 For one case study in the history of ldquoparallelsrdquo see Bitner (2013a) The latter tendency(explaining away) lurks in some of the essays in Cameron and Miller (2011)

13 See the discussion of resemblance theory and comparisons in Smith (1990 51ndash3)14 Cameron and Miller (2011 297) ldquosome of the family groups to whom Paul brought

his gospel were more interested in finding their place in the emerging civic identity of theRoman colony of Corinth than in some holy politeia outside the cityrdquo

15 But see Momigliano (1987 7) Barclay (1987)16 I will avoid the language of ldquouniquenessrdquo and ldquooriginalityrdquo in speaking of Paulrsquos

formulations but not claims concerning Paulrsquos linguistic and conceptual adaptations ordistinctiveness

17 A case in point is the double occurrence of βεβαιόω in 1 Cor 16 8 with which wecommence our exegetical investigation in Chapter 6


of a study by A Papathomas18 his premise is that the text of 1Corinthians evinces a high frequency of koine legal language and thatPaulrsquos evident control of such juristic language is integral to his episto-lary argument On this basis Papathomas undertakes a comparison ofPaulrsquos language with that of the papyriThe result is a valuable collection of papyrological texts characterized

by terminological overlap with Paulrsquos epistle Especially relevant to thepresent study is that Papathomas identifies thirty-eight occurrences oflegal terms within 1 Cor 1ndash4 amounting to one-fifth of those he finds inthe entire letter19 While this may be prima facie striking it actually tellsus nothing as yet of the interpretive significance of these terms in theirrhetorical context20 In fact despite the rich harvest of documentary textshe brings into contact with the Pauline text the work of the papyrologistis marked by three methodological shortcomings First Papathomasneglects to articulate the limits of legal language Second he does notoffer a sustained reflection on the function(s) of such terminology in thepapyri themselves Finally and most crucially he engages in comparisonat the level of words (and occasionally phrases) in a manner that fails toexplore the collocations of terms and the discourse pragmatics so essen-tial to understanding the resonances and rhetorical goals of Paulrsquos letterTherefore to make effective use of the fruits of Papathomasrsquos papyrolo-gical labors we must attempt to outline relative to these three issues astance that is in each case adequate to guide our comparative exegesis

523 From Legal Language to Politeia Language

As Papathomas admits the methodological problem of defining whatcounts as legal language is as important as it is difficult21 Linguists have

18 Papathomas (2009) Papathomasrsquos study is connected to the second volume inpapyrological commentary series edited by Arzt-Grabner et al (2006) What follows hereis a summary of my review essay Bitner (2013b) cf Hengstl (2010 82ndash5)

19 Papathomas (2009 220ndash1) esp Anhang 239ndash41 (Tabellen 1ndash6) Only one of these(φανερὸν γενήσεται at 1 Cor 313) is a phrase rather than a single term This accounts for 20percent of the total occurrences (187) of legal terms he identifies He counts seventy-eightoccurrences in 1 Cor 11ndash611 (or 42 percent) The distribution throughout the epistle is notuniform

20 Nor does the mere presence of alleged legal terms reveal to us the social andexperiential sources of Paulrsquos language Consider dubious attempts to argue Shakespearewas a lawyer (or that his audiences in the Globe Theatre must have had legal training) onthe basis of the ldquoadept usages of legal terms and legal maximsrdquo in his plays for whichcritique see Morrison (1989 6ndash8)

21 Papathomas (2009 6ndash7 221ndash5)


struggled to define the limits of legal language generally22 ancientwriters and classical philologists have grappled with its terms transla-tion and functions in ancient Greek and Latin23 Certainly in the Julio-Claudian period Roman legal language was not limited only to lawyersand the law court Rather it was variously adapted with the obviousexpectation of wide comprehensibility and rhetorical effects by poetssatirists philosophers and others24

So if as is widely acknowledged juristic terms and images charac-terized a range of discourses precisely in our period why is it sodifficult to define what counts as legal language One challenge relatesto the ease of intuitively grasping what kind of language ndash ancient orcontemporary ndash is legal and in which contexts Yet this intuitive easesublimates when it comes to the systematic articulation and delineationof legal language it can be particularly difficult to distinguish fromstandard language or other linguistic subforms25 Even more importantis the stumbling block arising from a fixation on terms abstracted fromspecific utterances and contexts As Kurzon notes such a focus solelyon lexical semantics leads to a problematic ldquogap between the linguisticanalysis of the structure of a particular legal discourse and itspurposerdquo26 In NT studies such a fixation on lexical items in relationto legal language derives largely from the work of Adolf Deissmann inhis Bibelstudien and the flawed Theologisches Woumlrterbuch projectedited by Gerhard Kittel27

To move beyond the lexical-semantic comparative approach pio-neered by Deissmann it is necessary to define legal language for ourpurposes more broadly than as individual termini technici We shouldinstead view language as legal when such terminology (1) derives fromor acquires specialized meaning in legal documents or contexts (2) isclosely associated within a text with other such terms and (3) hasfunctions or aims in the real world that would be properly characterized

22 Eg Kurzon (1994) Kurzon (1997) Galdia (2009 73ndash88 110ndash13)23 Eg Glinister and Woods (2007) Cf the legal and political GreekndashLatin ldquopractical

synonymsrdquo in Mason (1974)24 Eg Gebhardt (2009 11ndash72) Cf Meyer (2004 63ndash74) for examples of legal

language and parodic adaptation In speaking of rhetorical topoi (including legal andpolitical topoi) NT scholars do not always consider distinct sources vectors and commu-nicative purposes of such topoi being content merely to identify a topos (another capitula-tion to similarity over difference) Cf Mitchell (1991 67 and n8 180ndash3)

25 Kurzon (1997 119ndash23)26 Kurzon (1994 8ndash9)27 On TWNTTDNT see esp Barr (1969) Lee (2003)


as legal by competent speakers These three criteria for identifying legallanguage emphasize respectively (1) the source (performative andortextual setting) (2) the context (vocabulary and syntactical collocationsin the text) and (3) the communicative purpose (performative setting andrhetorical function) They also correlate closely with the specific heur-istic categories introduced earlier of politeia political discourse andalternative civic ideology The Table 3 captures and relates these waysof finding describing and viewing legal languageMore specifically in keeping with the comparative approach of our

study we are most interested in the terminology settings and commu-nicative purposes of constitution andor covenant Searching for andattending to language that is constitutional andor covenantal ratherthan simply legal has two immediate benefits First it obviates theneed to distinguish between strictly legal and more broadly politicallanguage ndash the categories of constitution and covenant effectivelyintegrate both kinds of language in each of the three aspects describedearlier We continue to describe this integration with the term politeiaThe second benefit of replacing a narrow view of legal language withthe broader category of politeia language is that it helps us identifylanguage in Paulrsquos epistle that ldquocould go either wayrdquo for the speaker orlisteners in its resonances ndash toward Roman law (constitution) or towardJewish or Christological notions of (new) covenant Politeia languagethus potentially forms the connective-comparative sociolinguistic28

tissue between constitution and covenant

Table 3 Legal Language

Identifying characteristics Emphasis

Correlation withConstitution-CovenantComparison

language deriving from legaldocuments or contexts

source Politeia

language closely associatedwith other such languagewithin the same utterance

context political discourse

language with legal functionsor aims

communicativepurpose

alternative civicideology

28 For sociolinguistics generally Hudson (1980) Application to Graeco-Roman textsKaimio (1979) Obbink and Evans (2010)


524 Communicative Purpose and Politeia Language

A second problem arising from Papathomasrsquos study is the function(s) ofsuch politeia language Every utterance or text with legal or politeialanguage has a purpose or set of aims29 Determining the nature of theseaims is important to making persuasive comparisons between suchlanguage in for example the papyri or inscriptions and a Pauline epistleDoing so however is a matter of grasping ancient patterns of languageuse a task made difficult both by the circumscribed data at our disposaland by variation within established convention

J K Aitken in a semantic study of blessing and cursing language inclassical Hebrew texts observes

One of the difficulties that hamper the study of ancient lan-guages is of course the limited corpus of evidence and the lackof native-speaker informants This problem is acute in the caseof a pragmatic analysis where we cannot know for certain thesocial conventions and we cannot hear the speakers whoseintonation can often be a greater guide than any to the functionof an utterance30

We may find some comfort however in the fact that our situation withrespect to the evidence of Greek and Latin is somewhat better than forHebrew Nevertheless Aitkenrsquos point stands and he provides a model ofcaution and careful definition of terms for the linguistic aspects of thecomparison undertaken in this study First of all Aitken proposes adistinction between context and setting whereby the former pertains tothe literary framework and the latter to the historical material and sociallocation of an utterance An investigation of language in its textualcontext involves the analysis of its grammatical and syntactical featuresto make a judgment about the semantic conventions it shares with othertexts Placing such language and texts within their setting involves aconsideration of physical space actors and functions to come to gripswith the social conventions it assumes As Aitken reminds us althoughsemantic analysis must precede reflection on social conventions the twoare mutually dependent the guiding principle being a concern to describeldquothe functions and effects of the utterancesrdquo31

29 Some prefer categories of rhetorical criticism for example Schuumlssler Fiorenza(1987) others prefer speech-act theory for example Thiselton (2000) We speak moregenerally attempting consistently to define terms

30 Aitken (2007 17)31 Aitken (2007 17ndash22 at 22)


This distinction between context and setting and its implications forunderstanding communicative purpose is important for our compara-tive investigation It helps us think more clearly about basic issues thatarise if we are to propose and unfold the claim that Paul does in factemploy politeia language in 1 Cor 11ndash46 These issues include thefollowing

What kinds of non-Pauline texts employ the same languageWhat semantic conventions are observable in these non-Pauline

contextsBy what kinds of people and in what settings is such language

employedWhat social conventions are observable in these settingsWhat communicative purposes are therefore connected with

such languageWhy might Paul have drawn on such languageHow might he be adapting it for his own purposesWhat resonances and dissonances might these adaptations have

had for members of the assembly

A consideration of these questions in terms of context and setting(s)helps us see that our work is not finished when we have located aplausible source (or sources) for Paulrsquos politeia language nor when wehave analyzed his rhetorical arrangement of such language Rather wemust endeavor to range across the entire spectrum ndash from source torhetoric to purposes and effects ndash in our investigation of Pauline textsand alleged comparanda if our exegetical case is to be persuasive Wemust attempt ndash as Papathomas and others do not ndash a comparison thatmoves beyond the words and phrases of politeia to the conventions ofpolitical discourse and the competing claims of alternative civic ideolo-gies Moving through these levels of analysis with respect to our frame-work of constitution and covenant will address the weaknesses in theapproach of Papathomas and aid us in tuning our ears to the subtle socialpolitical and theological resonances and dissonances of Paulrsquos text

525 On Comparing Words Registers and Genres of Politeia

In the argument of each exegetical chapter to follow it is words andphrases that provide us with an entry point But concerns related tosemantic and social conventions outlined earlier compel us to thinkcomparatively beyond the lexical level Although each later chapterexhibits such a comparative approach it is helpful to epitomize it briefly


here taking as our focus data adduced by Papathomas Our treatmenthere also prepares for the argument in Chapter 6

With regard to Paulrsquos double use of βεβαιόω in 1 Cor 16 8 Papathomasconcludes ldquoPaulus verwendet auch hier einen terminus technicus derRechtssprache seiner Zeit um seine Kommunikationsziele zu erreichenrdquoAlthough he adduces new papyrological texts Papathomas only repeats astandard and less-than-helpful refrain of Corinthian scholarship32 Wedelay the full history of that scholarship on these verses until the followingchapter except to note here that such a refrain and the results it haseffected in scholarly interpretations of the past century derives from theinfluential dictum of Adolf Deissmann in his Bibelstudien

We shall not err in construing βεβαιόω and βέβαιος in thewritings of Paul and his circle from this standpoint and espe-cially as these words sometimes occur among other juristicexpressions By our taking confirm and sure in the sense oflegally guaranteed security the statements in which they occurgain in decisiveness and force33

Deissmannrsquos careful phrasing has been largely eclipsed in subsequenttreatments of Paulrsquos opening wordplay in the thanksgiving period of 1Corinthians in part because of his repeated use of ldquolegal technicaltermrdquo in relation to βεβαιόω34 His conclusion noticed immediately35

and amplified by the lexica36 has resulted in the commonplace thatPaul draws in 1 Cor 16 8 on the language of commercial law tounderline the firm nature of the communityrsquos foundation and the securestatus of its members vis-agrave-vis eschatological divine judgment Themonotonous imprecision in this consensus view stems from a termino-logical focus a tightly circumscribed textual basis and the manner of

32 See the literature noted by Papathomas (2009 14ndash18) Many papyri he adduces aremore complete and chronologically proximate to 1 Corinthians than those of Deissmann

33 Deissmann (1977 105) ET Deissmann (1979 109)34 The playfulness (Wir werden danach ein Recht haben) and qualification (zumal diese

Woumlrter z[um] T[eil] neben anderen juristischen Ausdruumlcken stehen) of the original havebeen obscured partly by his insistence that the term is ein technisch Ausdruck einetechnische Bedeutung das technische Wort ein juristisch Ausdruck Deissmann (1977100ndash5)

35 Weiss (1910 8) Robertson and Plummer (1971 6)36 See esp sv βέβαιος βεβαιόω βεβαίωσις and related discussions in M-M (1930)

xviii TDNT (Schlier Ger orig 1933 ET 1964) Bauer3 Woumlrterbuch (1937) BAGD(1957) BDAG (2000) Significant improvement appears in the Spanish-Greek lexiconDGE See sv βέβαιος I3 (ldquoen formulas legalesrdquo)


the comparison ndash a comparison that in the end offers little in terms ofhistorical or exegetical payoffThis lexical myopia relates directly to our consideration of comparative

methodWhile interpreters have rightly noted the occurrences of βεβαιόωin 1 Cor 14ndash9 as significant for exegesis most have fallen short inassuming that this goal has been met by a focus on the lexical semanticsof the verb In doing so they have often cited Deissmannrsquos conclusion butignored his qualifying condition ldquoespecially as these words sometimesoccur among other juristic expressionsrdquo In other words if we are tounderstand a legal meaning of βεβαιόω in Paulrsquos text as it has in thepapyri we need to employ something such as Deissmannrsquos test of lexicalcollocation in context Does Paul indeed link βεβαιόω with other legalterms in his text andmore importantly are they brought into constellationin a manner that renders them comparable to the commercial legal texts towhich Deissmann pointed And even if we grant for the moment thatthese conditions obtain and therefore lend weight to the papyrologicalcomparisons invoked by Deissmann (and now by Papathomas) whatldquodecisiveness and forcerdquo does that imply for the Pauline usage In otherwords we would need to move beyond the level of semantic conventionto the level of social convention to perceive the significance or distinc-tiveness of Paulrsquos utteranceIf we take a first-century example offered by Papathomas we see that

such commercial legal texts as a class fail to meet the tests of appropriatecomparanda37 The papyrus in question POxy II 264 (AD 54) is a goodone to scrutinize for several reasons it is almost exactly contemporarywith Paulrsquos epistle it offers a text relatively free of restorations and itexemplifies the commercial context of βεβαιόω and the βεβαίωσιςclauses that allegedly supply the ldquolegal forcerdquo echoed by Paulrsquos usageIt is also an apposite choice because it illustrates precisely whyDeissmann Papathomas and others have juxtaposed such texts withPaul and why the pursuit of such a comparison is mistaken and unpro-ductive I reproduce the text and a translation here in full for ease ofreference (focal clauses underlined)

POxy II 264 + BL VII234 (TM 20535) AD 54

Ἀμμώνιος Ἀμμωνίου Τρύφωνι Διονυσίουχαίρειν ὁμολογῶ πεπρακέναι σοι τὸν ὑπάρ-χοντά μοι ἱστὸν γερδι[ακὸν] π[η]χῶν γερδιακῶ(ν)

37 Papathomas (2009 16 and n46)


τριῶν παρὰ παλαιστὰς δύο οὗ ἀντία δύοἱστόποδες δύο ἐπίμιτ[ρον ἓν καὶ] ἀπέχειν παρὰ σ(οῦ)5

διὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ πρὸς Ὀξ[υρύγχ(ων)] πόλει ΣαραπιείουΣαραπίωνος τοῦ Λόχου τραπέζης τὴν ἑσταμένη(ν)πρὸς ἀλλήλους τούτου τιμὴν ἀργυρίου Σεβαστοῦ καὶΠτολεμαικοῦ νομίσματος δραχμὰςεἴκοσι κ[αὶ] βεβαιώσειν σοι τὴν πρᾶσιν πάσῃ10

βεβαιώσ[ει] ἢ ἐκτείσειν σοι ἣν ἔσχον παρὰ σοῦτιμὴν σὺν ἡμιολίᾳ καὶ τὸ βλάβος κυρία ἡ χείρ(ἔτους) ιδ Τιβερίου Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος ΣεβαστοῦΓερμανικοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος μη(νὸς) Καισαρείου ιεmdashmdash

(hand 2) Ἀμμώνιος Ἀμμωνίου πέπρακα τὸν ἱστὸν15

καὶ ἀπέχω τὴν τιμὴν τὰς τοῦ ἀργυρίου δραχμὰ(ς)εἴκοσι καὶ βεβαιώσωι (=βεβαιώσω) καθότι πρόκιται Ἡρα-κλείδης Δ[ιον]υσίου ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ μὴεἰδότος γράμματα (ἔτους) ιδ Τιβερίου ΚλαυδίουΚαίσαρος Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος20

μη(νὸς) Καισαρείου ιε Σεβαστῇmdashmdash

(hand 3) ἔτους τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτουΤιβερίου Κλαυδίου ΚαίσαροςΣεβαστοῦ ΓερμανικοῦΑὐτοκράτορος μη(νὸς) Καισαρείου ιε25

Σεβαστῇ δι(ὰ) τῆ(ς)Σαρ(απίωνος) τρ(απέζης) γέγο(νεν)ἡ διαγρ(αφή)

Translation38

Ammonios son of Ammonios to Tryphon son of Dionysiosgreeting I agree that I have sold to you my propertythe weaverrsquos loom measuring three weaversrsquo cubitsless than two palms and containing two rollerstwo beams one epimitron and that I received from you5

through the bank set up near the Sarapeion at Oxyrhynchus[the bank] of Sarapion son of Lokhosof the price agreed upon between us for it namelyof silver Imperial and Ptolemaic coinage drachmastwenty and that I will guarantee to you the sale with every10

guarantee or I will pay in full to you that which I have from you

38 Slightly modified from the editio princeps Cf Johnson (1959 475 no 300)


the price with half again and the damages This note of hand is validYear 14 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar AugustusGermanicus Imperator month of Caesareus the 15thmdashmdash

(hand 2) I Ammonios son of Ammonios have sold the loom 15

and I receive the price of the silver drachmastwenty and I will guarantee [the sale] as aforesaidI Herakleides son of Dionysios wrote for him becausehe was illiterate Year 14 of Tiberius ClaudiusCaesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator 20

month of Caesareus the 15th by the Imperial reckoningmdashmdash

(hand 3) Year fourteenof Tiberius Claudius CaesarAugustus GermanicusImperator month of Caesareus the 15th 25by the Imperial reckoning transacted through the bank of Sarapion

the contract

This contract of sale from Roman Egypt represents a familiar legal texttype In keeping with the conventions of both Roman and Ptolemaic lawthe sale is accompanied by a stipulation (declaration) in the form of aβεβαίωσις clause This clause (ὁμολογῶ βεβαιώσειν σοι τὴν πρᾶσινπάσῃ βεβαιώσει) enacted a general guarantee against defects or evictionit was intended as a warranty that served to protect the buyer andprovided an action against the vendor if the item sold proved defectiveor was claimed as the rightful property of a third party39

While this papyrus certainly preserves a legal text (contract receipt ofsale) employing formulaic βεβαιόω statements (Deissmannrsquos terminustechnicus) it has little else of substance in common with Paulrsquos thanks-giving Table 4 further highlights the dis-analogy by applying the analy-tical categories of semantic and social conventions discussed earlierThe contrast between the two texts is clear Neither in terms of syntax

and collocation (semantic conventions) nor in terms of persons andfunctions implied (social conventions) is there a viable comparison It

39 On βεβαίωσις clauses see Taubenschlag (1972) Rupprecht (1982) Cf Pringsheim(1950 429ndash96 our papyrus [POxy II 264] at 443 n2 and 493 n2) De Zulueta (196642ndash51) Johnston (1999 80ndash4) βεβαιόω and related terms of guarantee appear as well inthe legal documents of the so-called Babatha archive PYadin I 1925 (πάντα κύρια καὶβέβαια (cf Aramaic in PYadin I 2015 38 2220) see also καθαροποιῶ (and Aramaic) inPYadin IIIA1 p 16


is obvious that Paulrsquos Corinthian thanksgiving is not related in the least tocommercial law Nor by implication does the technical sense ofβεβαιόω operative in such commercial texts have any relevance for theexegesis of Paulrsquos text Does this mean however that interpreters havebeen wrong to see legal language in Paulrsquos βεβαιόω wordplay Notnecessarily Rather they have failed to identify and distinguish theproper legal source and function of Paulrsquos language The signal termβεβαιόω has led to a correct intuition regarding the identification of legal

Table 4 βεβαιόω and the Comparison of 1 Cor 16 8 with Contracts of Sale inthe Papyri

Semantic conventions 1 Cor 14ndash9 POxy II 264

First person verb εὐχαριστῶ ὁμολογῶSyntax of βεβαιόω καθὼς τό μαρτύριον

τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐβεβαιώθηἐν ὑμῖν

ὃς καὶ βεβαιώσει ὑμᾶςἕως τέλουςἀνεγκλήτους

κ[αὶ] βεβαιώσειν σοιτὴν πρᾶσιν πάσῃβεβαιώσ[ει] ἢ ἐκτείσεινσοι

καὶ βεβαιώσωι καθότιπρόκιται

Lexical collocations χάριςπᾶςΧριστόςδίδωμιπλουτίζω(μὴ) ὑστερέωμαρτύριονἀνέγκλητοςκοινωνία

πράσσωτὸν ὑπάρχοντατραπέζητιμήβλάβος (βλαβή)κυρία ἡ χείρδιαγραφή

Social conventions 1 Cor 14ndash9 POxy II 264Discourse function ofverb

grounding comparison(καθώς)

pointing to past actconfirmation(ἐβεβαιώθη)

declarationpromise offuture

confirmation (βεβαιώσει)

formulaic stipulation in thepresent guaranteeing asale (βεβαιώσειν πάσῃ βεβαιώσει)

Agentsactors PaulGodChrist Jesus the assembly

Ammonius (vendor)Tryphon (buyer)Sarapion (banker)Herakleides (scribe)

Performative features epistolary (eucharistic)declaration

public act of confirmation

contract of sale transactionrecord of receipt ofpayment


discourse a failure to attend however to the register of Paulrsquos text withits semantic conventions has hindered a discovery of the correct genre Inthe case of 1 Cor 14ndash9 and 35ndash45 these are interrelated genres ofpoliteia as we will see in Chapters 6 and 7 There it will become evidentthat genre (or sub-genre) is the key to the social conventions mostvaluable for exegesis The emergence at this stage of the terms registerand genre terms that figure importantly as compositional elements in ourexegetical chapters requires clear definitionsMost simply register includes the lexical grammatical and syntactical

features of a text while genre embraces textual content aims and func-tion Thus the two linguistic categories relate respectively to the notions ofsemantic and social conventions already discussed Unfortunately there isno comprehensive study of postclassical (koine) Greek registers not tospeak of varieties of legal and political registers Nevertheless AWilli hasrecently summarized the state of scholarship40 Registers are ldquomainlycharacterized by co-occurrence patternsrdquo of features such as vocabularyand verbal syntax41 It is only once such patterns have been established thatthe comparative question of genre should be raised42 In our case then keypoliteia terms especially in collocation must lead us to the identificationof a comparable register and genre if we are to locate resonances witheither constitutional or covenantal discourses Even more importantly thepersuasive classification of texts and text types on the basis of wordsregisters and genres facilitates our perception of dissonances and distinc-tiveness with regard to either constitution or covenant when it comes toPaulrsquos politeia discourseWhich is to say this comparativemethod enablesa potential interface between constitution and covenant one that opens upspace for an exegesis that works with the following hypothesis Paul isaiming by a careful arrangement of terms and concepts at the constitutionof an alternative civic ideology in the assembly The demonstration of thishypothesis is the task incumbent on us over the course of the exegeticalchapters

526 Summary

We may now summarize the comparative elements that underlie ourexegetical composition in the following chapters First we agree with

40 Willi (2010 297ndash310)41 Willi (2010 298ndash300) Kurzon (1997 126ndash35 at 134) ldquoThe major clue to [legal

discourse] is the register especially the lexical featuresrdquo42 Willi (2010 306)


Momigliano that ldquodifferential comparisonrdquo difficult as it may be is themost productive mode for bringing together the NT and other ancientdata A focus on difference serves us well particularly in attending tosocial economic and theological aspects of Paulrsquos discourse Thus inour exegetical chapters we attempt to move from similarity towarddifference in our analysis of the social patterns implied by the vocabularyand arrangement of Paulrsquos text Constitution and covenant are integral tothis endeavor because they provide heuristic categories and filters that actas controls on our selection of data relevant to 1 Corinthians Second weseek to move beyond a ldquoword-studyrdquo approach that fixates exclusively oncertain terms In attending not only to lexical semantics but also to issuesof discourse pragmatics we are able to move from semantic to socialconventions Determining plausible linguistic registers by a concentra-tion on collocations leads us to compelling genres within which toanalyze the Pauline text Needless to say the confirmation of any com-parative method is in its results and the reader must postpone a finalevaluation until the conclusion of Part Two

53 Communication and metaphor

By now it will be clear that certain positive communicative assumptionscharacterize the comparative approach of this study In this section webriefly outline positions on three aspects of Paulrsquos communicative rela-tionship with the Corinthians embodied in his first epistle First somescholars posit a fundamental miscommunication between Paul and thoseCorinthians in the assembly This is an interpretive stance we reject forreasons enumerated later In finding such a position untenable we are ledto investigate two further aspects of Paulrsquos communication with regard to1 Corinthians 11ndash46 One has to do with the historical features andsocial dynamics of ancient letter delivery and lection the other pertainsto Paulrsquos use of metaphor These three aspects ndash communication gener-ally early Christian letter carrying and reading and metaphor ndash are eachtoo complex to receive a full treatment within the scope of this chapter Inwhat follows therefore we briefly outline some relevant issues and stakeout positions that underlie our exegetical arguments in Chapters 6 and 7

531 Postulates of Miscommunication

We referred earlier to J Z Smithrsquos essay ldquoRe Corinthiansrdquo Smithwhose work in the theory and method of so-called comparative religionis well known is among those who posit a scenario of radical


miscommunication between Paul and some Corinthians For this reasonwe use his position as a foil for our own43 He claims that Paul like earlyEuropean missionaries in Papua New Guinea may have been viewed asldquointrusiverdquo by those in Corinth whose ldquonative religious formationsrdquowerechallenged by his message44 In Paulrsquos insistent focus on ldquowisdomrdquoldquospiritrdquo and ldquobodyrdquo Smith argues that Paul ldquohas misconstrued theserelationsrdquoMoreover Smith alleges that Paul ldquomay well have misunder-stood the practicerdquo of glossolalia in Corinth For Smith such a scenariorenders Paul ldquoimplausiblerdquo and leads to the conclusion that ldquotheCorinthian situation may well be defined as the efforts at translationsbetween these understandings and misunderstandingsrdquo45

While Smithrsquos formulation has provocative aspects46 we are com-pelled to reject his rendering of the relationship between Paul and theCorinthians as less than plausible for the following two reasons Both arein keeping with our earlier taxonomy of the politics of Pauline interpreta-tion in Chapter 1 First Smithrsquos aim in such a creative comparison ishighly theoretical and intentionally avoids interacting with first-centurycomparative evidence This may indeed produce a certain salutary dis-tortion for the interpreter but in doing so it is avowedly deconstructiveand falls short of a reconstructive re-engagement with Paul and contem-porary cultural data47 It is an approach that distorts more than it clarifiesfor the biblical scholar committed to a self-critical evidence-basedmethod that works at the admittedly more mundane level of words andclauses of inscriptions and stratigraphy Second and just as problematicis the relational wedge Smith drives between apostle and assembly andthe communicative chasm he opens between author and audience Tobring attention to these unlikely implications of Smithrsquos approach is notto dispute the signs of conflict evident in the Corinthian correspondenceRather it is to note that the gaps assumed are too great given the evidencewe do have both from Paul himself and from Acts We grant that inmaking this claim we are employing further assumptions some of which(ie the usefulness of Acts for reconstructing the Corinthian situation)we have sought to defend in Chapter 4 Additionally our predilection forseeing a more communicative relationship among the parties generally

43 Smith (2011)44 Smith (2011 28)45 Smith (2011 31ndash4)46 Smith (2011 27) emphasizes both the promise of such an approach (cognitive

dissonance in the scholar that results in fresh appraisals) and its chief aim (revising ageneral theory of religion)

47 Smith (2011 31) admits he was ldquonot prepared to offer a counterproposalrdquo


and a more perceptive Paul in particular will be tested as it must be byour exegesis in Chapters 6 and 7

It is on these methodological assumptions ndash our configuration of theevidence and the test of exegesis ndash that we primarily base our renderingof a pastoral Paul who relates not without conflict or knowing provoca-tion to the members of the assembly as to his beloved children in Christ(ὡς τέκνα μου ἀγαπητά 1 Cor 414) Furthermore it is no accident that inthe same context in which he addresses them in this way Paul makesreference to a fact often eclipsed in the redescriptive enterprise namelythe sending of Timothy as (one) communicative mediator between theapostle and the assembly (417) For this reason having rejected postu-lates of radical miscommunication between Paul and the Corinthians headdresses we turn momentarily to relevant features of epistolary com-munication via letter carriers supplemented by ldquoauthorizedrdquo representa-tives and lectors

532 Literary Unity Ancient Letter Delivery and Lectionin the Assembly

If we grant the supposition that Paul in his emotional relationships andtheological commitments to the Corinthian assembly would have pre-ferred to be understood we must consider how he might have attemptedto make that happen in the case of 1 Corinthians This raises two inter-related issues on which we must acknowledge our stance even if we arenot able here to elaborate a full defense of either one First we take theposition that 1 Corinthians constitutes a literary unity responding to oraland written reports from Corinth composed in a reasonably short spaceof time This has remained the consensus position despite importantchallenges by a weighty minority of interpreters48 A combination offour considerations leaves us unpersuaded by partition theories (1) thelack of any manuscript evidence indicating partition (even in the earlyP46) (2) the absence of adequate models for the ancient editorial processof letter collection49 (3) the early attestation of 1 Corinthians apparentlyas a single epistle in other early Christian literature50 and (4) certain

48 Among whom are Weiss (1910 xxxivndashxliii) Schenk (1969) Jewett (1978) Buumlnker(1984 51ndash9) Overviews of the issue Hurd (1965 43ndash7) Thiselton (2000 36ndash41)Forceful defense of a threefold partition Welborn (2013a)

49 See Klauck (2003a)50 Early second century 1 Clement passim Ignatius alludes frequently to 1 Corinthians

see Grant (1963)


rhetorical and thematic features that obviate the need for partitionhypotheses51 To be sure scholars assign varied weight and priority tothese considerations But all agree that internal exegetical considerationsare of the highest importance In the case of the present study thepresumption of literary unity may find such support in our exegesis of1 Cor 14ndash9 and 35ndash45 in which certain themes that unfold in the laterchapters of 1 Corinthians appear to originateSecond even on the basis of the incomplete evidence we have there

are indications that letter carriers and others may have formed an impor-tant communicative link between Paul and the assemblies to whom hewrote52 We know that the reading out of a Pauline letter in the assemblywas not quite like the modern experiences of either listening to a sermonor of reading silently53 We know further that a writerrsquos representativemight imitate his timbre or mannerisms54 and could expand on or clarifythe contents of his letter55 Not only Paulrsquos earnest passion in 1 Cor 4 butas seen in Chapter 7 certain stylistic features of his carefully composedtext in 1 Cor 35ndash45 suggest that we ought to take seriously the possi-bility of a considered oral-aural element in the lection of 1 CorinthiansSuch an element among other factors justifies the formation of hypoth-eses regarding the epistlersquos receptive response(s)We must await further detailed investigations of the sociology of letter

delivery and lection before we can say with Botha ldquoPaulrsquos dictation ofhis letter was in all probability also a coaching of the letter carrier andeventual reader The carrier of the letter would most likely have seen thatit be read like Paul wanted it to be readrdquo56 But until such studies appearor further evidence emerges we may at the very least concur withBotharsquos judgment that ldquomost of the addressees of Paulrsquos letters wouldnot have read the letters themselves but would have listened to them[a fact that] leads us to the realization that the presentation (the reading) ofthe letter itself must have been of concern to Paul and his co-authorsrdquo57

This is perhaps all the more the case for the carefully composed textualunits that form the focus of our exegesis in Part Two We return to the

51 See Mitchell (1991) Thiselton (2000 41ndash52) Malcolm (2013)52 An assumption with growing support more easily asserted than proven See Head

(2009)53 Botha (1993)54 Botha (1993 418ndash19)55 Head (2009 296ndash8)56 Botha (1993 417ndash19) But see Head (2009 280ndash2)57 Botha (1993 420) Head (2009 296ndash8)


oral-aural features of Paulrsquos letter particularly in Chapter 7 with regard toour interpretation of 1 Cor 35ndash9 (see Section 76)

533 Metaphor in Culture

On occasion as we will see Paul engages with the Corinthian politeiamore or less directly at the level of process or ideology He can draw oneither performative aspects related to the constitution as a pattern forreference or a model to be adapted (see Chapter 6) In doing so he oftenchallenges assumptions of status obligation and privilege Sometimeshowever Paul interacts with legal and constitutional categories moreobliquely in terms of metaphor One key instance of this is in 35ndash45where as we argue (in Chapter 7) Paul constructs a complex and power-ful metaphor centered on the image of temple construction It is ametaphor that activates a cultural model one with implications forlines of communal authority service and glory Paul then signals tothe readerauditor that he has argued metaphorically in 46 by employingthe verb μετασχηματίζω To prepare for our exegetical analysis it isnecessary to define in advance certain key terms and outline the theory ofmetaphor with which we will work This theory of metaphor is alsorelevant for considering scholarly claims concerning ldquolegal metaphorsrdquoin other loci in 1 Corinthians the corpus Paulinum and the NT generally

As we employ it then the term ldquometaphorrdquo refers to the figurative oranalogical use of language58 Metaphor is thus a potent way of expres-sing one thing in terms of another59 Insights on metaphor from Aristotleto Ricoeur have not infrequently informed investigations of biblicaltexts60 An important revolution in metaphor theory occurred withLakoff and JohnsonrsquosMetaphors We Live By61 They established decisi-vely two important aspects of metaphor First metaphors are cognitiveand not merely linguistic That is metaphors contribute structurally to theways people in a given culture conceptualize reality even at a prelin-guistic level62 Second metaphors are of the body Our embodiment andmovement through space supplies the experiential basis for much of our

58 Notwithstanding debate on the terminology and categories of metaphor 1 Cor 35ndash45 is universally acknowledged as an instance of metaphor (or metaphors) by scholars

59 See Taverniers (2002)60 Relevant studies Aasgaard (2004 esp 23ndash31) Gupta (2010 esp 32ndash5 46ndash54)

Jindo (2010 esp chap 1) Konsmo (2010 esp 36ndash63)61 Lakoff and Johnson (1980)62 Lakoff and Johnson (1980 1ndash6)


making and use of metaphor63 These two aspects ndash the conceptual andthe embodied nature of metaphor ndash are now universally assumed by thoseengaged in cognitive linguistic metaphor research64

One scholar who has contributed extensively to cognitive-linguisticmetaphor theory is Zoltaacuten Koumlvecses In Metaphor in Culture Koumlvecsesarticulates eleven key characteristics of the current cognitive linguisticview of metaphor65 For our purposes Table 5 highlights eight of these66

that will be helpful for identifying and analyzing Paulrsquos use of politeiametaphors in 1 Cor 1ndash4Koumlvecses explains that the (1) source domain from which a metaphor

is drawn tends to be more physical whereas the (2) target domain towardwhich the metaphor is directed is often more abstract67 Furthermore anembodied (3) experiential basis for the choice of metaphor conjoinssource and target domains68 This embodied aspect of metaphor meansthat there are (4) neural structures corresponding to the source and targetdomains resulting in the association of discrete areas of the brain for agiven metaphor Various and multiple (5) relationships are possiblebetween source and target domains so that a target may associate with

Table 5 Important Aspects of Cognitive LinguisticMetaphor Theory

1 Source domain2 Target domain3 Experiential basis4 Neural structures5 Relationships between source and target6 Mappings7 Entailments8 Cultural models

63 Lakoff and Johnson (1980 14ndash21)64 Lakoff and Johnson unfold further aspects of metaphor (eg ontological epistemo-

logical and communicative implications of such a cognitive-linguistic view of metaphor)65 Koumlvecses (2005) cf Lloyd (2007) Both analyses demonstrate the importance of

attending to linguistic patterns and the social and embodied contexts of the communicativeparties in forming hypotheses concerning cultural values and categories of thought on thebasis of metaphor

66 Koumlvecses (2005 5ndash8)67 Koumlvecses (2005 6) the basic (English) metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY where LIFE

is the target and JOURNEY the source domain68 Koumlvecses (2005 8)


more than one source (and vice versa)69 Certain correspondences or(6) mappings exist between essential elements of the source and targetdomains70 Even beyond these basic correspondences source domainsoften map new inferred characteristics or (7) entailments onto the targetdomain71 Finally metaphors are often generated by and generate(8) cultural models for conceptualizing the world72

What Koumlvecses provides are useful categories for analyzing thesources structure and functions of Paulrsquos metaphors73 For examplein approaching Paulrsquos use of metaphor in 1 Cor 35ndash45 we arguecontrary to most interpreters that Paul is not casually shifting imagesin this rhetorical unit Nor is he simply drawing on individual rhetoricaltopoi This view is shown to be the result of an atomistic focus on sourcedomains (a methodological problem akin to a fixation with word com-parisons discussed earlier) Instead with the help of Koumlvecsesrsquos theoryof complex cultural metaphors we attend not only to source domainsbut also to the plausible experiential bases metaphorical relationshipsmappings and entailments of the extended temple-building metaphorWe will see that Paul taps into a major cultural metaphor of politeiamanipulating it for his own ends Our analysis of Paulrsquos extendedmetaphor in terms of Koumlvecsesrsquos theory of metaphor provides us accessto social assumptions and conventions in much the same way that theanalysis of genre is able to do with respect to legal language74

Considered in view of the legal and political dynamics of publicworks construction the metaphor offers us clues with regard to aspecific cultural model and its potential for constituting an alternativeconceptualization of the assembly

69 Koumlvecses (2005 27)ldquotarget concepts are not limited to a single source conceptrdquo70 Koumlvecses (2005 6)71 Koumlvecses (2005 7)72 Koumlvecses (2005 226) ldquo[M]etaphors can do more than just automatically and uncon-

sciously constitute certain aspects of target domains in a static conceptual system Oncewe have a source domain that conventionally constitutes a target we can use any compo-nent of this source that fits elements of the target in a dynamic discourse situation theactivated target domain in the discourse can select components of the source that fit aparticular target idea or purposerdquo This notion of dynamic discourse selection for aparticular purpose figures importantly in our discussion of 1 Cor 35ndash45 in Chapter 7

73 Theoretically informed analysis is generally lacking in treatments of Pauline meta-phors Williams (1999) is a thematic collection of ancient source domains Collins (2008)examines the rhetorical function of certain Pauline metaphors A more sophisticatedapproach is found in Gupta (2010) Konsmo (2010)

74 See Jindo (2010 82ndash3 253ndash5) for the conceptual and social conventions of political-judicial metaphors in Jeremiah


To summarize Koumlvecses offers an understanding of metaphor as aldquolinguistic conceptual social-cultural neural bodily phenomenonrdquo Heinsists that metaphors are complex in their structure and function andthereby alerts us to new possibilities of interpreting Paulrsquos use of meta-phor in certain texts75 It is this cognitive linguistic view represented byKoumlvecses that informs and guides our analysis particularly of thesources structure and function of 1 Cor 35ndash45

534 Summary

In sum our view of the communication between Paul and the Corinthianassembly involves several assumptions First we reject any postulate offundamental miscommunication or misunderstanding Instead we affirmon the basis of 1Corinthians Acts and ancient convention that Paul desiredto be understood and worked to be persuasive This assumption need notentail a belief that he alwayswas so In fact it is clear that he sometimeswasnot (eg 1 Cor 59ndash11)76 This affirmation receives support fromour secondpoint related to what is known of ancient letter delivery and reading inassembly Evidence suggests that Paul could rely on mediating figures andcommunicative settings that would facilitate understanding and encourageclarification or debate in response to his epistles perhaps especially atCorinth in the person of Timothy Finally when Paul resorts as he doesby self-admission in 35ndash45 to a metaphorical engagement with constitu-tion and covenant we are best served by bearing in mind the insights ofcognitive-linguistic metaphor theory This theory teaches us to avoid asimplistic view of the sources purposes and effects of metaphors andalways to remember their embodied-experiential basis Each of these com-municative assumptions undergirds our exegesis in Part Two

54 Corinthian portraiture Corinth Paul and the assembly

Commentary literature on 1 Corinthians usually begins with descriptionsof Roman Corinth its earliest Christian assembly and the apostle Paul

75 Koumlvecses (2005 11)ldquoIt is complex metaphors ndash not primary metaphors ndashwith whichpeople actually engage in their thought in real cultural contextsrdquo Complex conceptualmetaphors can have several ldquomeaning focirdquo and ldquoconceptual material is agreed upon by acommunity of speakers and represents extremely basic and central knowledge about thesourcerdquo These observations are borne out (see Chapter 7) in Paulrsquos climactic metaphoricalapplication of the legal and political dynamics of temple building to himself Apollos andthe ekklēsia in 1 Cor 46

76 Mitchell (2010 18) calls 1 Cor 59ndash11 the ldquofirst recorded act of Pauline interpretationrdquo


These descriptions rightly refer to standard summary works77 but oftendo not make use of more recent and relevant studies of the colony andits political economic and social life78 A full review of such materialand of its relevance to NT and Corinthian studies is of course beyondthe purview of this section Nonetheless we must give a brief accounthere of our conceptual image ndash unavoidably shaping and shaped by ourexegesis ndash of the colony the apostle and the assembly

541 Roman Corinth

Antony Spawforth an expert on first-century Achaia has referred toCorinth as ldquothe Mexico City of Roman Greecerdquo79 Although demographicanalyses of Roman Corinth continue to be methodologically refined80 theimage of a sizable population with an elite freedman base landholderslaborers itinerant merchants and a share of urban destitution seems toemerge81 Research on Corinthian epigraphy82 urban and landscapearchaeology83 and numismatics84 has the potential to improve our com-posite picture of the setting of Paulrsquos Corinthian ministry his epistles andthe members of the assembly

One of the important methodological issues facing the interpreter whowould reconstruct any aspect of this setting is that of ldquoidentityrdquo85 Onersquosportrait of the colonial population depends in many respects on onersquospoint of view (ie political ethnic linguistic) and onersquos scope of analysis(ie civic provincial imperial) Importantly for Pauline studies recentsyntheses have traced the contours of a more complex linguistic eco-nomic ethnic and religious diversity than ever before The constitutional

77 Wiseman (1979) Engels (1990) NT scholars seem largely unaware of the criticalreview of the latter by Spawforth (1992)

78 See the interdisciplinary trilogy Schowalter and Friesen (2005) Friesen et al (2010)Friesen (2014)

79 Spawforth (1992 120)80 Willet (2012)81 See inter alia Millis (2010)82 Eg P Iversenrsquos work forthcoming in IG IV 3 (Korinth) rather than the Corinth

series published by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens83 Urban see Williams (1993) Walbank (1997) Romano (2003) Palinkas and Herbst

(2011) Landscape Alcock (1993) Pettegrew (2007) NT scholars should recognize what isassumed by the archaeologists namely that Cenchreae Lechaion Isthmia and other nodesin the region are important for understanding social patterns and political-theological issuesin Roman Corinth and Paulrsquos letters

84 Eg Walbank (2010)85 See Concannon (2014)


evidence we have adduced adds to this and helps anchor and filter otherevidence from the Greek East as we contextualize our interpretations of 1and 2 CorinthiansFor the purposes of our investigation we assume a first-century

Roman Corinth with a vibrant and diverse population an economystimulated not only by topographical advantage but also by ldquobuildingboomsrdquo in the Julio-Claudian period and a complex cultic landscape thatshould not be divorced from our category of politeia

542 The Apostle Paul

Margaret Mitchell has argued that ldquoultimately what is at stake in Paulineportraiture is Pauline authorityrdquo86 This is especially true for the historiandealing with Paul and the Corinthian assembly on the basis of Paulrsquosepistles We deal with the question of Paulrsquos authority in detail in ourexegesis of 1 Cor 35ndash45 in Chapter 7 Needless to say the portrait thatemerges in that passage of the apostle-as-architect is one directed speci-fically to the Corinthian setting and exigence What results thereforemust be taken as a character sketch rather than as a completed portraitNevertheless it is a dynamic clever and impassioned sketch drawn byPaul in his apologia that stands at the rhetorical epicenter of 1 Cor 1ndash487

Before we come to an analysis of that character study however we mustacknowledge several social and theological assumptions that will beoperative in our readingFirst our comparison of Paulrsquos text with categories rooted in Roman

law and politics ndash particularly as it will emerge the forms of renderingthanks for the merits of civic benefactors and the contractual dynamics ofpublic building ndash rests on the assumption that Paul was reasonablyeducated culturally observant and thoughtful in the composition of hisletter He comes across as a writer looking for ways to connect with andchallenge his audience Second although Paul protests long and loudly in1 Corinthians against certain aspects of rhetoric and oratory he himselfappears to be quite comfortable with weaving an argument that is rich inimagery coherent in structure and occasionally punctuated with rheto-rical figures and aural features Third our exegesis interacting with a

86 Mitchell (2002 430) As we have seen in Chapter 1 this authority relates to ancientand contemporary settings and is always contested

87 Mitchell (2010 5) suggests we should see that ldquoas master-builder [Paul] craftedexegetical arguments [his] diction gravitates between longhand and shorthand therhetoric between appeals of dazzling clarity and tantalizing obscurityrdquo


sizable history of scholarship leads us to believe that Paul thoughthimself to be the divinely commissioned founder of the Corinthianassembly and was quite serious about asserting his authority in ecclesialmatters As we argue he seems to direct his sharpest rhetoric againstcertain unnamed figures in 1 Cor 388 Yet unmistakably genuine signs ofcare for the members of that assembly color Paulrsquos tone throughout weshould not minimize the significance either of the many named personsin 1 Corinthians

Paul is driven in the texts we examine by a concern for the glory of hispatron (the crucified and risen Messiah) and for the edifying form andfunction of his message (a testimony to the merits of thatMessiah) Theseassumptions while not quite amounting to the compelling compositeportraits of an Augustine (Paul as agonized sinner-being-sanctified) or aChrysostom (Paul as the heavenly apostle of untainted virtue)89 are webelieve consonant with our aim of understanding Paul and are liable toconfirmation by a close reading of the texts in question One of theireffects is to focus us on Paulrsquos text as the nexus of interpretation withoutlosing sight of either author or audience

543 The Ecclesial Assembly

For the present investigation the most relevant matters in regard to theCorinthian assembly are the debated issues of its social composition andits ldquoinstitutionalrdquo form Of course both have been and continue to behotly debated As to the assemblyrsquos social composition we dealt with theinternal evidence of 1 Corinthians and of Acts regarding named Jews andGentiles in Chapter 4 It seems clear to us that Paul addresses a groupcomposed of both But such ethnic divisions in 1 Corinthians appearmore muted than in other Pauline letters90 Rather as Corinthian scholar-ship has acknowledged social and economic fractures in the communitydivide the ldquohavesrdquo from the ldquohave-notsrdquo the ldquostrongrdquo from the ldquoweakrdquo91

These fissures direct us to competing conceptions of political theologythat is how members conceive of their participation ndash together with itsfoundations and implications ndash in the ekklēsia within the larger coloniaSocioeconomic status and theological viewpoints do not necessarily

88 We delay treating the scholarship on the factions and personalities in 1 Corinthiansuntil Chapter 7

89 See Mitchell (2002 411ndash23)90 See eg Richardson (1998)91 Martin (1999)


directly correlate in the community as our exegesis will demonstrate92

Despite corrective protests93 we hold generally to a form of the so-callednew consensus view of the Corinthian assembly whereby there are inaddition to those with few resources some wealthy and high-statusfigures with influential participation in the community (and probablymany in the ldquomiddlerdquo)94

Such divisions as we glimpse in the text of 1 Corinthians also suggestan institution with somewhat permeable social boundaries95 In Paulrsquosresponse he is eager to address this issue by casting a more stronglydefined vision of the political and ethical contours deriving from hisfoundational testimony to Christ Those contours appear to be traced withreference to colonial politeia as well as to domestic conventions96 Weaccount for this shape in terms of Judgersquos ldquooverlapping circlesrdquo97 ratherthan for example a strong comparison to civic associations98 As he usesthe term ekklēsia in 1 Corinthians Paul seems to mean ldquogatheringrdquo99 Inthe framework constructed here we think that Paul would approve of usconsidering it to be a divinely constituted gathering on the order of acovenant community

544 Summary

To avoid carrying out our exegesis against an image of Corinth Paul andthe assembly that is constructed from unexamined bricolage we have all-too-briefly in this section sketched three indispensable dramatispersonae100 We hold these images lightly as we engage closely withPaulrsquos texts and the social conventions they sit within in the followingchapters But for now they provide us with enough detail to be aware ofour assumptions and therefore to test them against the data we willadduce

92 According to Paul this non-correlation is a function of the spiritual and revealednature of divine wisdom (1 Cor 21ndash16)

93 Meggitt (1998) Friesen (2005)94 Eg Horrell (1996) Cf Millis (2010) Millis (2014)95 Barclay (2011 181ndash203)96 Paulrsquos tracing leaves considerable room for wisdom ndash human and divine ndash in reach-

ing ethical conclusions See Barclay (1995)97 Judge (1960 iii)98 See Judge (2008) Adams (2009)99 Recent discussions concerning the source and political implications of Paulrsquos use of

ekklesia include Trebilco (2011) Van Kooten (2012)100 Mitchell (2002 409 428)


55 Conclusion

This chapter has closed the frame for our exegesis in Part Two It wasnecessary before moving from the evidence of constitution and covenantto 1 Corinthians to articulate certain contested assumptions about theenterprise of comparison communication and the figures of CorinthPaul and the assembly that will underlie our investigation Without fullargumentation which is beyond the scope of this chapter we focused ona differential approach to comparison that moves from words throughregisters to discourses and the social conventions they entail In additionwe have embraced a model that attempts on the basis of internal evi-dence and ancient conventions to hold Paul and the Corinthians closelytogether within the arc of communication Finally we have outlined theimpressionistic portrait of the colony the apostle and the assembly thatwe bring to the text of 1 Corinthians Others may or may not agree witheach of these reasoned assumptions but they are here made explicit Thereader is thereby able to perceive how they inform and are shaped by theexegetical task to which we now turn


PART II

Constitution and covenant in 1 Corinthians 11ndash46

6

1 CORINTHIANS 14ndash9 AND THE POLITICSOF THANKSGIVING

Ἀναλάβετε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου

Τί πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔγραψεν1 Clement 471ndash2

The early Christian writing known as 1 Clement preserves for us the firstpost-Pauline invitation to attend to 1 Corinthians urging the Corinthianchurch of its day to begin at the beginning In the indictment of discordthat follows in 1 Clem 47 there is a faint echo of Paulrsquos letter opening in11ndash91 Yet for the author of 1 Clement2 as for many subsequent inter-preters it seems that the real rhetoric of reconciliation begins with theπαρακαλῶ of 1 Cor 1103 Nevertheless Paulrsquos appeal for concord andthe recognition of factions that come in 110ff are not the earliest signs ofpoliteia discourse within 1 Corinthians4 Rather within the heuristic ofour comparative framework it is the thanksgiving in 14ndash9 that standsout as a rhetorical constitution of first importanceAs we shall see in a few compressed verses Paul employs a lexicon of

benefaction and political community to compose an introduction thatfulfills multiple functions It is a tightly woven proem that by its

1 1 Clem 476 τὴν βεβαιοτάτην καὶ ἀρχαίαν Κορινθίων ἐκκλησίαν2 The answer to the rhetorical question of 1 Clem 472 (ldquoWhat did he first write to you at

the beginning of the gospelrdquo) that comes in 473 (ldquoIn truth he wrote to you spiritually abouthimself and Cephas and Apollos because even then you had engaged in partisanshiprdquo)implies 1 Cor 110ndash46 as the ldquobeginningrdquo of the blessed Paulrsquos epistle CfWelborn (2003)

3 Mitchell (1991 63ndash80 197ndash200 297) These comments apropos of 14ndash9 notwith-standing Mitchellrsquos thesis emphasizing Paulrsquos prothesis in 110 has perpetuated a relativelack of close attention to the thanksgiving and its function in the letter

4 Mitchell (1991 93 106ndash11 136 194ndash7) notes political resonances in 14ndash9 focusingon individual ldquokey termsrdquo (eg βεβαιόω κοινωνία) introduced for the sake of the followingargument She adduces literary-rhetorical comparanda to suggest a broad category ofpolitical discourse (ie deliberative speeches urging concord) but does not pursue thepossibility of a specific register- or genre-based approach to the unit

137

compactness of expression its relentless repetition of ΧριστῷΧριστοῦ(14 6 7 8 9) its doubled confirmation (16 8) and its climactic formulaof divine faithfulness (19) adapts and applies first-century conventionsentailed in what we might broadly call the politics of thanksgiving As aresult it is a textual unit laden with politeia terms (as many have recog-nized) and marked by politeia conventions (as few have seen) and whosestructure and function offer us a natural point of departure

Although Paulrsquos thanksgiving language fits comfortably within thegeneral Graeco-Roman system of benefaction there is good reason tolink it specifically to our framework of constitution-covenant Althoughbenefaction and the reciprocal honors bestowed on the benefactor oper-ated in a much broader context than in Roman colonies where constitu-tional law provided a regulatory framework5 throughout the Greek Eastand in colonial centers such as Corinth certain major public benefactionsserved to constitute or reconstitute the local politeia with reference toRoman power6 Specifically these constitutive benefactions exhibit aconstellated pattern of terminology and dynamics focused on communalrights and privileges that provided the center of gravity for the politics ofthanksgiving This constellation is present in 1 Cor 14ndash9 and providesstrong warrant for analyzing Paulrsquos thanksgiving through the lens ofpoliteia As we will see however Paulrsquos adaptation of this pattern ofpoliteia draws on covenantal elements as he seeks to reconstitute theCorinthian koinonia by recasting the political ground and ethical goal ofthe new community within the colony

This chapter begins by examining the history of interpretation for1 Cor 14ndash9 to identify and arrange five problems of exegetical detail(1) the meaning of the phrase τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (16) (2) themeaning and function of βεβαιόω (16 8) (3) the referent of ὅς (18) (4)the function of πιστὸς ὁ θεός (19) and (5) the meaning of κοινωνία (19)These are exegetical questions that approached individually and in theirinterrelations lend themselves to a new interpretation according to thepresent constitutional hypothesis In keeping with the categories deli-neated in Chapter 2 this chapter moves from a broad category (politeia)to interpretation (alternative civic discourse) by means of the socialconventions signaled by key terms and syntactic conventions (politicaldiscourse) Thus after the survey of exegetical problems we next lay outthe data ndash including that from the charters ndash relevant to the colonialpolitics of thanksgiving This evidence enables us to foreground key

5 Zuiderhoek (2009 esp 6ndash12)6 Eg the case of Potamon of Mytilene discussed in this chapter

138 Constitution and covenant in 1 Corinthians 11ndash46

aspects of 14ndash9 in its Corinthian setting and allows us to correlate Paulrsquosthanksgiving with the sub-genre and conventions of martyriai or testi-monials of gratitude offered to civic patrons and benefactors Finally weoffer an exegesis of 14ndash9 that attends to its resonances and dissonanceswhen set within the context of such political acts of thanksgiving Suchan exegesis demonstrates that Paul has crafted an introduction thatincorporates Hellenistic and Jewish features balances genuine gratitudeand veiled rebuke sets up themes that will reemerge in the letter bodyand works rhetorically at each of these levels to constitute a new vision ofthe community

61 History of scholarship on 1 Corinthians 14ndash9

As is so often the case with 1 Corinthians John Chrysostom set the majorprecedent for the interpretation of 14ndash97 He was the first to mark theurgent exigence careful arrangement and double rhetorical character ofPaulrsquos thanksgiving The situation occasioning this opening according toChrysostom was ldquomore urgent (ἀναγκαιότερον) than that of his otherepistlesrdquo There was in the assembly an inflammation (φλεγμονή) anddisease (νόσημα) caused by theological and moral error as well as bydissension In view of this corruption (σηπεδών) Paul initiates a purga-tive treatment applying his thanksgiving to the Corinthian assembly as aphysician might dress an angry wound Chrysostom argued as havemany since that Paulrsquos skill in so doing was evident in both the formand function of the thanksgiving8

First Paul carefully composes his opening weaving the proemtogether by means of the repeated name of Christ This repetition aggres-sively pins down (προσηλοῖ) the recipients so that its divine eucharistictherapy may begin to take effect9 Furthermore said Chrysostom Paulrsquosthanksgiving functions as a kind of captatio benevolentiae its wordsthough reproving ldquoat the same time prepossessing [the recipients] to hisfavorrdquo Whereas Paulrsquos confidence and gratitude toward God are genu-ine his thanksgiving begins already to anticipate the accusations that willsurface in 110ff10

7 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6117ndash22 NPNF1126ndash15)8 See Hom 2 Cor 413 (PG 51271) Cf Mitchell (2002 84) This trope (Paul as

physician to the ailing Corinthian assembly) has often reappeared in scholarship9 Weiss (1910 11) ldquoden Namen Christi so eindringlich wie moumlglich dem Leser ins Ohr

zu haumlmmernrdquo10 Theodoret (PG 82229ndash32) echoes Chrysostom Cf Colet (1985 74ndash5)

1 Corinthians 14ndash9 and the politics of thanksgiving 139

If Chrysostomrsquos general view of the thanksgivingrsquos form and functionset a trajectory for the subsequent history of interpretation so too did hisunderstanding of at least two of its exegetical cruxes namely the meaningof the clause τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦΧριστοῦ ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν (16) and of theword κοινωνία (19) He took v 6 as a first strike against Corinthianpretentions to Hellenistic philosophy and education to these Paul opposesby sharp emphasis the ineffable grace (ἀφάτος χάρις) of God in the gospelAlthough Chrysostom left open the precise nature of the genitive τοῦΧριστοῦ and passes over the force of βεβαιόω issues that would occupylater interpreters he clearly identifies τὸ μαρτύριον with Paulrsquos priorproclamation of gospel (βεβαιωθῆναι εἰς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίουτουτέστιν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα)11 It is in v 6 in particular that Chrysostomsaw Paul offering on the one hand a confirmation intended towin over hishearers and on the other hand a veiled attack on foreign (ἔξωθεν) philo-sophia and paideia12 The confirmation of the μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ atthe structural center of the Corinthian thanksgiving thus carries a rhetoricaldouble edge

In his interpretation of κοινωνία in v 9 Chrysostom again anticipated ifonly in outline successive interpretive options His straightforward answerto his own question ldquoWhat does lsquointo the κοινωνία of his Sonrsquomeanrdquowasa paraphrase of 2 Tim 212 (ldquoif we endure we shall also reign with him ifwe die with him we shall also live with himrdquo) In this sense Chrysostomrsquosunderstanding of the ldquofellowshiprdquo into which the Corinthians were calledprefigured the participationist construals of modern interpreters13 But inthe series of rhetorical questions building up to this statement Chrysostomused a term that leaves room for another more socio-political under-standing of κοινωνία He exclaimed ldquoInto the κοινωνία of the Only-Begotten you were called yet you assign (προσνέμετε) yourselves tomenrdquo In such a construction and context προσνέμω may have politicalconnotations implying that Chrysostom thought the Corinthians wereassigning themselves to certain figures civic stations or privileges14

11 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6117)12 Other patristic commentators thought that Paul here addresses a ldquomixedrdquo assembly

(Origen ἐκκλησία ἀναμεμιγμένη see Jenkins (1908 232) as if composed of ldquotwo populationsrdquo(Ambrosiaster in una enim plebe duobus populis scribit [CSEL 8126ndash8]) Colet (1985 76ndash7)speaks of partes factiones ac constitutiones sibi diversorum capitum quequeconventicula

13 Thiselton (2000 103ndash5) overloads his interpretive translation ldquointo the communalparticipation of the sonship of Christ our Lordrdquo German commentators prefer the some-what ambiguous term Teilhabe (ldquosharerdquo ldquoparticipationrdquo) eg Schrage (1991 123ndash4)

14 LSJ sv προσνέμω See Plutarch Pomp 214Mar 415 for the construction dative +προσνέμω + accusative (ἑαυτόνἐαυτούς) Cf Muraoka sv προσνέμω


Most subsequent interpreters have agreed with Chrysostom that Paulconjoins praise and subtle reproof in 14ndash915 Some perceive a bite ofirony in Paulrsquos formulation16 whereas others see only an eschatologicaltension between what the Corinthian Christians were and what theywould become17 But it was Johannes Weiss who after Chrysostommost closely observed the singular intentionality (die Absichtlichkeit)and emotional density18 of Paulrsquos thanksgiving and who hinted that itmight lend itself to a comparison with ancient documentary evidence19

This anticipated the productive line of investigation into Pauline thanks-givings in the twentieth century that began with Paul SchubertFor the first time Schubert (1939) engaged in a rigorous form-critical

comparison of the thanksgiving periods with the documentary evidenceincreasingly available since the mid-nineteenth century SinceSchubertrsquos analysis still stands as fundamental and because it includesoverlooked insights relevant to our approach in this chapter it is worthcarefully summarizing his findings with respect to 1 Cor 14ndash9 Ingeneral Schubert concluded the following

[T]he Pauline letters ndash functionally as well as formally ndash occupya position between the epigraphical documents (which wereintended for publication) and the humble though formal andintimate private letters (which were intended merely for theaddressee) [we should not forget] the blunt fact that therecipients of the Pauline letters used preserved and finallypublished them20

Remarking on the close formal and functional correspondence betweenthe thanksgivings and Hellenistic political inscriptions Schubertobserved

[I]t must not be forgotten that Paulrsquos letters too are in the strictsense of the word official letters They differ from officialpolitical correspondence only in that their function is primarilyreligious and that they are addressed to groups which mea-sured by the social and cultural scale are somewhat below the

15 Bengel (1860 201) Heinrici (1880 78ndash82) Calvin (1948 39)16 Heinrici (1880 80ndash2) Lindemann (2000 32)17 Meyer (1884 13) ldquoassuredly not ironicalrdquo Followed by Robertson and Plummer

(1971 4ndash5) Schrage (1991 109) notes a certain Spannung between the thanksgiving andthe letter body

18 Weiss (1910 6) Cf Allo (1934 1) Lindemann (2000 29)19 Weiss (1910 6) engaged early with Deissmann Cf Robertson and Plummer (1971 6)20 Schubert (1939 182) italics mine


communities ostensibly addressed in political edicts anddecrees But there are significant similarities which are ofimportance to the student of the Pauline epistolography21

Of 1 Cor 14ndash9 specifically Schubert noted its brevity and structuralsimplicity adding that these features ldquodemand explanationrdquo especially inrelation to 1 Cor 1ndash6 Furthermore he commented that the paratacticκαθώς clause is ldquoparticularly prominentrdquo in 16 highlighting more thanusual a definite formal and functional feature common to many Paulinethanksgivings22 In this respect Schubert offered a structural insight thatsupports Chrysostomrsquos observation concerning the rhetorical centralityof 16 within the thanksgiving period Both concur that a precise under-standing of v 6 is crucial for a full appreciation of the force of Paulrsquosthanksgiving

In Schubertrsquos typology of Pauline thanksgivings 1 Cor 14ndash9 is nearlysui generis he assigned it to type Ib associated with yet structurallydistinct from the ldquomixedrdquo thanksgivings found in Rom 18 1 Thess 2132 Thess 13 and 213 The foremost characteristic connecting the unit in14ndash9 to those in the mixed category is the use of a form of εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ followed not by participial phrases but by a ὅτι- and a ὥστε-clause Schubertrsquos description of the syntactical features in 1 Cor 14ndash9remains unmatched for its brevity and accuracy

The εὐχαριστῶ principal clause is effectively enriched by fouradverbial modifiers it is immediately followed according to thepattern [Ib] by a causal ὅτι- clause The subsequent consecutiveclause (ὥστε + inf) and a relative clause [ὅς 18] which bringsthe eschatological climax round out the period V 9 hasconfirmatory force and the style of a benediction23

Commentators have agreed with Schubertrsquos structural analysis and hissuggestion that these features cause 14ndash9 to stand out among the Paulinethanksgivings What they have failed to notice is Schubertrsquos judgmentthat in all the εὐχαριστῶ texts he surveyed one stood out because itoffered a ldquofull structural and functional parallel to the Pauline

21 Schubert (1939 145)22 Schubert (1939 31) lists 2 Cor 15 Rom 113 Phil 17 1 Thess 15 213 2 Thess 13

Col 16 (bis) 7 Eph 1423 Schubert (1939 31) 1 Cor 14ndash9 is formally distinct from each of the ldquomixedrdquo

thanksgivings as an extended well-defined unit with a complete syntactical sequence(the closest parallel is 1 Thess 213) It is also distinct from all other Pauline thanksgivingsin respect of its contents Paulrsquos gratitude and praise are based entirely on divine action asopposed to anything attributed to the recipients cf OrsquoBrien (1977 135)


construction of type Ibrdquo This text (OGIS 456) is an Augustan inscriptionrelated to a monument honoring the ambassador-orator Potamon ofMytilene As we shall see there is good reason why Schubert comparedit to 1 Cor 14ndash9 reason better than he knew and with implicationsbeyond mere syntactical correspondences24 Schubert had duly notedan epigraphical register (linguistic features identifying a text category)into which this particular thanksgiving fit remarkably well but he did notpursue the implications of its genre (and associated social conventions)We return to Schubert and his epigraphical comparandum later in

Section 62 For now it is important to observe that after Schubert theinscriptions largely represent the road not taken in the study of Paulinethanksgivings during the remainder of the twentieth century25

Interpreters have traveled instead the papyrological path in their questfor comparisons by which to understand the epistolographic form andfunction of Paulrsquos introductions26 And although their studies haveproduced important results the trajectory they have marked out hasalso bypassed important evidenceNot only did comparative study of Pauline thanksgivings after

Schubert take a papyrological turn his work sustained a measure ofcriticism primarily from two vantage points On the one hand studiesby van Unnik27 Robinson28 and von der Osten-Sacken29 argued thatPauline thanksgivings were less indebted to Hellenistic forms thanSchubert had suggested Instead they located the source of the thanks-giving periods generally and that of 1 Corinthians in particular inJewish liturgical forms and traditions30 A separate critique came fromscholars such as Sanders31 and OrsquoBrien32 who argued that Schubert hadisolated Paulrsquos thanksgivings formally and exegetically from the letterbodies they introduce

24 Schubert (1939 149ndash51)25 One notable exception is Harrison (2003 269ndash72)26 Among early efforts were Deissmann (1923) Exler (1923) Relevant papyrologically

oriented studies after Schubert include Koskenniemi (1956) Sanders (1962) Bjerkelund(1967) Kim (1972) Berger (1984) Buumlnker (1984) White (1984) White (1986) Arzt(1994) Reed (1996) Collins (2010)

27 Van Unnik (1953)28 Robinson (1964)29 Von Der Osten-Sacken (1977)30 Anticipated by Otto Jahrbuch fuumlr D Theol (1867) 678ff cited with disagreement

by Meyer (1884 13 n1)31 Sanders (1962)32 OrsquoBrien (1977 6ndash15)


These critiques have had an important effect on scholarshipInterpretations aligning 14ndash9 with Jewish tradition now have the bestclaim to consensus33 with some still looking toward the Hellenistic papyribut almost none turning to Hellenistic inscriptions for help in understand-ing either the sources of Paulrsquos language or its function within the letter Inthis respect most contemporary studies of 1 Corinthians refer both to thework of Schubert and to that of those proposing Jewish liturgical sourcesbut without resolving the question of why both seem to resonate withPaulrsquos carefully crafted text in 14ndash934 For some the question of theCorinthian cultural setting of Paulrsquos thanksgiving is viewed (if at all) assecondary the primary task according to these scholars is to proceedimmediately to thematic connections with the letter body35 The argumentof this chapter is that an interpretation that accounts coherently for theconsidered composition complex Hellenistic-Jewish resonances and the-matic connections to the following letter body is the most compelling Aninterpretation grounded in the setting of Roman Corinth and consistentwith the exigence of 1 Corinthians would perhaps be doubly convincing

We may now summarize the state of the question with regard to theform and overall function of 1 Cor 14ndash9 What interpreters sinceChrysostom have generally agreed with refinements is the followingPaulrsquos opening thanksgiving bears all the marks of careful compositionIt is a clearly demarcated textual unit yet one that flows effectively intowhat follows in 110ff Its themes of divine benefaction confirmationand faithfulness are integrated by the repetition of the name of Christ andreemerge later in the epistle Paul constructs the thanksgiving around acentral complex hinge (16) that by its evocation of a past divineconfirmation and in contrast to the stern reproofs to follow lends adouble edge to the section as a whole A repetition of the confirmatoryverb of 16 in 18 this time in the future tense (βεβαιώσει) builds to aneschatological climax The correlation of these two moments of confir-mation situates the present experience of the letter recipients within thefield of tension they generate Finally the entire thanksgiving isgrounded in a formulaic oath-like conclusion a veritable benedictionthat reinterprets the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ in Corinth as part of the κοινωνίατοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

33 At least since Conzelmann (1975 25ndash6 and 26 n14) Cf Schrage (1991 109ndash10)Ciampa and Rosner (2010 60ndash1) Fee (1987 44 n45) thinks Paul has adapted histhanksgiving (and especially 19) so well to the context ldquothat any discovery of priorexpressions is not particularly useful for finding its meaning hererdquo

34 Schrage (1991 112ndash13) calls the whole composition sorgfaumlltig35 See Pao (2002 15ndash17)


Areas where disagreement or unresolved problems remain apart fromthe issue of the debated Hellenistic-Jewish sources of Paulrsquos languagerelate to exegetical details some of which we have already glimpsed Toconclude our survey of scholarship we must set out the interpretiveoptions relative to five such problems of detail whose solutions andinterrelation figure in our exegesis Each of these has continued to posea challenge to interpreters to varying degrees But the most difficultchallenge is to offer a coherent reading that accounts for the exegeticaldetails and overall rhetorical function of 1 Cor 14ndash9

611 The Meaning of the Phrase τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 16

Johannes Weiss famously declared that it was impossible precisely tounderstand the meaning of this verse36 MacRae after serving on thetranslation committee for the Revised Standard Version likewise lamen-ted the difficulty presented by v 637 Lindemann rightly notes that thephrase τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ is unique in Paul and in the NT It is aphrase that requires two decisions of the interpreter one as to the senseand referent of τὸ μαρτύριον and the other concerning the genitivalrelationship of τοῦ Χριστοῦ to its nomen regens It is obvious that eachchoice has implications for the otherAlmost all interpreters concur on the sense of τὸ μαρτύριον It simply

means ldquotestimonyrdquo38 But a surprising number of different views havebeen taken as to its referent By far a majority has agreed withChrysostom that it is a synonym for the gospel the message of thecrucified Messiah proclaimed (by Paul) among the Corinthians39

Though not all acknowledge it those who take this view are ofteninfluenced by the reading τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ θεοῦ in 1 Cor 21 itself avexed textual variant yet one that if genuine is clearly aligned withκήρυγμα (24) in its own context40 A minority has referred μαρτύριον to

36 Weiss (1910 8) ldquoEin sicheres Verstaumlndnis dieses Satzes ist nicht zu erreichenrdquo37 MacRae (1982)38 Vulgate testimonium Christi Wyclifrsquos Bible the witnessing of Crist Tyndalersquos NT

KJV testimony39 Chrysostom Hom 1 Cor (PG 6117) Theodoret (PG 82229) Lutherrsquos Bibel (die

Predigt von Christus) Grotius (1829 278) Meyer (1884 14) Heacutering (1973 3)Conzelmann (1975 27) OrsquoBrien (1977 112 120ndash1 137) Lightfoot (1980 148) Fee(1987 40) Schrage (1991 118) Related Colet (1985 68ndash71) μαρτύριον is the wholeldquoform of faithrdquo Bengel (1860 201) Christ is object and author of the testimony

40 Exegetical interconnection stressed by Calvin (1948 41) Grotius (1829 278)MacRae (1982 172ndash3) For treatment of the textual variant at 21 see the Excursus atthe end of this chapter


the internal conviction experienced by Corinthian believers41 Still otherssee an external referent in terms of the scriptures42 or in signs miraclesor gifts of the Holy Spirit43 Some offer multiple interpretations44 othersrefrain from proposing a specific referent at all45

In relating τοῦ Χριστοῦ to μαρτύριον views are split not quite evenlybetween construing the genitive as objective (testimony to or aboutChrist)46 or subjective (Christrsquos testimony)47 although some leave opentheir options48 A decision on how to interpret the phrase as a wholenecessarily takes one beyond the lexicographical and grammatical level

612 The Meaning and Function of βεβαιόω in 16 8

Paulrsquos wordplay on βεβαιόω also stands as ldquoa controversial problem ofdetail in NT philologyrdquo49 Interpreters agree generally that the lexicalsense of the verb is ldquoto confirmrdquo

50 but disagree especially in the modernera over whether its use in either verse (or in both) is in any way ldquolegalrdquoor ldquotechnicalrdquo51 This is an issue that as we demonstrated in Chapter 5cannot be decided on the basis of lexicography alone

41 Calvin (1948 40ndash1) Thiselton (2000 94) seems to allow for this possibility42 Jenkins (1908 233)43 Staab (1933 545) Photius Erasmus (1990 437) Calvin (1948 40ndash1) MacRae

(1982 172ndash4) without mentioning the Spirit refers μαρτύριον to the new Corinthianbelievers such that they ldquowitness to Christrdquo Fee (1987 41 n6) rejects MacRaersquosldquointriguingrdquo suggestion

44 Origen offers three Jenkins (1908 233) Calvin (1948 40ndash1) melds the Spiritrsquosexternal power and internal presence

45 Notably Weiss (1910 8) Allo (1934 5)46 Probably the majority view taken by most who refer testimony to the gospel

Theodoret (PG 82229) Calvin (1948 40ndash1) Meyer (1884 14) Robertson and Plummer(1971 4) Conzelmann (1975 27) OrsquoBrien (1977 120) Lightfoot (1980 148) MacRae(1982 174) with nuance Fee (1987 40)

47 Godet (1971)48 Jenkins (1908 233) Barrett (1971 37ndash8) Schrage (1991 118) Thiselton (2000 94)49 Arzt-Grabner et al (2006 48)50 Vulgate confirmatum est in vobis qui et confirmabit vosWyclif is confermyd in

you which also schal conferme you Tyndale was confermed in you which shallstreght youLuther ist in euch kraumlftig geworden Der wird euch auch fest erhaltenKJVwas confirmed in you Who shall also confirm you RSV was confirmed among you who will sustain you

51 Grotius (1829 278) first suggested the legal connection (connecting it to the oath eisbebaiōsis also correlating with the Hebrew hqym) Deissmann (1977 104ndash9) has influ-enced all subsequent interpretations This was assured by Schlierrsquos amplification in TDNTsv βεβαιός esp 602ndash3 Deissmannrsquos ldquocommercial legalrdquo sense to 1 Cor 16 8 is now


613 The Referent of ὅς in 18

Commentators since patristic times have been divided over whether therelative pronoun ὅς in 18 finds its antecedent in the proximate Χριστοῦof 1752 or the more distant θεῷ of 1453 Some insist on having it bothways54 Here too the challenge is to find an external control beyond thegrammatical level that can tip the scales in either direction and preventtheological over-interpretation55

614 The Function of πιστὸς ὁ θεός in 19

Although the consensus is that 19 and the phrase πιστὸς ὁ θεός inparticular grounds 14ndash9 there is surprisingly little agreement on thesource of this ldquofixed formulardquo56 Nor is there much precision regardingexactly how it acts as the basis of the thanksgiving and relates to110ff

615 The Meaning of κοινωνία in 19

Ever since Chrysostom many interpreters have taken κοινωνία in 19in a strong theological sense as implying a kind of ldquounion withChristrdquo57 Others have focused on the social legal or political bondsuggested by the term58 Several want to hold the legal and relational

standard with very few who demur so Fee (1987 40) Papathomas (2009 14ndash18) But seeConzelmann (1975 27) OrsquoBrien (1977 121ndash2) Mitchell (1991 106)

52 Meyer (1884 15) Jenkins (1908 233) Weiss (1910 11) takes θεοῦ as the logicalsubject but argues that ldquono reader or listener can refer the ὅς all the way back to v 4rdquoRobertson and Plummer (1971 7)

53 Grotius (1829 278ndash9) Bengel (1860 202) Conzelmann (1975 28) Fee (1987 44)Calvin (1948 41)

54 Von Der Osten-Sacken (1977 194ndash5) Thiselton (2000 101) ldquoGod-in-Christrdquo55 Schrage (1991 121ndash2)56 Weiss (1910 11) Dinkler (1962 174 n3) rightly observes that 2 Cor 118 is a

personal oath (Schwurformel) and not a parallel usage to 1 Cor 19 The phrase πιστὸς ὁθεός is of all the exegetical challenges in 14ndash9 the one occasioning the most divisionbetween interpreters who hear a Hellenistic resonance and those who perceive a Jewishformula (most often mentioning Deut 79)

57 Theodoret (PG 82232) equates it with ldquoadoptionrdquo (υἱοθεσία) Fee (1987 45)ldquounusual language in Paulrdquo

58 Erasmus (1990 437) glosses the Vulgatersquos in societatem with in communionem siveconsortium Barrett (1971 40) ldquothe community ndash that is the churchrdquo Mitchell (1991136) ldquo[the term] has a long history in political contextsrdquo Furnish (1999 35) ldquoa communityof the lsquonew covenantrsquo established in Christrdquo


together59 Should it be translated60 ldquofellowshiprdquo ldquoparticipationrdquo ldquocom-panyrdquo ldquocommunityrdquo ldquoassociationrdquo or otherwise61 Despite the manytheological arguments scholars have brought to bear on the word in itscontext very few have offered a convincing reason for their rendering thataccounts for Paulrsquos word choice just here in the thanksgiving Why forexample did he not use ekklēsia instead (as in 12) An interpretation thatoffers a compelling generic comparison to Paulrsquos entire thanksgiving andthat explains his use of κοινωνία in 19 as a Stichwort62 in relation to110ff is a desideratum this chapter seeks to realize63

In concluding our discussion of the history of scholarship it is importantto note that apart from the requisite sections treating 1 Cor 14ndash9 in thecommentary literature there has been a marked lack of attention given tothis textual unit in its own right The majority of modern scholars differonly slightly if at all from the interpretation offered by ChrysostomDeissmannrsquos dictum on the legal connotation of βεβαιόω in 16 8 continuesto exercise unwarranted and ultimately unhelpful influence Important gen-eral insights into Pauline thanksgivings have been offered from variousperspectives in the past century but no study has picked up the suggestion ofSchubert that a certain genre of political inscriptions might offer the bestoverall comparison to the specific carefully composed thanksgiving foundin 14ndash9 The following analysis begins with Schubertrsquos intuition andproceeds to set Paulrsquos first Corinthian thanksgiving within a politicalgenre whose conventions relating to patronage the confirmation of civicprivileges and the politics of thanksgiving in the Julio-Claudian age allowus to interpret it between the poles of constitution and covenant

62 The politics of thanksgiving in Graeco-Romanand Jewish settings

In the history of scholarship just recounted we noted that of all the textssurveyed by Schubert one epigraphical example (OGIS 456) stood out to

59 Thiselton (2000 103ndash5) ldquocommunal participationrdquo ldquoshareholders in a sonshipderived from the sonship of Christrdquo Ciampa and Rosner (2010 68) ldquocommunion andfellowshiprdquo

60 Vulgate in societatem Filii eiusWyclif in to the felouschipe of his sone Tyndale intothe fellowship of His Son Luther zur Gemeinschaft seines Sohnes Calvin communio KJVunto the fellowship of his Son Important studies include Campbell (1932) Seesemann (1933)Sampley (1980 72ndash8) Hainz (1982) Full bibliography in Thiselton (2000 96)

61 Von Der Osten-Sacken (1977 180) relates it directly to baptism62 Lindemann (2000 32)63 Also important but beyond the scope of this chapter is relating 19 to 1014ndash22


him as ldquothe only full structural and functional parallelrdquo to Paulrsquos thanks-giving in 1 Cor 14ndash9 Such an observation ignored to date inviteselaboration As we have seen the scholarly lack of interest may be tracedto the shift toward papyrological formal comparanda and the growingconsensus that the theological source of Paulrsquos Corinthian thanksgivingis to be sought in his Jewish rather than Hellenistic experience Evenamong those who do insist on the importance of the Corinthian horizon inthe interpretation of 1 Corinthians the geographical distance of this textfrom Mytilene64 may also account for its absence in exegeses of 14ndash9Whatever the case we see in this section that the socio-political conven-tions signaled by the inscription to which Schubert directed our attentionfit exceptionally well with constitutional categories and other Corinthianand Achaian evidence This together with the syntactical correspon-dences between it and Paulrsquos text justifies the use of the Mytileneaninscription as our point of entry in the reconstruction of the politics ofthanksgiving at Corinth and in Paulrsquos epistle Such a politics of thanks-giving as this section attempts to substantiate centers on the confirma-tion of civic privileges and testimonials to the merits of the patron whosecures them The attendant conventions help structure and perpetuatepower relations within the community and work to orient the ethical lifeand the attribution of glory within its politeia

621 The Politics of Thanksgiving

Before examining case studies of the politics of thanksgiving in theHellenistic Corinthian and Jewish experience of the first century itwill be helpful to describe briefly certain recurrent conventions weobserve Each of these conventions finds its corollary in Paulrsquos thanks-giving and will be relevant for our exegesis in this chapter and the next

1 Expressions of Civic Gratitude

As Schubertrsquos work demonstrated among the political inscriptions weencounter expressions of civic gratitude65 Sometimes this thanksgivingis directed toward a Roman magistrate sometimes toward a local orregional elite Overwhelmingly such expressions assume the form ofofficial decrees of a civic or regional political body As variations on atheme these expressions of gratitude while perhaps genuine are not

64 On the island of Lesbos in the province of Asia Minor65 Schubert (1939 142ndash58)


innocent Such thanksgivings played an important role in the politics ofreciprocity that pervaded the Mediterranean world One significant fea-ture of that system especially in the Julio-Claudian era was the way itfacilitated relations of loyalty between provincial communities andRome the ruling power

2 Politeia Defined in Relation to Roman Power

Every community in the Roman world responded to the ruling power inways that determined its politeia both in terms of its legal constitutionand its civic way of life Whether a colony a free city or a community ofsome other status cities were granted rights and privileges by RomeThis political relationship was in each case underwritten by the Romanimperium and increasingly by the princeps Central to the establishmentand maintenance of this relationship was the lexicon of loyalty (fidesπίστις) Political faithfulness and expressions of gratitude were commu-nicated by means of envoys who acted as patrons and advocates for theircommunities66

3 Patronage and Civic Privileges

These patron-ambassadors were integral to the communicative net-work of Roman power By their oratorical skills and attentiveness tothe shifting political culture they were responsible for securingRoman favor for their communities Quite often this favor was in theform of grants or confirmations of economic privileges (ie taxexemptions or ἀτελεία)67 When a Roman magistrate gave or pre-served such privileges the sources demonstrate that he employed astandardized vocabulary the initial grant (χαρίζομαι συγχωρῶδίδωμι) was consistently distinguished from subsequent confirmations(βεβαιόω τηρέω φυλάσσω)68 These patrons often doubled as localbenefactors who from their great wealth bestowed gifts of variouskinds on their cities (ie public buildings spectacles) Because oftheir indispensable role as mediators of privilege these figures werehonored for their merits often in a certain sub-genre referred to as atestimonial

66 See inter alia Millar (1977) Ando (2000)67 Millar (1977 410ndash34)68 Lewis (1999 47) Cf Taubenschlag (1953)


4 The Logic of the Testimonial (Martyria)

In a study relating testimonials ormartyriai to the NT Leutzsch definedthis sub-genre of honorific communication in the following terms ldquoAμαρτυρία is public laudatory and honorific testimony that is issued to asingle figure for his merits either by a group or by an individual andeither in oral or written formrdquo69 Most frequently attested in the inscrip-tions these testimonials share formal and functional characteristics mostnoticeably the use of the noun μαρτυρία or a form of the verb μαρτυρῶThe recipient of the testimonial whose merits are praised is the focus ofhonor This testimony may come from ldquoaboverdquo (ie a Roman magistratetestifying to the virtue of a local elite) or from ldquobelowrdquo (ie individualcitizens or communities testifying to the virtue of a patron)70 AsLeutzsch has demonstrated this civic sub-genre provided a model bothfor early Jewish and Christian groups (but not apparently for collegia)in various geographical and social settings71 Martyriai had importantand complex social functions among which were the return of gratitudeand honor to the honorand for virtue and past actions the reinforcement ofsocial norms and values and the exertion ofmotivating pressure for furtherbenefactions in the future either from the honorand or his descendants72

Together these communicative functions embody the logic of the testi-monial a logic that was always operative in public expressions of gratitudeto patrons who secured privileges for their communities

5 Public Attribution of Glory

Such testimonials as a species of official honorific communicationwere communicated by various means Leutzsch highlights oral epis-tolary and inscribedmartyriai in public assembly familial synagogueand ecclesial settings Two additional performative features of the logicof the testimonial are of note however particularly for the case studiesto follow and in relation to 1 Cor 14ndash9 in its context and setting Firstoral testimonials tended to be delivered in public spaces and were oftenaccompanied by demonstrations of popular acclaim73 Second

69 Leutzsch (1994 31ndash58 at 32)70 Leutzsch (1994 31 n2) notes the absence of a definitive study ofmartyriai as a genre

but gathers numerous epigraphical (and other) texts as the basis for his study (see ldquoAnhang2rdquo 189ndash94) See now Kokkinia (2003)

71 Leutzsch (1994 50ndash8)72 Leutzsch (1994 38ndash9)73 Some of Leutzschrsquos texts bear this out although he does not emphasize this perfor-

mative feature


especially in the case of an inscribed martyria we must once againrecall Susinirsquos exhortation to go if possible to the place it was locatedto grasp fully its meaning74 Most often this leads us to a monument ofsome sort that incorporates multiple inscribed documents (includingtestimonials) and statues or other sculpted images and is related tonearby civic structures and spaces This fact should alert us to theprobability that testimonials of this sort usually find their issue inmemorials of some kind Public acclamation official texts andinscribed monuments were integrated features of the politics of thanks-giving centered on the logic of the testimonial they attributed glory tothe honorand We turn now to several case studies that illustrate theconventions of such a politics and thereby illumine Paulrsquos text

622 Potamon of Mytilene and the Politics of Thanksgiving

What led Schubert to the Mytlinenean inscription (OGIS 456) was itsfulsome use of εὐχαριστῶ language75 What struck him on closer exam-ination were the structural and functional features of its attribution ofgratitude As Schubert noted 1 Cor 14ndash9 is set apart from the otherPauline thanksgivings (even among his Type Ib) by the following com-bination of six syntactical features which taken with the prominence ofthe καθώς clause of 16 stands as unique in his epistles76

14 εὐχαριστῶ (I)τῷ θεῷ (II)

πάντοτε (III)περὶ ὑμῶν (IV)

ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ (V)15 ὅτι (VI)

In the Mytlinenean decree of gratitude toward Augustus and his houseSchubert pointed to a basic similarity of structure (εὐχαριστῶ + περί +gen features I and IV) and function (inscribed epistolary gratitudeoffered to Augustus and the Senate by the Mytilenean ambassadors)with Paulrsquos thanksgiving77 In his analysis he supposed rightly that theformal character of the decree displays ldquoa recognized and conventionalpatternrdquo concluding ldquoit is clear that the Pauline formula represents

74 Cf Meyer (2011)75 Repeatedly OGIS 45634 54 63 Text and translation in Rowe (2002 133ndash4 150ndash1)76 Schubert (1939 54ndash5)77 Schubert (1939 150ndash1)


exactly the same structural and functional usage and that it must there-fore be interpreted in the same mannerrdquo78 Schubert added after survey-ing several other ldquopolitical inscriptionsrdquo that in addition to ldquostructuraldetail which significantly elucidate[s] some Pauline features [theseinscriptions] attest the presence of a peculiar εὐχαριστία attitude as anessential aspect of political life in the Hellenistic worldrdquo79 Certainlythese claims warrant further investigation by those seeking to understandthe full import of Paulrsquos Corinthian thanksgivingThanks to two important studies we can say much more about the

conventions entailed in this ldquopeculiar eucharistia attituderdquo and its rele-vance for 1 Cor 14ndash9 In a study of Julio-Claudian political cultureRowe has set the Mytilenean decree within its proper chapter in theAugustan cultural revolution He has connected the inscription to othersthat were displayed monumentally arguing that it tells a story ldquoof therevolution of consciousness that came when the Greek city discoveredthat its fate could be determined by the deeds of a single citizenrdquo80 Thisstory is a mixture of ldquohistory and biographyrdquo illustrating the redemptionwon for a city through the agency of ambassadors chief of whom inMytilene was Potamon an orator honored for his success in winning theconfirmation of civic status and privileges81 Rowe has demonstrated thatOGIS 456 is ldquoone of the earliest and richest expressions of what theAugustan regime meant for the Greek worldrdquo an expression that receivesits fullest Mytilenean embodiment in the Potamoneion82 This was alavish monument covered with inscriptions to Potamon who alsobecame priest of the imperial cult He was so honored because of hissuccessful embassies the benefactions he bestowed on his communityand the numerous testimonials to his virtues His honors recorded on themonument possibly a cult shrine in his memory included preferredseating in the theater and the titles of benefactor savior and founder ofthe city ndash altogether an epigraphical and iconographic pastiche of Romanand local testimonials to Potamonrsquos glory fixed in monumental memorywithin the city83

Zuiderhoek in a complementary study has highlighted the social andpolitical function such honors perform at the civic level84 Civic

78 Schubert (1939 151) italics mine79 Schubert (1939 154)80 Rowe (2002 125ndash6)81 Rowe (2002 126ndash35)82 Rowe (2002 133ndash42 at 133)83 Parker (1991) See also SEG 41674 42756 451087 55910ter84 Zuiderhoek (2008) exapanded in Zuiderhoek (2009 esp 71ndash112)


accolades for elites such as Potamon perpetuated an essentially oli-garchic ideology acclaiming local patrons as virtuous and worthy oftheir wealth and honor simultaneously underwriting social hierarchiesThe cities argues Zuiderhoek

were home to an elite of strongly oligarchic character andappearance a self-consciously politically active assemblydemos and a social order based on a hierarchy of status groupsrather than the classical notion of isonomia The public ritualsassociated with euergetism did much to ease possible tensionsarising from this political configuration by creating a dynamicexchange of gifts for honours which allowed the elite to presentitself as a virtuous benevolent upper class while simulta-neously allowing the demos to affirm (and thereby legitimate)or reject this image through the public allocation of honours

Two conditions Zuiderhoek suggests enabled this delicate balance ofoligarchy and popular politics one politico-cultural in the form of Roman(read Augustan) influence on the East the other economic in the enjoy-ment of increased living standards by the ldquourban professional classesrdquo85

The conclusions of these studies regarding the tightly woven fabricconnecting civic politeia in the East with the Roman administration arehighly significant for Corinth and 1 Cor 14ndash9 for the following reasonsFirst they provide a theoretical model with social implications that isimportant for understanding some of the dynamics within which Pauloperated at Corinth Many of the conditions for oligarchy and a popularpolitics legitimizing social hierarchy outlined by Zuiderhoek obtain infirst-century Roman Corinth and not only in the cities of the GreekEast86 Second the elucidation of the role played by local benefactorssuch as Potamon of Mytilene as they participated in the Julio-Claudiancultural script resembles that of Achaian elites such as C IuliusSpartiaticus (honored at Corinth in the mid-50s AD) Epigraphical andmonumental evidence related to Potamon and other such ambassador-benefactors in the Hellenistic world may thus be leveraged in our recon-struction of a politics of thanksgiving relevant to Corinth and to Paulrsquosepistle

Before turning to the constitutional and Corinthian evidence we mustconsolidate our efforts to go beyond Schubertrsquos preliminary observationsby summarizing the dynamic structure of the politics of thanksgiving at

85 Zuiderhoek (2008 444ndash5)86 Spawforth (1996) Spawforth (2012) Cf Millis (2014)


the civic level on the basis of the Mytilenean evidence Alert to thepolitics of the Julian house Mytilene sent its patron the oratorPotamon on multiple embassies to Rome87 In OGIS 456 Potamonwould have been among those delivering the message offering tokensof thanksgiving and granting divine honors to Augustus for hisbenefactions88 The thanksgiving involved a pair of exhortations oneexplicit and one implicit Explicitly Augustus was called on89 to receivea gold crown and to grant that a commemorative plaque be displayed inhis home with another (or a stele) bearing the text of the inscribed decreeto be erected in the Capitolium at Rome Implicitly Potamon and theother envoys exhorted Augustus to recognize Mytilenean loyalty and toextend his favor toward them into the future On the ambassadorrsquos returnhe was publicly honored and thanked by the city receiving decrees othersymbols of honor and ultimately an inscribed monument Although thedecree he delivered (OGIS 456) offered thanksgiving to Augustus as to agod Potamon was the focus of glory at the civic level This is a pointdifficult to overemphasize even the inscribed decree thanking Augustusand the Senate in its civic context of performance and display increasedthe glory of Potamon and his housePotamonrsquos acclamation by the community underwrote an oligarchic

ideology so powerful that it shaped Mytilenean politics with reference toRome and resulted in a dynasty that extended for centuries It is importantto stress that the most visible and central element in honors for Potamonwas a monument that came to be called by his name This so-calledPotamoneion brings the logic of the testimonial (martyria) into sharpfocus because it integrates Roman provincial and civic documentstestifying to the ambassador-oratorrsquos virtues and itself offers tangibletestimony to the privileges confirmed to the city by his patronage In sodoing the monument functioned to remind the community it owed itspoliteia and privileges to the merits of this man90 The Potamoneionvisually integrated these testimonials honors and civic ideology andwasitself a monument that told the story of the community in miniature evenas it redounded to the glory of the one it honored91 Structured by thelogic of the testimonial-memorial the politics of thanksgiving was a

87 Parker (1991)88 OGIS 45653ndash6 εὐχαριστῆ σαι δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς πρέσβεις τῇ τε συγκλήτῳ89 OGIS 45648f παρακαλεῖν δέ 90 This encouraged Potamonrsquos descendants to match his virtuous example In such

monumentally inscribed martyriai a form of παρακαλῶ makes such exhortation explicit91 Rowe (2002 139ndash40)


complex phenomenon that found its most tangible expression in thepublic acclamations and monuments offered to local patrons92

623 Roman Corinth and the Politics of Thanksgiving

At this point we are able with the help of the constitutions and relatedevidence to anchor our reconstruction of the politics of thanksgiving infirst-century Roman Corinth The available evidence brings to our atten-tion an important constitutional category specific patron-benefactorsactive in the Corinthia instances of contested confirmations of statusinvolving Corinth and the public acclaim and monumental testimonyaccorded certain patrons resident in the colony Locating the politics ofthanksgiving in Corinth allows us to offer an interpretation of 1 Cor14ndash9 that extends the intuitions of Chrysostom and Schubert regardingthe centrality of 16 and one that approaches the other exegetical pro-blems with a coherent set of socio-political conventions

Especially since the work of Saller patronage has figured increasinglyin NT studies and in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians93 Despite thegrowing number of studies however it may surprise scholars of Corinththat certain aspects of the phenomenon were assumed and regulated bythe colonial charter94

Chapter 97 of the lex Urs records for us two complementary modes ofcolonial patronage

ne quis IIvir neve quis pro potestate in ea colon(ia) | facito nevead decur(iones) referto neve d(ecurionum) d(ecretum) facito |fiat quo quis colon(is) colon(iae) patron(us) sit atoptetur|vepraeter eum qulangirang c(urator) a(gris) d(andis) a(tsignandis) i(udi-candis) ex lege Iulia est eum|que qui eam colon(iam) dedux-erit liberos posteroslangqrangue | eorum nisi de m(aioris) p(artis)decurion(um) langqui tum adrangerunt per tabellam | sententialtmgtcum non minus (quinquaginta) aderunt cum e(a) r(es) | con-suletur qui atversus ea fecerilangtrang (sestertium) (quinque milia)

92 Kokkinia (2003 197)93 Saller (1982) Wallace-Hadrill (1989) Relevant to the present study Marshall

(1987) Chow (1992) Clarke (1993) Welborn (2011)94 The absence of the charter evidence from Chow (1992) leads to some questionable

sociological categories His interest in personal patronage networks operating within thecolonial sphere ignores or collapses patronal networks linking colony to province andbeyond For new evidence regarding patronage obligations within a chartered communitysee Ch 97 of the lex Irn and the accompanying (so-called) Letter of Domitian at itsconclusion on which see Mourgues (1987)


colon(is) | eius colon(iae) d(are) d(amnas) esto eiusque pecu-niae colon(orum) eius | colon(iae) cui volet petitio esto

No duovir or anyone with a potestas in that colony is to act orraise (such matters) with the decurions or to see that a decree ofthe decurions be passed to the effect that anyone be or beadopted as patron to the colonists of the colony except theperson who is the curator for granting or assigning or adjudi-cating lands according to the lex Iulia and the person who shallhave founded that colony their children and descendantsexcept according to the opinion by ballot of the majority ofthe decurions langwhorang shall langthenrang be langpresentrang when that mattershall be discussed Whoever shall have acted contrary to theserules is to be condemned to pay 5000 sesterces to the colonistsof that colony and there is to be suit for that sum by whoevershall wish of the colonists of that colony (RS I 25)

This chapter regulates the co-optation or legal adoption of patrons bythe colony as a political entity95 In such a case the assent by secretballot of a quorum of decurions was required Colonial elites wereprohibited from autonomously soliciting a patron on penalty of a heftyfine96 In addition to co-optation there was another way for a colony suchas Corinth to become a client Ch 97 reveals that the founder of thecolony and his descendants became patrons by right of deductio (founda-tion) It is important to note that only in this instance was the clientela of apatron heritable his descendants involuntarily assuming the obligationsof patronus toward the colony There were thus two senses in which acolony such as Corinth could officially become a client one voluntaryand the other automatic97 Corinth appears to have enjoyed cliens statusin both ways One implication of this is that the politics of thanksgivingwould have been a feature of the Corinthian politeia from its earliestdays It means further that the colonyrsquos status and political relationship toRome were mediated by a tangled network of senatorial equestrianprovincial and local elites98 These elites were responsible for fundingthe major public buildings and monuments that steadily increased the

95 Cf lex Urs Chs 130 131 lex Flavia Ch 61 Lamberti (1993 133ndash5)96 The amount varies in lex Urs Chs 97 130 and lex Flavia Ch 6197 Eilers (2002 17ndash37 64ndash6) This is not to say that all of Corinthrsquos patrons (or those

enumerated in this section) were ldquoofficialrdquo in a legal sense available evidence isinconclusive

98 Millis (2014)


public glory of Corinth during the Julio-Claudian era99 The colonyensured that they were thanked appropriately

One instance of automatic patronage is attested by the inscriptionhonoringM Vipsanius Agrippa linked bymarriage to the Julian house100

As the proconsul of Achaia and husband of Augustusrsquos daughter JuliaAgrippa was a key cultural broker promoting the Augustan revolutionamong the Greek provincial elites who included Potamon ofMytilene101 Stansbury suggested Agrippa was instrumental in the fundingof public works construction in Corinth102 The inscription erected in hishonor by the members of the tribe Vinicia is modest and cannot beassociated with any particular monument But the colonial honors offeredto his sons Gaius and Lucius103 and the persistence of his cognomenamong colonial magistrates in Corinth104 further attest the importancethe colony placed on grooming connections to the imperial administrationand Augustan house and on the privileges that followed105 Torelli arguedthat the so-called Babbius monument on the western edge of Corinthrsquosforum might actually be a heroon posthumously honoring Agrippa asNeptune (in connection with Babbiusrsquos dedication of the Fountain ofPoseidon)106 He hypothesized that Agrippa or Cn Babbius Philinushimself may have been responsible for funding the construction ofRoman Corinthrsquos first aqueduct Agripparsquos patronage of the colony per-sonally and indirectly through local elites connected to him appears tohave confirmed Corinthrsquos privileged relationship with the Julian house andto have adorned the colony with public works Not only the dedication toAgrippa by the tribe Vinicia but also the Babbius monument (on Torellirsquos

99 Perhaps especially colonial magistrates DrsquoHautcourt (2001)100 West 16 For Agrippa see RP I COR 25101 Spawforth (2012 24ndash58) Agripparsquos widespread patronage Eilers (2002 163

197ndash8 223ndash4 284ndash6)102 Stansbury (1990 193)103 Amandry XI=RPC I 1136ndash7 cf Swift (1921 for busts found in the Julian Basilica

142ndash59 337ndash63)104 P Vipsanius Agrippa (RP I COR 650 Amandry XVII=RPC I 1172ndash9 duovir AD

378) P Caninius Agrippa (RP I COR 135 Amandry XV=RPC I 1149ndash50 duovir honoredby personal client reign of Claudius) L Caninius Agrippa (RP I COR 134 AmandryXXIV=RPC I 1210ndash22 duovir AD 689)

105 Rowe (2002 136ndash8)106 RP I COR 111 West 132 Kent 155 Torelli (2001 148ndash52) bases this on the

fountainNeptune connection and Agripparsquos benefactions elsewhere The monument wasfunded and approved by Babbius implying that although the monument may have reflectedAgripparsquos patronage the glory went locally to Babbius and his family See the tell-tale useof probavit (ldquohe approved itrdquo) in West 132 Kent 135


hypothesis) demonstrate ways the colony expressed its gratitude toAgrippa and his descendants in public inscribed and monumental formIn addition to its involuntary patrons107 Roman Corinth in keeping

with constitutional regulations could in principle adopt as many morepatrons as it could attract and to whom it could offer reciprocal gratitudeand honors Even our quite fragmentary evidence indicates that Corinthchose often and well108 Perhaps most notable among themwas the third-generation Euryclid Spartiaticus109 a figure analogous to Potamon ofMytilene110 In an inscription erected by the tribe Calpurnia the patronSpartiaticus is honored ldquoon account of his excellence and unsparing andmost lavish generosity both to the divine family and to our colony (obvirtutem eius et animosam fusissimamque erga domum divinam et ergacoloniam nostr(am) munificientiam)rdquo111 Spawforth noted that this

107 Such as Agrippa Stansbury (1990 190ndash1) These automatic Corinthian patronsinclude the descendants of the Julian gens and of the three men (tresviri coloniae dedu-cundae) who led out the original colonists to the site allotted land and tribal membershipsand conducted the foundation rituals (lex Urs Ch 66 ldquoC Caesar or whoever shall havefounded the colony at his commandrdquo) Cf Gargola (1995 51ndash101) and lex Urs Chs 15 16For the suggestion that the Corinthian tribes Vatinia Hostilia and Maneia preserve thenomina gentilica of the three deductores see Torelli (1999)

108 Apart from West 16 (Agrippa) discussed earlier the term ldquopatronrdquo also appears inWest 56 57 (C Iulius Quadratus RP I COR 352 colonial patron honored by the tribeManeia AD 1523) West 66 (P Caninius Agrippa RP I COR 135) West 68 (C IuliusEurycles Spartiaticus RP I COR 353 colonial patron honored by the tribe CalpurniaClaudiusNero) West 71 (unknown colonial patron) Kent 67 (emperor genius honored byfreedman procurator of Achaia RP I COR 474 AD III) Kent 271 (unknown colonialpatron date) Another set of inscriptions that should probably be considered as colonialpatrons are those honoring holders of the post praefectus fabrum West 212=Kent 131(Q Granius Bassus RP I COR 302 dedication of a bath Augustan) Kent 132 (Q FabiusCarpetanus RP I COR 256 Augustan) Kent 152 (Sex Olius Secundus RP I COR 446honored by son and wife Augustan) Kent 156 (A Arrius Proculus RP I COR 87 AD 39)West 86ndash90 Kent 158 159 161 162 163 234 (Ti Claudius Dinippus RP I COR 170ClaudiusNero) The praefectus fabrum is accorded patron-like honors in lex Urs Ch 127Cf Bitner (2014a)

109 West 68 RP I COR 353 RP II LAC 509 cf West 73 Meritt 70 (in Greek) On theEuryclid dynasts and Achaian politics see now Spawforth (2012) Whether Spartiaticuswas legally adopted as a colonial patron is impossible to ascertain The absence of D(ecreto)D(ecurionum) on the dedication by the tribules tribus Calpurniae may or may not besignificant Spartiaticus held Corinthian citizenship having served as quinquennial duovirin 467 Cf Amandry (1988 22 74) Spawforth (1994 219) Spawforth (1996 174)

110 Family connections to Mytilene the brother of Spartiaticus C Iulius Argolicusmarried into a senatorial family from Mytilene cf PIR IV I 372 and Cartledge andSpawforth (1989 102)

111 C(aio) Iulio Laconis f(ilio) | Euryclis n(epoti) Fab(ia) Spartiati[co] | [p]rocuratoriCaesaris et Augustae | Agrippinae trib(uno) mil(itum) equo p[ublico] | [ex]ornato a divo


ldquorefers inter alia to his generosity in defraying the expenses of his highpriesthood and the gratitude of the Calpurnian tribesmen makes bestsense if they were among the audience for this generosity as participantsin celebrations at Corinth over which the high priest Spartiaticuspresidedrdquo112 The formulaic phrase erga coloniam nostr(am) (lit ldquowithrespect to our colonyrdquo) may also recall public works funded bySpartiaticus aswell as privileges confirmed to Corinth by his patronage113

Spartiaticus active in the principates of Claudius and Nero is a primeexample of the link to Roman power and its benefits provided by acolonial patron He also illustrates a class of provincial aristocrats whosuccessfully crafted Roman identities for themselves according to theAugustan script and in contact with Roman administrative structures114

In so doing the Euryclids of Sparta Potamon of Mytilene and others setup dynasties for themselves and garnered continued privileges on behalfof their communities115 In terms of Julio-Claudian civic politics thereare strong analogies across these figures and their communities analogiesthat justify comparisons among them Yet there are also differencesCorinth for example stands out as a Roman colony rather than a polisand its elites had the advantage of living in the very assize center ofAchaia their own city being the residence of the provincial governor116

In the case of Spartiaticus and Corinth the glimpses of colonial gratitudesuggest a wide participation in the tangible benefits he offered by virtueof his connection to the Roman administration and imperial house They

Claudio flam (ini) | divi Iuli pontif(ici) | IIvir(o) quinq(uennali) iter(um) | agonothete Isthmion et Caese(reon) | [S]ebasteon archieri Domus Aug(ustae) | [in] perpetuum primoAchaeon | ob v[i]rtutem eius et animosam | f[usi]ss[im]amque erga domum | divinam eterga coloniam nostr(am) | munificientiam tribules | tribu[s] Calpurnia[e] | [pa]trono

Translation (Spawforth 1994 218) ldquoThe tribesmen of the Calpurnian tribe (set upthis statue) on account of his excellence and unsparing and most lavish generosity both tothe divine family and to our colony for their patron Gaius Iulius Spartiaticus son of Lacograndson of Eurycles of the Fabian tribe procurator of Caesar and the Augusta Agrippinamilitary tribune decorated with the public horse by the deified Claudius flamen of thedeified Julius twice quinquennial duovir president of the Isthmian and CaesareanSebastean games high priest for life of the Augustan house the first of the Achaeans tohold this officerdquo

112 Spawforth (1994 220)113 Spartiaticus was also honored (in Greek) at Epidauros (IG IV2 1 663) and elsewhere

in Greece114 Spawforth (2012 52ndash8)115 Spawforth (2012 40ndash1 77ndash80) likens Potamon to Achaian elites and links him to

M Agrippa Cf Rowe (2002 124ndash53)116 See Millis (2014) for this assumption which implies provincial ambassadorial

activity in Corinth itself


also suggest an equally wide participation in public expressions of thanks-giving that testified to his merits117

At this point we must ask what forms such politics of thanksgivingmight have taken in Corinth especially regarding colonial patrons ofSpartiaticusrsquos class How might the relationship of voluntary patronagehave been formalized What services might he have rendered In whatcontexts might the patron have been acclaimed and thanked by thecommunity What other kinds of tangible honors might such patronshave received as tokens of gratitudeExtant evidence allows us to piece together a plausible answer to these

questions First we have a record of Corinthrsquos involvement in a conflictover its colonial rights A letter directed to the Roman administration onbehalf of neighboring Argos lays out a complaint against Corinth118 Onthe basis of its privileged colonial status the author maintains Corinthhad recently levied tribute on Argos to fund certain spectacles associatedwith the imperial cult119 Previously Argos had sent advocates to chal-lenge this legal ldquoinnovationrdquo but the case had been bungled and Corinthwas confirmed in its rights and privileges120 Now according to the lettermore virtuous orator-ambassadors were being deployed in hopes ofhaving the case reopened121

In this highly rhetorical text we see an outsider perspective on theprivileged status and power Roman Corinth enjoyed in the regionAlthough the Argive ambassadors are named the patrons representingCorinth in either case are not122 Nonetheless it is not difficult to imaginea figure such as one of those mentioned earlier successfully securingCorinthrsquos rights in this case Whoever the elite advocate representingCorinth before the provincial governor may have been we may be surehe was duly honored for such valuable services rendered to the

117 Note Kent 306 (P Licinius Priscus Iuventianus RP I COR 378) and the effusivepublic reception and gratitude offered to the wealthy ambassador-benefactor Epaminondasof Acraephia in Boeotia preserved in the inscribed testimonials of IGVII 2711 2712 (AD37) IGVII 271282ndash4 records people lining Epaminondasrsquos route into the city and offeringldquoevery praise and thanksgivingrdquo (πᾶσαν φιλοτειμίαν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ἐνδει[κ]νύμενοι) CfOliver (1971)

118 Ps-Julian Letters 198 Greek text Bidez (1960) earlier date Keil (1913) datec AD 80ndash120 Spawforth (1994)

119 Ps-Julian Letters 198 ll 22ndash28 (408b) 62ndash71 (409cndashd)120 Ps-Julian Letters 198 ll 74ndash7 (409d)121 Ps-Julian Letters 198 ll 84ndash99 (410bndashd)122 Ps-Julian Letters 198 l 89 (410b) Diogenes and Lamprias Spawforth (1994 214

229) connects Lamprias with the Statilii gens known from evidence at Epidauros andArgos


Corinthian politeia As the privileges confirmed were of a kind enjoyedby a cross section of the colonial community123 so too we may assumewide participation in public acclaim

We have some idea what public forms such acclaim might have takenfrom a series of inscribed texts at Corinth dating to the Claudian eraThese honors were for a patroness the well-known Iunia Theodora awealthy Lycian resident in Corinth124 Her advocacy and the privilegesshe secured were for member cities of the Lycian federation (koinon) notfor Corinth itself But very importantly for our purposes she wasacclaimed at Corinth receiving testimonials (martyriai) that were laterinscribed on a funerary monument near the city125 These five epistolarytestimonials rendering effusive thanks126 to Iunia Theodora were readout in Corinth127 Here we see Schubertrsquos ldquoεὐχαριστία attituderdquo writlarge at Corinth The agent of the Lycian koinon one Sextus Iuliusengaged stonecutters ndash presumably in Corinth ndash to execute an honorificinscription128 for Iunia Theodora and set about preparing additionalhonors These honors reminiscent of those conferred on Potamonincluded inscriptions publicly sealed documents for deposition in theCorinthian archives gold crowns gilded portraits an extravagant gift ofsaffron and finally a funerary memorial129

The testimonials to Iunia Theodora are quite revealing in terms of thepolitics of thanksgiving at Corinth precisely in the period around Paulrsquosvisits and letters Although in keeping with the sub-genre of inscribedmartyriai the texts are selective excerpts at least one is explicit in itsaddress ldquoto the magistrates the council and the people of Corinthrdquo130 It

123 Spectacles including wild beast shows (venationes) Ps-Julian Letters 198 ll 45ndash52(409a) Spawforth (1994 211 221)

124 Corinth Inv 2486 Important bibliography Pallas et al (1959) Robert (1960) SEG472310 482214 51344 Important NT discussions include Kearsley (1999 189ndash211)Winter (2001 199ndash203) Klauck (2003b 232ndash47) Winter (2003 183ndash93)

125 Eg l 9 τὸ ἔθνος τὰς προσηκού|σας αὐτῆι αποδοῦναι μαρτυρίας (Testimionial 1)cf ll 61 79ndash80 84ndash5 The reuse of the stone prevents us from reconstructing IuniaTheodorarsquos funerary testimonial-memorial For observations on her ldquoRoman funeral hon-orsrdquo see Robert (1960) but note Picardrsquos criticisms (SEG 22232)

126 l 21 ἐχρείναμεν δὲ καὶ ὑπεῖν γράψαι ὅπως εἴδητε τὴν τῆς πόλεως εὐχαριστίαν(Testimonial 2) l 25 εἰς τὴν πάντων Λυκίων εὐχαριστίαν (Testimonial 3) cf ll 31ndash2 61 84

127 ll 37ndash8 ἵνα δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ Ἰου|νία καὶ ἡΚορινθίων πόλις ἐπιγνῷ (Testimonial 3) ll15 21 Μυέων ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος Κορινθίων ἄρχουσι χαίρειν ὅπως εἰδητε τὴν τῆςπόλεως εύχαριστίαν (Testimonial 2) cf l 46

128 ll 11ndash14129 ll 56 63ndash70130 Testimonial 2 (from Myra) l 15


is entirely possible that this and other decrees of gratitude for IuniaTheodora were read out publicly to large groups in CorinthΕὐχαριστῶndash131 πᾶςndash132 χάριςndash133 and μαρτυρίαndash134 language appearsfrequently in these testimonials in configurations recalling Paulrsquosthanksgiving with διrsquo ὅ or διά (rather than ἐπί) clauses providing thegrounds for thanksgiving135 As is typical in such testimonials theseare frequently followed by exhortations (with παρακαλῶ) calling onIunia Theodora and her legal heir (the same Sextus Iulius) to extendand perpetuate benefactions and advocacy for Lycian rights andprivileges136 The Lycian koinon is especially grateful to have beenincluded as a beneficiary in Theodorarsquos testament Those offering theirgratitude promise to do ldquoeverything for the excellence and glory shedeservesrdquo137

In all the memorial-dossier of Iunia Theodora illustrates in detailedfashion the politics of thanksgiving and the logic of the testimonial inmidndashfirst-century Roman Corinth Verbal public acclamation for benefac-tions and privileges tangible tokens of gratitude and finally a memorialinscribed with testimonials ndash the entire complex epitomizes the politics ofthanksgiving in communities connected to Roman power by civic elitesEvidence from the charters complements this general picture and

allows us to conceive of additional performative aspects of displayscharacterizing public gratitude Glimpses of public spaces for assemblyappear at several points in both the lex Urs and the lex Flavia We are ledto envision a large assembly witnessing occasions such as the adminis-tration of oaths to public officials ldquoin a contio openly before the light ofday on a market day facing the forumrdquo138 In addition envoys sent on

131 ll 21 25 31ndash2 61 84132 ll 3 18 29 35 48 53 69133 ll 29ndash30 35 61134 ll 9 16 31ndash2 61 79ndash80 85135 ll 30 48 59136 l 33 καὶ ὅτι παρακαλεῖ αὐτὴν προσεπαύξειν τὴν εἰς τὸν δῆμον εὔνοιαν ll 54ndash6

(implied exhortation) τὸ[ν τε δ]ιά|δοχον αὐτῆς Σέκτον Ἰούλιον σπουδῇ πρὸς τὸ ἔθνος[ἡμ]ῶ[ν σ]τοι|χοῦντα τῇ ἄνωθεν Ἰουνίας πρὸς ἡμᾶς εύνοία Unlike the parakalō conventionin testimonials whereby the patron (andor her descendants or heirs in imitation of her) isexhorted in return for promised glory to continue her benefactions into the future Paulonly directs his exhortation toward the community (110f) on the basis of the benefactionthey have received Bjerkelund (1967)

137 ll 35ndash6 πάντα δὲ πράξει τὰ πρὸς ἀρετὴν αὐτῇ καὶ δόξαν διήκοντα138 Lex Urs Ch 81 Cf lex Flavia Chs 26 59 and the lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae (RS I

13) For smaller gatherings by tribal groups (citizens and incolae) see lex Urs Chs 15 16101 lex Flavia Chs 52 53


public business were chosen carefully and held accountable for theirambassadorial business139 Official proceedings were read out in counciland on occasion to larger gatherings and were deposited archivally withimportant documents posted prominently140 As with the proconsularletter approving and commending Priscus alluded to earlier (Kent 306pro rostris lecta) and the commendation of Iunia Theodora publicannouncements of benefactions successful embassies and privilegesconfirmed would have been made in central public spaces at Corinthand attended by sizable crowds of mixed social status on the modeldemonstrated by the regulations concerning the administration ofoaths141

Although it comes from a later period and from the Latin West thefollowing inscription captures many of the contours of colonial gratitudetoward a patron and his descendants that we have been describing and istherefore worth citing in full

The citizens of the colonia of Paestum convened in a fullyattended assembly held a debate and passed the followingresolution

Because there have accrued to us from the house of AquiliusNestorius this upright gentleman such numerous great andsplendid benefactions with which our colonia has been adorned(quibus colonia nostra exornata) and which are visible to theeyes and minds of our citizens especially when each citizenlooks about him and buildings raised by them meet their gazeand thus they have made glorious the appearance of our citywherefore the full() citizen body has resolved that a returnshould be made to them for the great services rendered bytheir house and their other outstanding services too that theyacknowledge his benefactions as public services to the populusand are pleased with them (The citizen body) gratefully offers(gratulit) him the position of flamen because by public accla-mation (publica voce) the citizens desire that he should begiven that additional honour

Since Aquilius Nestorius in consideration of honours givenand received loves us his fellow-citizens with an unparalleledaffection and his son Aquilius Aper will offer us the same

139 Lex Urs Ch 92 lex Flavia Ch G Cf Clinton (2003) Clinton (2004) Woumlrrle(2004)

140 Lex Urs Ch 81 lex Flavia Chs C 85 95141 Cf lex Irn Ch 97 and the so-called letter of Domitian Cf Mourgues (1987)


affection the citizens formally resolve to confer on him thepatronage of the city so that by relying on the protection ofboth our people may be seen to receive greater honour than wehave offered

The resolution on this matter was passed by formal vote142

Whether voluntary or hereditary Corinthrsquos clientship meant that the col-ony was in a relationship of obligatory trust (in fide) with its patrons143

From them it expected asked for and received favors in various formsincluding the confirmation of colonial status and privileges To themCorinth showed gratitude in the form of statue dedications inscriptionsmonuments and acclamatory gratitude in public forums

624 The Jewish Politeia and the Politics of Thanksgiving

Greek and Roman communities were not the only sites where the politicsof thanksgiving for privileges confirmed played out in the first centuryThis pattern its attendant conventions and popular participation are alsoevident in our Jewish sources The troubled history of the Jewish politeiain the diaspora further illustrates the currency of the conventions we havebeen observing Given Paulrsquos own heritage and the mixedmembership ofthe Corinthian ekklēsia this Jewish experience of patronage privilegeand gratitude is also relevant to the interpretation of 1 Cor 14ndash9 In bothPhilo and Josephus we see the pattern of contested rights embassy andadvocacy by elites and Roman confirmation of privilegesDespite participating to various degrees in local civic life diaspora Jews

in the Roman period vigilantly maintained distinctive rights and privilegesrelated to their laws and customs Josephus refers repeatedly to the Jewishpoliteia translated variously as ldquocharterrdquo ldquogovernmentrdquo ldquoinstitutionsrdquo orldquoway of liferdquoOnersquos politeiawas linked to onersquos genos or group identity144

and the Jewish politeia according to Josephus was connected to (if notidentical with) the Torah given byGod throughMoses145 It was a divinelyappointed order of government inextricably bound up with the Sinainarrative and the divine presence in the Tabernacle146 According toTroiani

142 AE 1990211 (Paestum AD 347) Text translation and discussion in Harries et al(2003 139ndash40)

143 Eilers (2002 64 n12) ldquoThe phrase in fide is a periphrasis for cliensrdquo144 Cf Josephus Ant 1121145 Cf Josephus Ant 445146 Eg Josephus Ant 384 213


An almost unbreakable bond seems to be established betweenthe right of citizenship (of Alexandria as of Antioch) andMosesrsquo πολιτεία as much in the general view as in the use ofthe terms this πολιτεία also seems to have pre-eminentideological value in our texts and indicates active membershipin Judaism The πολιτεία is above all the constitution ofMoses147

Especially in the rhetoric of Josephus then the politeia of the Jewssignified Mosaic law and custom this way of life described in terms ofcivic institutions characterized Jews in the diaspora148 But it was a wayof life often viewed with suspicion and treated with hostilityConsequently the Jews labored constantly to protect their right to liveaccording to it149 As a result appeals for Jewish rights and privileges toRome were driven by local concerns and were mediated (or thwarted)through civic or civic-like channels150 Much of our evidence relates toAlexandria where constant tensions between Jews and non-Jews in theEgyptian administrative seat flared into violence at multiple points in theearly Empire In each case it was connected in some manner to contestedrights and privileges of the Jewish politeia151 Barclay concludes that theAlexandrian upheaval of AD 38ndash41 involved ldquoboth the immediate andgeneral loss of [Jewish] communal privileges and the long-standingdispute about Jews entering the citizen classrdquo152 The diaspora experi-ence of many first-century Jews was one in which rights and privileges ndashand the Roman guarantee underlying them ndash mattered socially legallyand politically Not surprisingly in political discourse concerning Jewishrights both by Jews and about Jews we find civic conflict giving rise tothe ambassadorial activity153 As representatives of this discourse Philoand Josephus exploit the logic of the testimonial

In several places Philo refers to rights and privileges of the Jews asboth contested and confirmed Writing in protest of the horrific pogromsuffered by Alexandrian Jews in the reign of Gaius and under theadministration of the prefect Flaccus he interweaves Jewish loyalty to

147 Troiani (1994 17)148 Barclay (1995)149 Rajak (1984 123)150 Rajak (1984 107ndash8)151 Barclay (1996 60) terminological ambiguity at 70ndash1152 Barclay (1996 70) italics mine153 Troiani (1994 20) notes PLond 1912 where Claudius reproves two Jewish embas-

sies because they imply two separate politeiai


Rome and gratitude toward the Augustan house with the confirmationand preservation of an unmolested politeia In response to the desecratingof synagogues and prayer houses with images he writes

[The Jews] by losing their prayer houses were losing also their means of showing reverence to their benefactors sincethey no longer had the sacred buildings in which they could setforth their thankfulness (οἶς ἐνδιαθήσονται τὸ εὐχάριστον) Andthey might have said to their enemies ldquoYou have failed to seethat you are not adding to but taking from the honor given to ourmasters and you do not understand that everywhere in thehabitable world the religious veneration of the Jews for theAugustan house has its basis as all may see in the prayer housesand if we have these destroyed no place no method is left to usfor paying this honor If we neglect to pay it when our customs(τῶν ἐθῶν) permit we should deserve the utmost penalty for notrendering suitable and full responses [of honor] But if we fallshort because it is forbidden by our own laws (τοῖς ἰδίοιςνομίμοις) which Augustus also was well pleased to confirm (ἃκαὶ τῷ Σεβαστῷ φίλον βεβαιοῦν) I do not see what offenceeither small or great can be laid to our charge154

Philo artfully links several themes here arguing from the known con-ventions of the politics of thanksgiving The prayer house was the spacein which the Jewish politeia recognized the authority of the Augustanhouse It was there that honor and gratitude were performed and dis-played (ἐνδιαθήσονται τὸ εὐχάριστον)155 in accordance with their cus-toms Augustus himself had confirmed (βεβαιόω) their right andprivilege to adapt the politics of thanksgiving to their own politeia inthis way Behind such a confirmation lies the intercession of an unknownpatron on behalf of the Jewish politeia In Philorsquos rhetorical constructionit becomes clear that a violation of the prayer house therefore was not

154 Flacc 49ndash50 (transl slightly modified from Colsonrsquos Loeb edition) Cf Barclay(1996 51ndash5)

155 The rare ἐνδιατίθεμαι indicates the physical display of tokens of gratitude within theprayer houses probably including inscribed decrees of thanksgiving Cf Legat 133 wherethe imperial honors destroyed along with the prayer houses are specified as shields gildedcrowns stelae (στηλῶν) and inscriptions (ἐπιγραφῶν) Such decrees expressing gratitudewere inscribed and erected (ἀνατίθημι) on stelae or plaques often within local temples ofboth the one honored and those bestowing the honors (eg Mytilenersquos inscribed gratitudeoffered to Augustus OGIS 45648ndash68) Such a memorial inscription or stele could also bereferred to as a μαρτύριον (Plato Leges 12943c Dionysius Halicarnassus 322)


only anti-Jewish but also anti-imperial156 Flaccusrsquos refusal to defend theJews is thus cast as traitorous because it hindered them in their confirmedcustomary mode of rendering and displaying loyalty and gratitudetoward the beneficent patronage of the imperial house Philorsquos referenceto the confirmation of Jewish rights in connection with their participationin the politics of thanksgiving is then seen as an effective appeal

In the Legatio ad Gaium we see a powerful patron interceding onbehalf of the Jewish politeia in the face of the threatened desecration ofthe Jerusalem Temple by Gaius This comes in the letter Philo attributesto Herod Agrippa After rehearsing Gaiusrsquos benefactions to him person-ally Agrippa alludes to Augustan documentary evidence (τεκμηρίοις) insupport of the Jewish politeia157 Two letters a copy of one he apparentlyattaches (ἀντίγραφον) demonstrate Augustusrsquos support for Jewish culticpractices the temple collection gatherings and the use of envoys158

Philorsquos Agrippa characterizes these Augustan testimonials as ldquopatternsrdquo(παραδείγματα) for Gaius to emulate finishing with a rhetorical flourish

Emperors intercede to emperor for the cause of the lawsAugusti to an Augustus grandparents and ancestors to theirdescendant and you may almost hear them say ldquoDo notdestroy the institutions which under the shelter of our wills weresafeguarded to this day (μέχρι καὶ τήμερον ἐφυλάχθη)rdquo159

The appeal to an earlier imperial confirmation (φυλάσσω) securesAgripparsquos intercessory appeal to Gaius It is a skillful appeal preciselybecause it employs the currency of the confirmation of civic statusrights and privileges

Like Philo Josephus is familiar with such politics In AntiquitiesBooks 14 and 16 he draws together testimonials to demonstrate therepeated confirmation of rights and privileges that Jews dispersedthroughout the Graeco-Roman world had received160 His purpose isapologetic with regard to the Jewish politeia and his presentation exhi-bits selectivity and adaptation yet the Roman documents he gathers areno less striking for being propagandistic161 Although the authenticity ofthe documents Josephus musters has engendered debate many now see

156 Cf Goodman (1996 777)157 Legat 311158 Legat 311ndash20159 Legat 321ndash22160 Ant 14185ndash267 16160ndash78161 Rajak (1985 20ndash21) Rajak (1984 109ndash10)


them as preserving subtle details that suggest a high degree ofveracity162 Even if rhetorically adapted they preserve a forceful recordof Jewish participation in the politics of thanksgiving during the Romanperiod Josephusrsquos evidence places beyond dispute the fact that Jewishcommunities in Palestine and across the Roman world were familiar withthe conventions related to the confirmation of privileges Rather thanrehearse the litany of testimonials Josephus adduced we highlight asingle instance that demonstrates the logic of the testimonial in theJewish experience of such politics and patronageIn response to an embassy (Ant 16160ndash5) from ldquothe Jews of Asia and

Cyrenerdquo that claimed economic mistreatment and general harassment163

Augustus issued a decision in favor of Jewish privileges On the basis ofJewish gratitude (τὸ ἔθνος τὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εὐχάριστον εὑρέθη) bothpast and present Augustus decreed that they might follow their owncustoms ldquojust asrdquo they had enjoyed them (καθὼς έχρῶντο) in the time ofhis father164 The present gratitude to which the decree refers is to beinterpreted in light of the resolution (τὸ ψήφισμα) conferring honors sentwith the Jewish envoys to Augustus He ordered that their decree ofthanksgiving be inscribed and displayed conspicuously and in tandemwith his edict granting them privileges all within his imperial cult templeat Ancyra Josephus adds that it ldquowas inscribed upon a pillar in the templeof Caesarrdquo165 and refers to this and other appended copies as ldquotestimo-nialsrdquo (τὰ ἀντίγραφα μαρτυρία) of ldquothe friendly disposition which ourformer rulers had toward usrdquo166 Josephusrsquos authorial selectivity con-ceals the identities of the envoys but we may be sure they receivedaccolades from the Jewish communities in Asia and Cyrene whom theirembassy benefited167

Clearly as we see from the evidence of Philo and Josephus many Jewsacross the Roman world participated in the politics of thanksgiving andwere familiar with the conventions related to the logic of the testimonialThey knew its language forms and the potential privileges that patron-age and embassy might procure even if for them it was a politicspursued (at least in part) for the preservation of the Mosaic politeiaThe language of gratitude benefaction testimony and confirmation

162 Most recently Eilers (2009)163 Ant 16160ndash1164 Ant 16162ndash3165 Ant 16164ndash5166 Ant 16161167 Cf Rives (2009)


would have evoked both for Jewish and Graeco-Roman members ofPaulrsquos ekklēsia a pattern of communal honor privileges and obligations

625 Summary

We have now reconstructed the social conventions surrounding the first-century politics of thanksgiving We were led to this network of com-munal gratitude honor and the confirmation of civic privileges bySchubertrsquos semantic observations linking 1 Cor 14ndash9 to OGIS 456What we have discovered is a socio-political pattern that comfortablyaccommodates the language and concepts of Paulrsquos Corinthian thanks-giving the colonial setting of Roman Corinth and the Jewish experienceunder Roman rule It remains to be seen whether Paul adopts entirelythese conventions with their oligarchic ideology and assumptions aboutthe nature and orientation of honor privileges and obligation with thepoliteia We now turn to an exegetical investigation of the problematicfeatures of 1 Cor 14ndash9 in light of this pattern of politeia discoursecentered as it was on the logic of the testimonial to discover the meaningof the form in which it was cast by Paul

63 Politeia and the constitution of community

1 Cor 14ndash9 exhibits features that locate it within the discourse of thefirst-century politics of thanksgiving Its vocabulary of gratitude privi-leges confirmation testimony and community is best matched by poli-tical inscriptions of the type we have examined With these semantic andsocial conventions and the constitutional framework of Roman Corinthin mind we are now able to offer new interpretations of the five exege-tical problems of detail outlined at the start of this chapter We begin withthe relationship between politeia and power revealed most clearly in 19

As we saw earlier the politics of thanksgiving always plays out withina framework that relates politeia to power (both in the sense of constitu-tion and of public way of life) This relationship is dynamic embracingthe originary political act of foundation (by the authority of someone) andall subsequent acts confirming or augmenting civic status and privileges(through the mediation of someone) In the case of Roman Corinth thecolony was constituted on the basis of Caesarrsquos authority the mediatingnetwork of patronal ties to the Roman administration and the Julio-Claudian house bolstered its institutions and public life These patronallinks assumed and regulated in part by the charter were visible in figuressuch as M Vipsanius Agrippa and C Iulius Spartiaticus In the case of


the Jewish politeia ndash for which Moses was the key mediating figure interms of the theokratia168 ndash Roman power fulfilled a similar politicalfunction in local diaspora settings Herod Agrippa and other envoysplayed a role in obtaining protections and privileges for these Jewishcommunities So too in the second to third centuries early Christiancommunities experienced the advocacy of elite Christian apologist-ambassadors who appealed to the imperial house and Roman adminis-tration on their behalf169

How does this mediating power structure relate to 1 Cor 19 and theCorinthian assembly What is the relationship between politeia andpower that Paul presses on the consciousness of the community Wemust bear this question in mind when we come to v 9 precisely because itprovides the grounding climax of the entire thanksgiving and signals thepolitical framework for the issues of authority privilege status unitypurity and glory to follow in the letter body In point of fact this frame-work binding politeia to power emerges most clearly in the two exege-tical problems noted earlier in connection with this verse the function ofthe oath-formula πιστὸς ὁ θεός and the meaning of κοινωνία The solu-tion to these problems lies in the application of the conventions we haveobserved to the syntactical form of v 9 as it grounds 14ndash9 V 9 may beschematized according to its four constituent elements

I asyndetic oath formula (πιστὸς ὁ θεός)II verb of calling (διrsquo οὗ ἐκλήθητε)

III political relationship (εἰς κοινωνίαν)IV genitive of person (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ κτλ)

Von der Osten-Sacken argued that the oath formula in 1 Cor 19 is one ofthe strongest Jewish elements of the entire thanksgiving lending it thefeel of a synagogue blessing170 Yet even he allowed that it underwentsignificant adaptation in Paulrsquos hands171 In relation to the other elementsof v 9 and to Paulrsquos political thanksgiving as a whole this adaptation iseven more evident The oath of v 9 in its context has strong Romanechoes and highlights the divine faithfulness underwriting the Corinthianpoliteia on the analogy of Roman power in the provinces To claim this isnot to deny or to obscure the LXX or synagogue (covenantal) resonancesof the phrase rather it is to note how a Jewish formula has been skillfully

168 C Ap 2165 cf Barclay (1995 142)169 Rives (2009)170 Von Der Osten-Sacken (1977)171 Von Der Osten-Sacken (1977 183ndash4 192)


adapted and applied to a Christian community in a Roman setting in theGreek world In fact the echo of Deut 79 that many have perceived hereis amplified when its covenantal context is correlated with that of Paulrsquosthanksgiving172 That is to say we witness in v 9 a carefully composedclimax to an expression of political gratitude that appears to be crafted tocommunicate to an ethnically mixed assembly in a setting such as RomanCorinth

In such Roman guarantees of privileges and status the oath stands atthe ritual foundation of political alliance Its pronouncement (accompa-nied by sacrifice) inscription and repetition seal and strengthen thenexus between politeia and power We see this in a recently publishedbronze tablet recording in Greek the terms of a treaty made betweenRome and the Lycian koinon in 46 BC173 The constellation of severalgeneric and lexical features in the text situate it at the head of the streamof a Julio-Claudian politics that would give rise to the repeated expres-sions of gratitude and confirmations of privilege we sampled in theprevious section

At this turning point in Roman history roughly contemporary with thelex Corinthiensis the treaty text captures vividly the relationshipbetween Roman power and communities in the Greek East In it theLycian koinon is granted territorial economic and legal privileges theseare guaranteed by the will of Caesar himself Near the end of the treatycomes the clause of confirmation

Let the Lycians hold rule and enjoy the fruits of these under allcircumstances just as (καθώς) Gaius Caesar Imperator decidedand the senate passed a resolution and jointly confirmed(συνεπεκύρωσεν) this This is secured (πεφυλαγμένον) by thelaw of Caesar (ll 61ndash4)

This is an unambiguous view of the way Roman power underwrote theterms of such a treaty and the relationship it established and regulatedThat power introduced earlier in the text as ldquofirmrdquo ([βεβαί]ας) describesthe presupposition of the political relationship and its condition forpreservation Rome (and particularly Caesar in this case) is the authoritythe agency granting rights and privileges The treaty is not a martyria

172 Deut 79 (LXX) καὶ γνώση ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου οὗτος θεός θεός πιστός ὁφυλάσσων διαθήκην καὶ ἔλεος τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς φυλάσσουσιν τὰς ἐντολὰςαὐτοῦ εἰς χιλίας γενεάς Note the divine confirmation of the covenant and the answeringcommunal obligation to confirm its commands By contrast Paulrsquos thanksgiving stressesthe double confirmation issuing from divine charis

173 PSchoslashyen 25


text nor is it an expression of gratitude Instead it provides valuableaccess to the political moment presupposed by the conventions wewitness in the politics of thanksgiving Without the granting of such arelationship and attendant rights there would be no subsequent traffic ofembassy and thanksgiving no allocation of honors for local mediatingpatrons Yet even in the treaty text we glimpse the role played byambassadors and the preliminary contours of their local and regionalglory for it records the names of three Lycian envoys responsiblefor officially sealing the treaty with the performance of oaths andsacrifices174 All three were no doubt honored by the koinon and by theirindividual communities Among them is one Naukrates known from othersources as the kind of elite communal patron epitomized by Potamon175

Just as Caesarrsquos authority and power guaranteed this treaty relation-ship between Rome and Lycia so too the Corinthian assembly in 19depends for its existence and preservation on the divine pistisfides ofIsraelrsquos covenant God Through his agency (διrsquo οὗ) those in the ekklēsiawere ldquocalledrdquo (ἐκλήθητε) into membership and status within the newcommunity The well-known Gallio inscription which itself records aguarantee of privileges by the Emperor Claudius uses the same verb ofcalling (καλ[εῖν) to authorize the incorporation of noncitizens into thecitizen body of Delphi176 This calling as in Paulrsquos text is thoroughlypolitical that is to say it is an invitation to take up new rights and statusby joining oneself to a specific community For Paul it is a calling thatissues from the ultimate divine authority standing behind (and over) thenewly constituted assembly In his formulation the Corinthians whohave joined themselves to the assembly have done so in answer to agracious summons into political community (εἰς κοινωνίαν) a commu-nity connected by its patron and peculiar form of life together with othersuch communities founded by Paul177

Expressed by the preposition εἰς + (anarthrous) κοινωνίαν a phraseunique in the NT and rare in other contemporary texts178 the nature ofthis calling into political community is best illustrated by politicalinscriptions of the kind this chapter has connected with the structure

174 PSchoslashyen 251ndash11 73ndash8175 PSchoslashyen 25 pp 239ndash40176 SIG3 801D = FD III 4286 Cf Deissmann (1912 235ndash60) and frontispiece Oliver

(1989 108ndash10 no 31)177 1 Cor 12-σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ

ἐν παντὶ τόπω Cf 417-τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν Χριστῶ καθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάση ἐκκλησίαδιδάσκω Cf Crook (2004 175)

178 See Ogereau (2012)


and function of Paulrsquos thanksgiving This rare phrase is matched exactlyby one of the many imperial letters preserved on the archive wall atAphrodisias in which it refers to a voluntary (and temporary) politicalassociation among the communities of the koinon of Asia179

Aphrodisias along with other cities was ldquoplaced in political associationrdquo(τὸ καὶ ὑμᾶς καταστῆσαν εἰς κο[ινωνί]αν l 3) on the basis of a ldquoproperadministrative actrdquo (πολείτευμα χρηστόν ll 4ndash5) for the purpose ofoffering beneficent assistance to those communities affected by a recentearthquake in the region This text attests the formation of a non-bindingsupra-civic association for a specific (political-economic) purpose180

Despite matching the exact phrasing and supra-civic nature of the asso-ciation referred to in the Aphrodisias inscription Paulrsquos use of koinōniain 19 has even more in common with two Julio-Claudian texts that setthe abstract noun within the structures of Roman amicitia (politicalfriendship) formed by treaty181

One is PSchoslashyen 25 the Caesarian treaty with Lycia introduced ear-lier As a Roman political instrument the treaty overlaps in function withboth a colonial charter and the Jewish notion of covenant That is itestablishes and regulates in detail a political relationship between agreater and a lesser power between asymmetrical communitiesAmong the names it gives to that political relationship is κοινωνία Theopening lines of the treaty read as follows

Between the Roman people and the commune of the Lycianslet there be friendship [and alliance] and community (ll 6ndash7φιλί|[α καὶ συμμαχία κ]αὶ κοινωνία) unshaken and unaltered forall time without malicious [deceit] Let there be eternal peace(εἰρήνη) both by land and by sea between the Roman people andthe commune of the Lycians Let the Lycians observe the powerand preeminence of the Romans firmly ([βεβαί]ας) as is properin all circumstances in a manner worthy of themselves and ofthe Roman people

Κοινωνία in such a political context and in collocation with a string ofmutually interpretive terms renders the Roman notion of amicitia182

This is the kind of political relationship instituted by a Roman treaty thatdrew provincial cities and koina into privileged community with the

179 Aphrodisias amp Rome 21 (AD 243)=McCabe Aphrodisias 60180 Aphrodisias amp Rome 21 pp 134ndash5181 OCD sv amicitia182 PSchoslashyen 25 pp 185ndash9


ruling power In a second and very important bilingual text the exten-sion of such κοινωνία to ldquovery many other peoplesrdquowho experienced theldquogood faithrdquo (Gk πίστεως ἐπrsquo ἐμοῦ ἡγεμόνος Lat fidem meprincipe) of the Roman people under Augustusrsquos leadership is one of hisfinal boasts (Res Gestae 323)183 Under the Julio-Claudian principesRomersquos power was advertised as guaranteeing the good order even offoreign peoples joined to it (as subordinates) by treaty In light of theseepigraphic comparanda correlated by key terms phrases and conven-tions with Paulrsquos text we are able to grasp the political structure by whichthe apostle analogically binds divine power and faithfulness to the newlyconstituted community Such community as Hainz rightly noted iscertainly not mystical union with the Messiah184 It is rather Paulrsquos wayof expressing the character of the ekklēsia as a visible covenant commu-nity bound through its named patron to other similar assemblies andgiven expression in Roman terms familiar to those in the Greek EastKoinōnia renames the assembly and in the context of Paulrsquos thanksgiv-ing directs its members to the patron who mediates to them new statusand privileges

64 The mediation of communal privilegesin first-century communities

According to the conventions entailed in the politics of thanksgiving theprivileges mediated to a community by a patron were cited when such abenefactor was honored Moreover the reason we repeatedly see for theeffusive gratitude of communities toward such figures is explicitly tied tothe moment(s) when the patronrsquos efforts and merits result in the con-firmation by Roman magistrates of benefits formerly granted Thecommunity is obligated in such instances to return thanks to such patronsThis pattern of privilege confirmation and thanksgiving finds its fullestexpression as we have seen in the logic of the testimonial Furthermorethis ldquopolitics of munificencerdquo perpetuates an oligarchic civic ideologyand inequality the bestowal of privileges on people of widely varyingmeans and status often ldquoserved as a social political and ideologicalpalliative designed to avert social conflictrdquo185

How does Paul adopt and adapt this pattern in his political thanksgiv-ing in 1 Cor 14ndash9 What is the meaning of the key moment(s) of

183 Cooley (2009 96ndash7 255) Judge (2008 218ndash19)184 Hainz (1982 16ndash17)185 Zuiderhoek (2009 109)


confirmation toward which he directs the community Where is theacclaim due the messianic patron and his divine father And where isthe testimonial-memorial to his glory Finally what are the social andeconomic implications of the privileges and status mediated by thispatron to those called by his father into new community Is Paulrsquospolitical theology simply another version of the familiar oligarchicpolitics of munificence re-inscribing in this case colonial hierarchywithin the assembly The pattern traced in this chapter allows us toanswer these questions Within the conventions of the politics of thanks-giving remaining exegetical problems find their resolution We turn firstto the meaning of βεβαιόω in 16 8 and then to the phrase τὸ μαρτύριοντοῦ Χριστοῦ in 16

We saw in our case study exploring register and genre in Chapter 5 thatDeissmannrsquos judgment concerning the commercial-legal resonance ofβεβαιόω and cognates in Paul has been almost universally but mista-kenly (at least in our text) accepted The meaning of the verb in vv 6 and8 is not that of a terminus technicus from commercial law Its significanceis rather to be sought in the generic conventions characterizing thepolitics of thanksgiving for civic privileges secured by an ambassador-patron In such texts as Naphtali Lewis has remarked there is in the firstcentury a consistent terminology of confirmation An initial grant ofcommunal privileges is always indicated with χαρίζομαι συγχωρῶ orδίδωμι By contrast βεβαιόω together with τηρῶ and φυλάσσω alwaysexpresses ldquothe confirmation of a previous grantrdquo We see this lexicon ofconfirmation set firmly within the politics of thanksgiving and the logicof the testimonial in the well-known response of Claudius (PLond 1912AD 41) to a dual embassy from Alexandria

Jews and Alexandrian citizens were in open violent conflict and bothgroups sent envoys to Claudius with honors and requests for the pre-servation of privileges on the occasion of his accession186 His responsebears out the consistent use of the βεβαιόω for such confirmation187

Concerning (περὶ δέ) the requests which you have been anxiousto obtain from me I decide as follows All those who havebecome ephebes up to the time of my Principate I confirm andmaintain (βέβαιον διαφυλάσσω) in the possession of theAlexandrian citizenship with all the privileges and indulgencesenjoyed by the city excepting those who have contrived to

186 Recall the Flaccus crisis in the reign of Gaius Caligula187 Lewis (1999)


become ephebes by beguiling you though born of servilemothers And it is equally my will that all the other favorsshall be confirmed (βούλομαι βέβαια) which were granted(ἐχαρίσθη) to you by former princes and kings and prefectsas (ὡς καί) the deified Augustus also confirmed (ἐβεβαίωσε)them188

Here we see the language of privileges formerly granted (ἐχαρίσθηἐβεβαίωσε) and subsequently confirmed (βέβαιον διαφυλάσσωβούλομαι βέβαια) The politeia of the Alexandrians is reconstituted inits confirmation by the new princeps of the Julio-Claudian house189

These are privileges (of citizenship) that in their confirmation arestudiously reserved for those well born men born of slave mothers areexplicitly excluded Despite the popular acclamation attested by thethronging crowd gathered to hear the reading out of Claudiusrsquos letterits provisions bolster the oligarchic social structure of Alexandria190

Early in the letter Claudius grounds his beneficent confirmations in theexpressions of honor and gratitude brought to him by the envoys191 Atits conclusion we see most clearly the logic of the testimonial as theprinceps himself testifies to the merits of two of the ambassador-patronsin particular

If desisting from [this conflict] you consent to live with mutualgentleness and kindness I on my side will exercise a providenceof very long standing for the city as one which is bound to us bytraditional friendship I bear witness (μαρτυρῶι) to my friendBarbillus of the providence which he has always shown for youin my presence who also now (ὃς καὶ νῦν) with every distinc-tion has advocated your cause and likewise to my friendTiberius Claudius Archibius Farewell192

Barbillus and Archibius receive imperial testimonials for their advocacyon behalf of their city We may be sure that these two received civichonors (acclamation inscribed monuments) for their roles in theembassyrsquos success Yet not only does Claudius link the enjoyment ofcivic privileges (by the Alexandrian elite) to the merits of their patronshe conditions their continuation on the avoidance of social conflict in the

188 PLond 191252ndash9189 PLond 191233190 PLond 19121ndash11191 PLond 191214ndash51192 PLond 1912100ndash8


future The politics of thanksgiving with its logic of the testimonial ishere deployed in such a manner as to set in proper order all the consti-tuencies of the Alexandrian social hierarchy Confirmation here is apolitical lever and the mediating patrons are the fulcrum the entiremechanism functioning to reorder civic politeia And as the Prefectdeclared at the head the text the entire purpose in proclaiming andthen publishing Claudiusrsquos response to the envoys was ldquoin order that(ἵνα) [the Alexandrians] may admire (θαυμάσητε) the majesty of ourgod Caesar and feel gratitude (χάριν ἔχητε) for his goodwill towardsthe cityrdquo193

In PLond 1912 as in many of the inscribed testimonials and relatedtexts described earlier we witness the act of confirmation at its momentof proclamation The case is different in 1 Cor 16 There we hear Paulreferring to a past moment (or more likely moments) of proclamation Inhis time among the Corinthians he founded and began to build up thenew community His primary strategy according to 1 Corinthians wasthe repeated announcement and elaboration of a single theme the wordof the cross (117ndash25 21ndash5) When this proclamation of the crucifiedLord of glory (28) is related to the conventions with which he opens hisepistle we see that Paul presents his gospel as the strange political leverby which he sought to accomplish the heavy work of communitybuilding His patron (and that of the new community) is a crucifiedJew the confirmation he points to is a variation on a humiliating themeIn evoking his past proclamation among them Paul (re)presents Jesusin 14ndash9 as the one who mediates status and privileges to membersof the community That he does so in this way and in the context of1 Corinthians warrants further reflection

In the history of interpretation we saw that many have viewed Paulrsquosthanksgiving as double edged preserving a tension between genuinegratitude and subtle rebuke194 We may give new and sharper definitionto this intuition according to the conventional features present in andabsent from 14ndash9 Paulrsquos gratitude as in all his thanksgivings is directedexclusively to God Unlike his other thanksgivings however this one isgrounded in a series of clauses that threatens by its use of passive verbalforms to elide all Corinthian agency195 Significantly there is no men-tion of any Corinthian testimonial to Christ and his merits196 In the

193 PLond 19127ndash11194 Chrysostom Hom 1 Cor (PG 6117ndash22) Calvin (1948 39) Heinrici (1880 81ndash2)195 Mitchell (1991 93)196 But see 1 Cor 1416ndash17 for members offering (improper) εὐχαριστίαι in assembly

meetings


crucial hinge of v 6 where the past confirmation on the basis of (καθώς)testimony to Christ is re-asserted the Corinthians are inserted as the site(ἐν ὑμῖν) and not the agents of that confirmation We glimpse herePaulrsquos first assault by his passive construction (ἐβεβαιώθη) on the prideof those in the assembly who would boast in their own merits or those ofothers rather than in the proper object of boasting the Lord Jesus ChristThe messianic patron who connects the members of the politeia to thepower that supports them (124 311 21ndash23) has instead been eclipsedPaul intimates by some among his beneficiaries (126ndash29)Who is the agent of confirmation to be understood in 16 Unless we

construe the genitive τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ as subjective (Christrsquosown testimony) it cannot be Christ Indeed such an understanding isexcluded by the logic of the testimonial we have discovered for thepatron mediating privileges to his community is uniformly the recipientof testimonials197 We must therefore interpret the genitive as objective(testimony about Christ and his merits) Three options of agency thusremain God Paul himself or the Spirit (either internally or externally)must be understood as the one confirming Each is possible in light of theambiguity of the passive ἐβεβαιώθη and given considerations from thelarger context A decision regarding who confirmed will depend on whatprecisely was confirmed Therefore we must examine the problematicissue of the referent of τὸ μαρτύριον and the relation of v 6 to thebenefaction clauses of vv 4 and 5Naturally constraints of lexical sense must limit our search for a

plausible referent At the lexical level the neuter noun μαρτύριον has acircumscribed range of meaning that shifts perceptibly over time It isimportant at the outset to note that μαρτύριον is a distinct lemma from therelated and more common feminine noun μαρτυρία The two often over-lap and most interpreters appear to assume an equivalence of meaningwhen treating our verse But μαρτύριον although commonly having thesense of testimony or proof198 tends to appear in distinct formulae in theLXX and NT often refers in context to physical objects and by lateantiquity it comes frequently to mean a martyrrsquos shrine or monumentcommemorating an ecclesial official199 Paulrsquos choice of the word formhere in the context of v 6 and his repetition of the noun in 21 indicate a

197 Eg Iunia Theodora Barbillus and Archibius discussed earlier in this chapter198 BDAG sv μαρτύριον improves LSJ providing a definition in sense 1 (as opposed to

a gloss) that which serves as testimony or proof further classifying 1 Cor 16 under 1b as aldquostatementrdquo Fascicles of DGE have not reached the letter μ

199 Lampe sv μαρτύριον (III) Papyrological examples Papathomas (2009 13ndash14)


considered choice with implications for his argument regarding thecommunityrsquos foundation and growth200

Despite shortcomings Strathmannrsquos treatment of μαρτύριον in TDNTrightly draws attention to the legal and covenantal contexts in which theterm often occurs in the Jewish scriptures201 In the LXX it appearsrepeatedly in association with the ark of the testimony that contained theinscribed tablets of the covenant (always in the neuter plural) alwaysassociated with the tabernacle or temple202 Also occurring in contexts ofcovenant making and oath-signs the fixed phrase εἰς μαρτύριον almostalways refers to a physical object ritually associated with the covenantThese objects (eg ewe lambs [Gen 2130] a stone pillar [Gen3144ndash45] the book of the law-covenant [Deut 3126]) stand as wit-nesses reminding the parties of the terms of the covenant often with theintent of rebuking or accusing covenant breakers When the singularneuter form appears alone the oath-sign to which it refers may embodythe covenant itself (Josh 2227 Ruth 47) In such cases one couldalmost translate μαρτύριον as ldquocovenantrdquo (Is 553ndash4 Ps 785) Onewonders whether Jewish members of the Corinthian assembly familiarwith this covenantal resonance of the term (perhaps even in itsDeuteronomic form in synagogue worship) would have heard the cove-nantal echo in Paulrsquos formulation in 1 Cor 16203 In light of its uses in theJewish scriptures it is possible that it struck them as the confirmation of adivine covenant instituted by Christ founding and structuring theκοινωνία as a local site of messianic covenant community

In NT usage the Gospels Hebrews and James carry over the scrip-tural formula εἰς μαρτύριον with its familiar LXX meaning204 But thecorpus Paulinum contains a deviation from this formula and among theHauptbriefe the bare neuter singular μαρτύριον occurs only three timesall in the Corinthian correspondence each with a distinctive qualifyinggenitive phrase205 In 2 Cor 112 Paul speaks of the inward testimony ofhis conscience (τὸ μαρτύριον τῆς συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν) as the basis of hisboasting At 1 Cor 21 he insists on the humiliating character of hisproclamation of the μαρτύριον τοῦ θεοῦ when he was among them to

200 See the Excursus to this chapter for a new defense of the reading μαρτύριον at 21201 TDNT vol 4 sv μάρτυς κτλ 485ndash6 Cf Muraoka sv μαρτύριον202 Eg Ex 2516 καὶ ἐμβαλεῖς εἰς τὴν κιβωτὸν τὰ μαρτύρια203 Furnish (1999 35) tentatively suggests ldquoa community of the lsquonew covenantrsquo estab-

lished in Christrdquo204 TDNT vol 4 sv μάρτυς κτλ 502ndash4205 See also 2 Thess 110 (τὸ μαρτύριον ἡμῶν) 1 Tim 26 (τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις)

2 Tim 18 (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν)


stress its spiritual origin power and condition of reception As we sawearly in this chapter it is this instance of the same rare Pauline term in 21that is frequently appealed to by interpreters who would understand theμαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 16 as a locution for the gospel (κήρυγμα)206

On the principle of proximate usage 21 is certainly critical for theinterpretation of μαρτύριον in 16 yet even if we grant for the momentthat in 21 it means ldquotestimonyrdquo and refers strictly to ldquoverbal proclama-tionrdquo two facts caution against a strict equivalence between the occur-rences in 21 and 16 First the qualifying genitive phrases are distinct In21 Paul speaks of the μαρτύριον τοῦ θεοῦ To be sure this involvesaccording to 22 the announcement and interpretation of Christ crucifiedBut its alteration from the τοῦΧριστοῦ of 16 is an important nuance andcertainly more than mere variatio Second although both contexts speakof the past time when Paul was among the Corinthians the kerygmaticcontext is far more explicit in 1 Cor 2 In 16 it must be inferred from theἐν παντὶ λόγω καὶ πάση γνώσει of v 5 We return shortly to the καθώςthat links vv 5 and 6 to test this inference within the flow of PaulrsquosdiscourseWhen we turn to extra-biblical texts a survey of the uses of μαρτύριον

yields several that connect with the proclaimed and monumentallyinscribed testimonials we examined earlier Plato (Leg 12943c) proposesa wreath of olive leaves that together with an inscription would begranted to meritorious soldiers to be hung by them in the temple oftheir choice as a μαρτύριον (γράψαντα ἀναθεῖναι μαρτύριον) Theinscription would reflect any evidence or verbal testimonials (μήτετεκμήριον μήτε μαρτύρων) produced on the soldierrsquos behalf DioChrysostom (Troj [Or 11] 121ndash2) in his discourse on the Trojan Warrefers to a large and beautiful offering to Athena bearing an inscription(ἀνάθημα κάλλιστον καὶ μέγιστον τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ ἐπιγράψειν) the exis-tence of which stood against the Greeks as a μαρτύριον to their defeat(καθrsquo ἑαυτῶν δὲ γίγνεσθαι μαρτύριον ὡς ἡττημένων) Pausanias (127)speaks of an olive tree sacred to Athena that instantly regenerated on theday the Persians burned Athens it thus became a μαρτύριον establishedby the goddess reminding the Athenians of her agōn for them (τῇ θεῷμαρτύριον γενέσθαι τοῦτο ἐς τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ χώρᾳ) DionysiusHalicarnassus (322) writes of two monuments to Horatius one a mem-orial (μνημεῖον) called the ldquosisterrsquos beamrdquo the other the pila Horatia aknee-high pillar (γωνιαία στύλις) set in a corner of the Forum as a braverymemorial (μάχηνμαρτύριον) In each of these examples we see a

206 Chrysostom Hom 1 Cor (PG 6117) Lightfoot (1980 148) Fee (1987 40)


μαρτύριον set as a physical often inscribed or iconographic memorialwith a testimonial function in a civic context Each also plays a role in themaintenance of civic memory and virtue in its respective communityalternately bolstering and accusing community members according totheir personal conformity to the virtues the μαρτύριον exemplifies207 Assuch these uses of μαρτύριον come very near to many of those we see incovenantal contexts in the LXX suggesting the term could have thisconnotation for Greeks Romans and Jews alike

How does the lexical and referential range of μαρτύριον observed herejoin with the logic of the testimonial to help us decide the referent of theterm in 1 Cor 16 The best comparanda both from the LXX (oath-sign)and political texts (inscribed monument) suggest a testimonial to themerits of Christ originally proclaimed at Corinth that becomes fixed insymbolic or physical form to anchor the identity of the new community inrelation to its patron and the privileges he has mediated At this pointwe may venture a paraphrase of v 6 just as the testimonial-memorial toChrist and his merits was confirmed among you The referent ofμαρτύριον as reflected in this paraphrase is Paulrsquos verbal testimonythat in and after its initial proclamation is somehow fixed within thecommunity such that it serves as the focal point of its politeia It is a wordfocused on the crucified Messiah as suggested by the link to μαρτύριονin 21 a word that cries out to be inscribed and set with due acclamationand glory within a monumental structure in the center of the newcommunity208 We will see in the following chapter just how Paul thearchitect envisions this display of the politics of thanksgiving in the newcommunity temple

If 21 helps us link the μαρτύριονwith Paulrsquos cruciform κήρυγμα then24ff corroborates what others have suggested namely that the Spirittoo is at work in the confirmation of Paulrsquos thanksgiving209 In theextended reason Paul gives (οὐ γάρ κἀγῶ καί 22ndash4) for hisavoiding preeminence of speech in proclaiming the μαρτύριον ofGod (21) he attributes the power of his proclamation to the Spirit(ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως 24) Lexical and rhetoricalsimilarities between 21ndash4 and 14ndash6 suggest the presence of the Spiritin the latter as well as the former In such a reading of v 6 we ought to

207 Cf Res Gestae 342 where Augustus claims that the senatorial decree set up in thecuria Iuliae ldquotestifies to me (ἐμοὶ μαρτυρεῖ) through its inscription (διὰ τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς)rdquo

208 Cf MacRae (1982 173ndash4)209 Weiss (1910 8) Calvin (1948 40ndash1) Thiselton (2000 94)


understand the divine Spirit setting his sealing power on the confirmationof the word of the cross preached by Paul among them210

Our understanding of the agency behind the confirmation of 16 asthe Pauline word empowered by the divine Spirit is strengthened by aconsideration of the καθώς linking vv 5 and 6 The conventions ofconfirmation in the texts we have examined in this chapter show thatconjunctions such as καθώς signal the norming ground of a confirma-tion or extension of privileges We saw this expressed in the Claudianconfirmation of privileges to Alexandria in the clause ldquojust as thedeified Augustus also confirmed them (ὡς καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Σεβαστὸςἐβεβαίωσε)rdquo211 Claudiusrsquos use of ὡς καί here is formally and func-tionally equivalent to καθώς comparing his act of confirmation to thatof Augustus before him But the comparison is also the ground thelatter confirmation is made not only in the same manner but also on thebasis (example) of the prior Augustan confirmation Paulrsquos use ofκαθώς functions similarly in the flow of 1 Cor 14ndash6 providing thecomparative ground lying at the foundation of the string of causalclauses elaborating the basis for Paulrsquos thanksgiving212 The followinginterpretive paraphrase of these verses illustrates this understanding ofthe discourse flow

I offer thanks to my God always about you My gratitude isexpressed on the basis of (ἐπί) the benefaction of God whichwas granted to you in Christ Jesus that is because (ὅτι) in everyway you were enriched through (ἐν) him particularly by meansof (ἐν) every word and all knowledge testifying to him Thisoverflowing benefaction came to you in conformity with(καθώς) the testimonial-memorial to Christ and his merits con-firmed among you by the Spirit working through my word ofthe cross

This rephrasing attempts to unfold the compressed syntax so often notedby interpreters and to clarify the relations among gratitude benefactionpatron and confirmation in the first half of Paulrsquos political thanksgivingThe confirmation of the μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ in v 6 stands in thisinterpretation as the crux of Paulrsquos entire expression of gratitude213 By

210 The connection of Paulrsquos word and the Spirit 310ndash16 (and Chapter 7) For theSpiritrsquos vital connection to new covenant ministry see 2 Cor 33 6 8 17ndash18

211 See also Josephus Ant 16162ndash3 PSchoslashyen 2561ndash2212 BDAG sv καθώς (3)213 Schubert (1939 31) MacRae (1982 173)


penetrating the successive layers of divine grace on which his thanksgiv-ing is based ndash from benefaction in Christ specified in terms of enrich-ment word and knowledge ndash Paul uncovers in v 6 the ultimateexperiential basis on which such grace stands and the norm by whichits reality and manifestations are to be evaluated214 Every aspect ofGodrsquos overflowing benefaction that the Corinthians experienced whenPaul was among them he contends derives from and is grasped byreference to his divinely empowered testimonial to Christ crucified Inthis unveiling of the norming nexus of grace and gratitude in v 6 Paulrsquosformulation performs multiple functions Its language (particularly theuse of μαρτύριον) provokes the expectation that the Pauline κήρυγμαwillhave been established by their patron-Lord himself inscribed within thecommunityrsquos consciousness and experience in such a way that it willcontinue to exercise a structuring role

Paul proceeds in following chapters to emphasize that the commu-nityrsquos privileges will be preserved to the degree that its members faith-fully embrace the form of his testimonial This becomes explicit in theconsecutivepurpose clause (ὥστε) of vv 7ndash8 linking the assurance ofcontinued privileges (ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι) to thepast shape of the divine confirmation of his message215 With thispurpose clause Paul suspends until later in his discourse the focus oncommunal rights and privileges that his terminology leads one to expect(cf 130 611) Instead in v 7 he emphasizes the ethical orientation (ieblamelessness) of the divinely constituted assembly and predicates theoutcome of communal life on divine confirmation of Paulrsquos words abouthim in v 6 In this respect the repetition of the verb of confirmation inv 8 this time in the future tense (βεβαιώσει) stresses the vital promiseguaranteeing the eschatologically privileged status of those in the com-munity and presses rhetorically toward the ultimate ground of v 9 Paulrsquosarticulation of this double confirmation works to situate the Corinthiansto whom he writes in the space between The implication is that they havedeviated from the Pauline testimonial and by doing so have descendedinto faction failing in word and deed to return the gratitude and glory towhich the divine benefaction obligates them If Paulrsquos thanksgivingsuggests they re-inhabit the space opened by confirmation (past andfuture) of that testimonial to the work of their communal patron they

214 Weiss (1910 8)215 Cf such purpose clauses in the political inscriptions eg SEG 33671 (Cos III BC)

εἰς τὸ μηδενὸ[ς τῶν χρη]σίμων | [καθυ]στερεῖν τὰμ πόλιν cf IGR IV 29321=IPriene11021 (Pergamum 75ndash50 BC) ἐπεί μηδενὸς αὐτὸν ὑστερεῖν


would join in expressing gratitude would properly grasp their privilegesand would move toward the peace and purity becoming their politeia216

We must now give a brief account of the privileges mediated by thehumiliated messianic patron In the thanksgiving period those benefitssecured for the community by Christ are spoken of primarily in theallusive elevated language of the benefaction inscriptions217 It is notuntil later in the epistle that Paul more specifically elaborates the divineprivileges and status won for members of the assembly by Christ Hedoes so by returning to the language of calling in 126ndash30218 and bypressing its disorienting effect on the status expectations of those in thenew community219 Paul challenges colonial markers of status and pri-vilege and the oligarchic ideology in which they are embedded byinsisting in v 30 on the democratic attribution of Christrsquos merits tothose in the community Christ Jesus who has become for us (ἥμιν)wisdom from God righteousness and holiness and redemption Byexpanding the compressed testimonial to Christ contained in 16 intothe fuller statement of 130 Paul aims at the same goal toward which hispolitical thanksgiving is oriented namely a rebuke of pride and arecalibration of glory and honor through the communityrsquos divine patron(see 131) Another forceful statement of privileges this time aimed justas much at preserving purity as unity surfaces in 611 after a threateningreminder of the ethical conditions disqualifying from inheritance in thecommunity (here cast eschatologically as part of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ)Paul connects the privileges won by Christ to the power of the divineSpirit ldquoAnd these things some of you were but you were washed butyou were made holy but you were justified in the name of the lord JesusChrist and in the Spirit of our Godrdquo220

These privileges mediated to the community through Christ and theSpirit were and are announced by the divinely confirmed Pauline testi-monial to the crucified Jesus To the degree that the community clings tothat founding word at its communal center it will structure and augment

216 Cf Rom 158 where Paul employs βεβαιόω in another context of covenant con-firmation correlated with communal unity and divine glory

217 ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶχαρίσματι

218 κλῆσις ἐκλέγομαι219 Martin (1999)220 Weiss (1897 189) downplays the word choice and content of the aurally resonant

threefold repetitions in 130 and 611 but seeWeiss (1910 40ndash3) Even if he overreacts to adogmatic tendency to parse each term theologically Weiss allows for a reading in whichPaul and the first recipients understood these words as an overflowing litany of divineprivileges on their behalf


its politeia for the praise and honor of its patron and his divine fatherThus in 18 Paul describes the communal telos of the Corinthian assem-bly in terms of its blamelessness (ἔως τέλους ἀνεγκλήτους) a privilegedstatus guaranteed by a firm promise

65 Promise and the confirmation of privilegesin community

When we turn to the promise inscribed in v 8 we come to the finalexegetical problem noted at the outset of the chapter that is the referentof the relative pronoun ὅς In the history of interpretation we sawperennial division over whether to understand God (14) or Christ (17)as the antecedent Almost all have acknowledged that the weight ofgrammar and syntax lies with the latter but many have insisted on Godas the logical subject of the confirmation in v 8 To grammatical neces-sity and Weissrsquos perceptive aural argument for Christ221 we may nowadd the weight of political conventions of thanksgivings and testimo-nials The proper antecedent of ὅς is indeed Christ When a community isconfirmed in its rights or privileges the confirmation is declared by theruling power and mediated through the ambassador-patron This conven-tion brings an external control to the debate over the referent of ὅς in 18allowing us to refine the exegetical intuitions of previous scholars In thepolitics of thanksgiving it is Christ who mediates the privileges grantedby his father to the community and who will therefore secure their futureconfirmation As the patron of the Corinthian assembly itself a politicalmember of the κοινωνία called by his name Christ will secure itsstanding from the time of its foundation to the day he appears as theiradvocate (17ndash8) presenting them to his father (cf 1524)

In political documents of this type it is noteworthy that such declara-tions of confirmation never occur in the future indicative the formwe seein 1 Cor 18 (βεβαιώσει) Rather as we have seen in the case of PLond1912 when confirmations are communicated from above (ie Claudiusto Alexandria) there is a strong element of conditionality (ldquoIf [ἐάν]desisting from these conflicts rdquo ll 100ndash1) Thus first-century com-munities had to contend repeatedly for the renewal of such confirmationsand faced the real possibility of their revocation222 By contrast in Paulrsquosconfiguration no conditionality is attached to the future (indicative)confirmation with respect to the community as a whole There is

221 Weiss (1910 11) ldquono reader or listener can refer the ὅς all the way back to v 4rdquo222 Tacitus Ann 360ndash3


however in later sections of the epistle the possibility of exclusion andloss of status within the new community In such cases as it appears in1 Cor 51ndash13 the one exiled from the covenant community would be cutoff from the benefits mediated by its patronFurthermore the promise of confirmation in v 8 is undergirded by the

divine oath-formula of v 9 Anacolouthon barely conceals an elided γάρthat grounds the promise of blameless preservation and along with it theentire thanksgiving in 14ndash9 The only other appearance of this oath-formula in the letter illustrates and applies its function in 19 In the midstof his counsel about food offered to idols (101ndash22) Paul concludes hisparadigmatic application of Israelrsquos wilderness temptation and judgmentwith a promise ldquoGod is faithful (πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός) and he will not allowyou be tempted beyond what you are able but will make together withthe temptation even a way of escape to enable you to endurerdquo (1013)The promise of 18 supported by the oath of 19 performatively con-stitutes this new political community (κοινωνία) in its ethical form of life(politeia) right from the start of the epistle Before he moves to explicitrebuke strong warnings curses and commands Paul begins with athanksgiving deployed to reconstitute the community in its politics andethics Yet in the flow of the discourse neither the ethical (18) nor thepolitical (19) is the overarching rhetorical object of the textual unitInstead it is the expression of thanks communicated by 14 that is thedecisive focus Gratitude is the rhetorical focus aiming to reverse prideand schism Paulrsquos thanksgiving is designed to operate reflexivelyembracing both unity and purity even as it urgently exemplifies an ultimaof divine glory223

66 Conclusion

Our concern in this chapter has been to use the Corinthian constitution toopen a category within which to interpret Paulrsquos thanksgiving Civicpatronage has provided such a category one that with its conventionsof gratitude benefaction testimonial and glory enables us to read 1 Cor14ndash9 afresh between the poles of constitution and covenantThis pattern accounts for common features as well as the outstanding

problemswe observed in the history of interpretationMost scholars haveconcurred with Chrysostom that in 1 Cor 14ndash9 we encounter a carefullycomposed thanksgiving period with multiple rhetorical functions It is agenuine expression of gratitude directed toward God recalling to the

223 Boobyer (1929 73ndash84) Cf 2 Cor 415 Rom 155ndash6


Corinthian assembly the overflow of divine grace in Christ subtly yetpointedly accusing (at least some among) the community of losing sightof the specific form of life entailed by those gifts Schubertrsquos studysuggested an epigraphical sub-genre by which to understand this parti-cular Pauline thanksgiving But his suggestion languished as scholarsturned instead to papyrological and Jewish comparanda At least fromthe time of OrsquoBrien interpreters have agreed that Paulrsquos thanksgivingsintroduce important themes that reappear in the letter body Our survey ofscholarship left us with an open line of investigation into the politicalinscriptions an unresolved tension between Jewish and Hellenistic reso-nances (especially related to 19) and five specific problems of exege-tical detail

We then turned to an examination of a specific pattern of politeiasignaled by the political discourse Paul employs in his choice of keyterms and arrangement of phrases The text pointed to by Schubert (OGIS456) led us to a cluster of inscribed testimonials related to an importantmonument honoring Potamon of Mytilene an ambassador-patron whosecured civic privileges for his community This pattern of patronageconfirmation of privileges and gratitude ndash described as the politics ofthanksgiving centered on the logic of the testimonial ndash was shown to fitnot only within communities of the Greek East but also at Roman Corinthand in the experience of diaspora Jews Important studies by Rowe andZuiderhoek demonstrated that the conventions entailed by this patternwere crucial for the definition of civic identity and the perpetuation ofoligarchy and concord

Our exegesis of Paulrsquos text in light of this conventional patternemphasized three concepts (politeia privilege promise) that embracethe five exegetical problems isolated by our history of interpretation Inconnecting the Corinthian politeia to divine power (19) Paul givesfurther definition to the structure and obligations of the community byhis use of the phrase εἰς κοινωνίαν He defines the ekklēsia and its form oflife in relation to its patron Jesus Christ the divine Son This relation isfounded on the divine oath assuring the power and loyalty of theirpatronrsquos father By grounding the Corinthian democratic enjoyment ofdivine favor and privileges in the work and merits of Christ (14ndash5)Paulrsquos double confirmation situates its politeia in the tension between pastproclamation (16) and future representation (18) The apostle indicatesby his use of the phrase μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ that his original testi-monial in the word of the cross empowered by the divine Spirit isintended to perdure standing as a covenant-memorial to the glory of theMessiah in their midst The purpose for which this testimonial was


confirmed is described in explicitly ethical terms (17ndash8)224 In its ethicalorientation the newly constitutedcovenanted politeia receives directionand assurance in the form of a promise Their patron the crucified onewill confirm them in blamelessness to the end So secure is this promisefor Paul that he grounds it in the treaty-oath formula intelligible to JewsGreeks and Romans of divine faithfulness (19)On this interpretation of 1 Cor 14ndash9 Paul is an attentive political

theologian employing constitutional categories and social conventionsto open his epistle with a pointed expression of gratitude225 The apostleof the cross adapts covenantal discourse to the mixed ethnic assemblyresident in Roman Corinth in a way that challenges its conceptions ofpatronage loyalty and glory In so doing he crafts a rhetorical constitu-tion that responds to conflict arising from notions of politics and ethicsthat are consonant neither with the basis of the communityrsquos foundationnor with its eschatological orientation226 Where we might ask as weconclude this chapter does Paul place himself in the constituted struc-ture of this new politeia at Corinth How does he unfold in the letterbody the themes related to his original testimonial to Christrsquos meritsamong them Where might that testimonial be inscribed Is there amonument that being structured by Paulrsquos messianic testimonialmight rise in the midst of the new community to the glory of Christand his father As others have noted Paulrsquos thanksgiving lays out manythemes taken up again in 1 Cor 35ndash45 and it is there we focus ourattention in the next chapter to comprehend the apostolic vision ofcommunity construction227

Excursus μαρτύριον and the text of 1 Corinthians 21

In this chapter we assumed that the text of 1 Cor 21 originally includedthe phrase τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ θεοῦ While the argument can stand without

224 This interpretation goes beyond the unifying theme noted by Mitchell (1991 194ndash7)by noting Paulrsquos adaptation of the oligarchic features of elite political discourse and byemphasizing the centrality of ethical purity in the purpose clause of 17ndash8 Ciampa andRosner (2006)

225 Cf Wuellner (1986 54 61)226 White (1984 193ndash4) ldquothe text creates the language it holds out for admiration and

for use [but] not out of nothing [He] starts with the possibilities established by theordinary language of his time and then reconstitutes their common language making anew version of it that promises a new organization of the worldrdquo (referring to EdmundBurkersquos Reflections on the Revolution in France)

227 Mitchell (1991 107ndash11 195 217)


such a reading in 21 its presence there strengthens some of our claims Afull defense of this reading runs outside our scope of inquiry but theproblem of the textual variant in 21 requires a brief treatment This is allthe more so because modern editions of the Greek New Testament havein the past half century unanimously (though narrowly) preferred thereading τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ228

This textual variant has proven intractable with commentators lin-ing up behind both readings229 Because most interpreters deem theexternal (manuscript) evidence to be indecisive arguments nearlyalways turn on so-called internal evidence In fact four intertwinedissues bear on this particular problem the weight and alignmentof the manuscripts the plausibility of hypotheses regarding scribalpractice the lexical difference between μαρτύριον and μυστήριονand the flow and context of Paulrsquos argument230 J Kloharsquos studytakes all of these factors into account For the first time Kloha hasundertaken a comprehensive investigation of the textual problems of1 Corinthians by rigorously applying the method of ldquothoroughgoingeclecticismrdquo231 His work builds on that of Zuntz232 (and supports theclaims of Fee233) and in offering counterarguments to Schrage234 and

228 Notably all major editions since the discovery ofP46 UBS3 (1975) C rating UBS4

(1993) B rating NA 25ndash28 Stephanus who printed μαρτύριον in his Textus Receptus(1550) was of course working without knowledge of א andP46 Tregelles (TNT2 Paulineepistles 1869) and von Tischendorf (Novum Testamentum Graece Editio Octava CriticaMaior vol II 1872) with knowledge of א both preferred μαρτύριον Westcott-Hort (TheNew Testament in the Original Greek 1881) printed μυστήριον with μαρτύριον in theapparatus Von Soden (Die Schriften des neuen Testaments Bd 4 1902ndash13) printsμαρτύριον

229 The most recent review of scholarship is Koperski (2002) See also Welborn (2005185 n494) Gladd (2009 123ndash6) Both favor internal arguments for reading μυστήριονGladd appears unaware of the important 2006 thesis by Kloha

230 Few give equal consideration to these issues preferring instead to list the witnessesin the apparatus of a recent critical edition and then to proceed to an argument from contextthat supports their reading of 1 Corinthians

231 Kloharsquos method increasingly employed in text critical studies involves collatingand analyzing the evidence of individual manuscripts and editions Those relevant to 21may be seen in his appendix (ldquoTextual Apparatus of 1 Corinthiansrdquo) Kloha (2006 757ndash8)

232 Zuntz (1953 esp 101ndash2)233 Fee (1987 88 n1)234 Schrage (1991 226) argues for an original μυστήριον on the basis of the fact that

martyrion is not often confused with μυστήριον elsewhere in the NT where the former termoccurs to the reasoned response in Kloha (2006 44) we may add the consideration notedin this chapter that many of the NT usages of μαρτύριον appear in the formulaic phrasetaken over from the LXX εἰς μαρτύριον and would not easily therefore invite the kind of


Thiselton235 provides the strongest support to date for the readingμαρτύριον Before examining Kloharsquos reasoning and conclusions wemust contextualize his arguments by revisiting the manuscriptevidenceTo begin with it is important to note what is actually in the text of two

important manuscripts discovered in modern times namely א and P46that have figured prominently if not always clearly in establishing thetext Published just as scholars were beginning to produce critical edi-tions of the Greek New Testament Codex א attests both readings at 1 Cor21236 The main text attributed to scribe A א) in the critical apparatus)readsΜΥCΤΗΡΙΟΝ with the final two letters trailing onto a new line237

Just above the second third and fifth letters a later corrector has addedin slightly reddish ink the letters ΑΡ Υ to indicate his awareness of analternate (preferred) reading μαρτύριον238 The corrector known as Ca

2א) in the critical apparatus) is usually dated to ldquoaround the seventhcenturyrdquo This means that the first reading in א μυστήριον comes on thetraditional dating from the fourth century the correction to μαρτύριον isonly introduced several centuries later Without further study either intothe patterns of scribal habits or the reconstruction of the Vorlagen usedby either A or Ca it is difficult to say much more than this μυστήριονenjoys the earlier reading in א (in which the so-called Alexandrian text-type is strongly attested) but a later scribe carefully preserved the read-ing μαρτύριον239 When we come to P46 we find the papyrus slightlytorn so that several letters of our word in 1 Cor 21 are obliterated240Wemay nevertheless go slightly beyond earlier claims and secure the

variation seen in 1 Cor 21 This weakens Schragersquos minor objection to the readingμαρτύριον

235 Thiselton (2000 207ndash8)236 Von Tischendorf first published the NT text of א in 1869 1 Cor 21 appears in the

lower third of the second column on folio 268 The British Library has now made high-quality digital images of the codex freely available online for the reader to consult httpcodexsinaiticusorgenmanuscriptaspx (accessed November 27 2012)

237 Scribe A was responsible for much of the Pauline text Jongkind (2007 202ndash21)238 For correctors and the difficulty in detecting hands with certainty see Jongkind

(2007 9ndash18)239 It does not appear that the pattern (if any is discernible) of such preserved dual

readings in Paul by the hand of Ca has been analyzed240 Folio 39 recto ofP46 containing 1 Cor 21 is held by the Chester Beatty Library in

Dublin See Kenyon (1936) pages indicated follow the folio numbering of Kenyon ratherthan those marked on the Chester Beatty MS leaves Digital images of P46 recently madefreely available by the Chester Beatty Library and the Center for the Study of NewTestament Manuscripts available at httpwwwcsntmorgManuscriptViewGA_P46(accessed December 9 2013)


reading of the text on the basis of autopsy241 Although NA 28 andprevious editions mark the citation with the siglumP46vid (= ut videtur)242

in the apparatus there is no doubt that the text reads μυστήριον243 Giventhe traditional date ofP46 (c AD 200) this is the earliest secure attestationof the reading μυστήριον again in an ldquoAlexandrianrdquo text244What is moredespite claims to the contrary there is very little chance of a scribal errorldquoof hand or eyerdquo having caused the variant 21 at least on the modelsprovided by the codicological features of א and P46245 Neither can weenvision a scenario in which such an error fits readily into what Colwellcalled ldquoharmonization to the immediate contextrdquo246 We are faced with the

241 I examined several P46 folios of 1 Corinthians held in Dublin on January 31 2012I thank Celine Ward reference librarian at the Chester Beatty Library for her assistance

242 Ut videtur according to the Introduction of NA 28 ldquoindicates that the readingattested by a witness cannot be determined with absolute certainty The sign vid alwaysindicates a high degree of probability usually based on some surviving letters or parts oflettersrdquo

243 Folio 39r (=οζp 77) Because of damage or perhaps trimming by a dealer folio 39preserves only one of two holes by which the leaves were sewn together to form the codexThe broken text in question appears at the beginning of line 25 of the verso As on the versoof other folios the papyrus darkens and becomes slightly more difficult to read on thebottom third of the leaf until finally the readerrsquos eye reaches a tear that angles in (to theright) and downward from the outer left margin This tear obliterates parts of the final twolines of visible text In light of where the text resumes at the top of the next page we knowthat there were yet two more lines now completely missing at the bottom of page 77resulting in a total of 27 lines of text What remains of our word are the letters ṬΗΡΙΟΝ thelong upper cross-bar of the tau extending to the right from the torn edge the base of thetaursquos down-stroke just visible To the right of these traces of the tau is an unmistakable ētaalthough somewhat squat in form similar to that used elsewhere Comfort (1990 139 230)noted the clarity of the ēta from photographs Kloha (2006 758 n6) offers the same readingconfirmed here (including the underdotted tau)

244 For an overview of the Pauline textual tradition see Jongkind (2007) cf Royse(2008 199ndash201) Recent challenges to the dating of NT papyri include Barker (2011)

245 In א theΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΟΝ of 16 is midway down the third column of f267b on the left-hand facing page from 21 The ΜΥCΤΗΡΙΩ of 27 is midway down the third column off268 The distance of these surrounding verses from 21 is even more pronounced in thesmaller codex format ofP46 where 16 comes near the top of f38r (=p 75 a full two pagesincluding a page turn before 21) and 27 appears midway down f40v (=p 78 on the right-hand facing page to 21) While these observations reveal nothing about the physicalfeatures of the Vorlagen employed by the scribes of these codices they emphasize theconclusion of Fee (1987 88 n1) that a ldquomechanicalrdquo slip is an untenable hypothesis in thiscase See also Kloha (2006 44ndash6) contra Koperski (2002 312) who allows forparablepsis

246 Colwell (1969 106ndash24) speaking strictly of singular readings Our problemapproximates what Colwell called ldquogeneralrdquo or ldquological harmonizationrdquo Zuntz (1953101) calls it ldquoassimilationrdquo (to 27)


fact that in two important and well-known early witnesses discovered inmodern times the text of 1 Cor 21 definitely reads μυστήριονWhy then in light of these two prominent witnesses would some still

favor the reading μαρτύριον One important reason is the number andstrength of the manuscripts that preserve the reading247 The strength ofthe external attestation for μαρτύριον is often overlooked This is demon-strated by the fact that at 21 although א andP46 agree with one anotherthey are opposed by inter alia B D F G and 1739 This is in fact aweighty combination of witnesses but one that is difficult to perceivebecause of the split with the two more famous manuscripts248 Zuntz wasthe first to linger over the significance of this tangle of witnesses admit-ting that 21 presents a ldquodifficult textual problemrdquo249 Most importantlythis configuration of important ldquoWesternrdquo and ldquoAlexandrianrdquo witnessesimplies the possibility that the early representatives of the latter (such asא and P46) may preserve a reading that is not original250 Weightymanuscripts each exhibiting its own peculiar features related to scribalhabits line up on both sides of the question allowing us to see plainly justhow difficult the external evidence is to interpret But despite thepsychological weight of א and P46 the constellation of opposing wit-nesses favors the reading μαρτύριον as original D Jongkind provides themost recent summary of views when he writes ldquoThe external attestation

247 Kloha (2006 758) notes the existence of 558 mss in support of τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦθεοῦ as opposed to 26 mss with the reading τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ He cites the figuresgiven in Aland et al (1991) Μαρτύριον like μυστήριον enjoys early and strong support(eg Codex Vaticanus [B] c fourth century) though not as early asP46 (if the traditionaldate of c AD 200 holds)

248 B Nongbri notes that when D F and G agree there is the strong possibility thereading lies behind the early fourth-century Graeco-Latin textual tradition This is anargument first advanced by Corssen (1887) recently supported by Royse (2008 179)I thank Dr Nongbri for this insight and these references

249 Zuntz (1953 101ndash2) See Zuntzrsquos conclusions 158ndash9 on the relative weight hethinks the critic should accord to P46 in its shifting alliances with other witnessesCf Royse (2008 204) See also the preliminary analysis of Kenyon (1936 xvndashxvii)

250 Zuntz (1953 101ndash2) decides that μαρτύριον is more likely to be original in 21 andlinks the problem there with the variant tou theou in 16 He notes that ldquo[i]f this analysis ofan admittedly difficult textual problem is correct the reading of (D) F G which B supports(and P46 opposes) is wrong in 16 and correct in 21 The intrinsic arguments for thisconclusion are strengthened by the bilingual manuscripts having much wider support at thelatter placerdquo In other words similar oppositions of these important witnesses may inclinein different directions in different contexts and are quite difficult to untangle Cf theconclusions on the scribal practice and error rates (related to singular readings) in P46Cf Royse (2008 357ndash8)


is stronger for [μαρτύριον] but many believe that the use of ldquomysteryrdquofits better with the following versesrdquo251 As we shall see it is quiteprobable that some early scribes agreed and on such a judgment intro-duced the variant μυστήριον

In surveying some of the manuscript data we have come to see that thechallenges of interpreting the relationships among the external witnessesinevitably leads us along with most commentators to a consideration ofother factors including plausible hypotheses regarding scribal practice(ie what scenarios of conscious or unconscious variation are allowedfor by codicology and scribal patterns) and internal evidence (ie whichreading better suits the epistolary context and flow of argument) Buthaving laid out the lines of external evidence we are now in a betterposition to summarize the arguments of Kloha in favor of μαρτύριον andto appreciate their cogency We recall that Kloha is the first to collate andanalyze the widest possible data set relevant to the text of 1 CorinthiansThis method grants him a more global view of the evidence for eachspecific textual problem as well as a keen sense of the patterns (if any)that important manuscripts (and their scribes) exhibit in connection withthis particular Pauline letter

Kloha offers two compelling reasons one lexical and one related toscribal habits that support the reading μαρτύριον by accounting for theavailable data and by countering the most common arguments in favorof the variant μυστήριον First he suggests that the semantics of bothterms and particularly of μαρτύριον are more likely than ldquomechanicalalterationrdquo as a motive for textual variation252 Even the textuallysecure use of μαρτύριον at 16 caused difficulty for a handful of laterscribes to whom the term apparently was opaque or ambiguous theysubstituted κήρυγμα a term more straightforward in late antiquitywhen a μαρτύριον had come overwhelmingly to mean a martyrrsquosshrine253 At 21 other scribes similarly substituted εὐαγγέλιον and(in one instance) σωτήριον254 If μυστήριον a term with strong earlyattestation in the sense of ldquothe content of Christian teachingrdquo wereoriginal in 21 it becomes difficult to account for these substitutionsThis turns on its head the logic of those who argue that μυστήριονwas aterm too difficult to reconcile to the near context (Gladd)255 or with

251 Jongkind (2007 228) earlier Metzger (1994 480)252 Kloha (2006 44)253 Kloha (2006 46 728) 3 mss See our discussion of the lexical semantics of

μαρτύριον in this chapter254 Kloha (2006 46 758) 5 late mss and Theodotian255 Gladd (2009 125)


undesirable pagan connotations (Thiselton)256 and would thereforehave been replaced by μαρτύριον As Kloha concludes ldquoFar fromhaving difficulty with μυστήριον early Christian writers have adoptedthe term and even transformed itrdquo257 In view of the lexical semanticsof both terms it is much more plausible that μαρτύριον would bereplaced by μυστήριον than vice versaIn leading to his second main consideration pertaining to scribal

habits Kloha summarizes the two factors that in his view contributedto the corruption whereby μυστήριον was introduced into the textualtradition On the one hand μυστήριον very early became a common termfor the proclamation or content of the Christian message whileμαρτύριον much rarer from the outset in Paul became even moredifficult to understand Conversely there may have been a scribal moti-vation to link 21 more closely with the following section in 26ndash16where μυστήριον (27) figures importantly in Paulrsquos argument regardingspiritual wisdom and revelation It is this latter consideration in particularthat prompts Kloha to state ldquoSuch scribal activity is certainly morethan copying However similar efforts to bring similar passages intocongruence can be found in the same manuscripts in other places mostobviously in 24rdquo258

Kloharsquos proposal is not completely novel but its force is profoundgiven the data set he has compiled for the text of 1 Corinthians In linewith earlier scholars such as Zuntz and Fee our scrutiny of the scribaland codicological features of א and P46 demonstrated the impossibilityof so-called mechanical error behind the variant at 1 Cor 21 In fact anykind of unconscious error while possible is highly unlikely Instead theμαρτύριονμυστήριον variant at 21 almost certainly arises from a con-scious error which is to say a scribal editorial decision to change thetext for reasons of clarity or contextual coherence It would be within therealm of possibility to suggest but irresponsible to advocate seriouslythat in the text of P46 we witness the introduction of the variantμυστήριον into an influential ldquoAlexandrianrdquo text Zuntz259 Royse260

256 Thiselton (2000 207ndash8)257 Kloha (2006 44ndash5) adduces examples of μυστήριον in this sense from Clement of

Alexandria and Justin Martyr258 Kloha (2006 46) D Jongkind has suggested to me per litteras that the category of

ldquonear-mechanicalrdquo errors resulting from an excellent knowledge of the text may mediatebetween errors caused by eg parablepsis and considered conscious adjustments of thetext on the part of the scribe I thank Dr Jongkind for his comments on this Excursus

259 Zuntz (1953 20ndash3)260 Royse (2008 357ndash8)


and Kloha261 have each in their own way noted that the scribe of P46

betrays on occasion ldquoa deliberate attempt to improve on hisVorlage [and that these few instances] do indicate a certain awareness by thescribe of what he was writing and a willingness to alter what he readrdquo262

At the very least these observations ought to press us to consider morecarefully the scribal habits and patterns of conscious alteration visible inindividual manuscripts when faced with an intractable variant such asthat in 1 Cor 21

In summary there are strong reasons for reading μαρτύριον asoriginal in 21 Whichever reading was original the alternative wasintroduced very early in the textual tradition Despite the fact howeverthat μυστήριον enjoys early attestation in prominent witnesses (P46א)the external evidence inclines toward μαρτύριον Moreover mechan-ical error such as parablepsis cannot account for the variation insteada conscious scribal alteration or assimilation to context must be thecause In that case the lexical semantics of the two terms suggest littlereason why an early scribe would replace μυστήριον with μαρτύριονRather the weight of evidence supports the hypothesis that as in 16Paul employed the rarer and intriguing μαρτύριον in 21 before shiftingto μυστήριον in 27

261 Kloha (2006 46ndash52) on 1 Cor 21 4262 Royse (2008 358) Royse points out that many of the alterations inP46 (his focus is

on singular readings) are of the kind he labels ldquoHarmContrdquo or harmonizations to contextwhere ldquoinfluence of the context seems to be the major factor in the scribersquos occasionalattempts to make stylistic or grammatical improvementsrdquo


7

1 CORINTHIANS 35ndash45 AND THE POLITICSOF CONSTRUCTION

As for the kind of material to be used this does not dependupon the architect it depends on the owner whether hedesires to build in brick or rubble work or dimension stoneConsequently the question of approving any work may beconsidered under three heads that is exactness of workman-ship sumptuousness and design When it appears that a workhas been carried out sumptuously the owner will be the personto be praised for the great outlay which he has authorizedwhen exactly the master workman will be approved for hisexecution but when proportions and symmetry lend it animposing effect then the glory of it will belong to the architect

Vitruvius de Architectura 689 ἀλλrsquo ὁ αὐξάνων θεός

1 Cor 37c

Vitruvius the famous Augustan architect is a primary historical sourcefor the technologies of Roman building he is also and more significantlyfor our purposes an important witness to the politics of public worksconstruction touching as he does on the matters of evaluation and theattribution of glory in relation to building projects But Vitruvius speaksonly generally about the processes and social dynamics of public worksAs with most Graeco-Roman architects it is challenging to link him withspecific structures given the fragmentary nature of our evidence It iseven more difficult to access an ancient architectrsquos thoughts concerningproject design his relation to the one funding or approving the construc-tion or his interaction with coworkers subordinates and the communityaudience at large1

Concerning the elusive figure of the Graeco-Roman architect theeminent Vitruvian scholar Pierre Gros remarked

1 Donderer (1996) Anderson (1997) Taylor (2003)

197

It is always a tentative enterprise to recover from a particularbuilding the personality and the intentions of its architectbecause we are immediately confronted with this fundamentaldifficulty of our studies the mismatch and whatrsquos more thestriking difference among our textual and material sources2

What we have from Paul however in 1 Cor 35ndash45 in contrast toVitruvius or any other self-described architect of the period is anextended reflection on the design execution and evaluation of a buildingproject3 Perhaps unsurprisingly the contours of Paulrsquos reflection differin important ways from what we glimpse of architects patrons andaudience in the literary and archaeological record Paulrsquos text is a theo-logical blueprint for a living structure metaphorically conceived anddrawn up as part of an apologetic response to ecclesial tensions atCorinth But in addition to these apostolic architectural assertions in 1Corinthians we have in and around Roman Corinth material and textualsources for reconstructing the social dynamics implicated by publicworks construction Bringing architect and monument together withinwhat we may call the politics of construction framed by the colonialconstitution allows us to offer in this chapter a new interpretation of thecoherence and force of Paulrsquos text

This passage has figured importantly in discussions of ecclesiologyand apostolic authority4 its analogical details often providing gristfor the allegorical mill5 As we shall see 1 Cor 35ndash45 (and 46 seeExcursus at the end of the chapter) is structured by a complex culturalmetaphor6 In it Paul places himself ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων (310) adivinely commissioned architect whose charge it is to join the lines ofauthority community purity and glory introduced in the thanksgiving

2 Gros (1983 425)3 It is insufficient to explain (away) Paulrsquos extended building metaphor in 35ndash45 as a

rhetorical topos urging concord eg Mitchell (1991 99ndash111) Mitchell correctly views thebuilding language as fundamental to the coherence of Paulrsquos arguments in 1 CorinthiansBut its semantic and social relationship to texts and practices regulating the (physical)building of civic structures such as temples is too detailed and too dependent on embodiedexperience to be understood only in terms of elite oratorical commonplaces Cf Judge(2008 692)

4 Eg McKelvey (1969 98ndash102) Schuumltz (1975 225)5 Eg Origen on the building materials in 312 Jenkins (1908 245) gold=good

thoughts and intentions silver=pure speech precious stones=good actions wood=greatsins hay=lesser sins straw=lesser sins still

6 Recall (from Chapter 5) that complex cultural metaphors with their intricate webs ofsources and targets reflect basic social and embodied knowledge and may have severalmeaning foci


period of 14ndash9 into an enduring and unpolluted living structure Centralto the purpose of his rhetorical construction in 35ndash45 is the matter ofcontested evaluation Paulrsquos own performance as an architect the natureof the foundation he has laid the manner and focus of other buildersand the ethical-political alignment of the assembly-as-monument are thefoci of this disputed and divisive evaluative judgment Therefore heresponds by evoking not merely the language of architecture but alsothe social dynamics entailed in civic monumental construction Thelanguage and structure of 14ndash9 led us to reexamine Paulrsquos opening inlight of the politics of thanksgiving and our findings in Chapter 6prompted us to search for a monumental site where the apostolic testi-monial to the Messiah might be inscribed and memorialized In 35ndash45we hear Paulrsquos vision for that monument ndash from foundation to executionand importantly in evaluation and dedication By presenting such a planfor community construction Paul mounts a vigorous defense againsthis critics He does so chiefly by redefining the criteria for evaluatingthe work of ministry and by reassigning the glory for the execution ofthe structural design It is only in coming to this passage in the flow of 1Cor 1ndash4 that we see more fully Paulrsquos distinctive politics of munificenceadumbrated in 14ndash9 Here Paulrsquos political theology clashes with acolonial political ideology at almost every point It is a clash precipitatedby Corinthian criticism to which Paul responds with a forceful andcreative defense One result of the reconfiguration he achieves in thecomplex cultural metaphor of 35ndash45 is the subsequent history of con-flict evident in the unfolding Corinthian correspondenceIn this chapter we begin again by examining the history of interpreta-

tion relative to our passage For 35ndash45 as for 14ndash9 this is a historyindebted to Chrysostom and punctuated especially since Schmidt andBaur by theories regarding the divisions in the assembly Moreover aswith Paulrsquos thanksgiving it is marked by certain epigraphical compar-isons that have fallen by the scholarly wayside In tracing the lines ofinterpretation we see once again certain fractures in the modern periodresulting from JewishHellenistic dichotomous readings The problemsbrought to the fore by a selective review of the literature involve severaldetails related to the structure and function of Paulrsquos imagery and argu-ment as well as his relationship to Apollos and other ldquoleadersrdquo in theCorinthian assembly Among the exegetical details we consider in lightof the politics of construction are (1) the rhythmic rhetorical qualitiesof 35ndash9 21ndash23 (2) the φθείρειφθερεῖ wordplay in the judgmentsaying of 317 and (3) the discourse flow connecting the five sub-unitsin 35ndash45 To these we add considerations regarding the sources and

Corinthians 35ndash45 and the politics of construction 199

functions of the extended building metaphor and the persons and ideol-ogy toward which Paul directs his discourse

As in Chapter 6 we apply constitutional (politeia) categories toinvestigate Paulrsquos adaptive application of certain social conventionsOnce again by the configuration of key words and phrases from a sub-genre of political discourse Paul frames an alternative civic discoursefor the assembly To demonstrate this we present after a survey ofscholarship the chapters of the charters relevant to the colonial politicsof public works construction This data allows us to set Paulrsquos architec-tural rhetoric within the conventions of inscribed temple-buildingcontracts that detailed the relative status and authority of participantsspecifications for construction criteria for evaluation and penalties fordamaged work Finally we present an exegesis of 35ndash45 that focuses onthese dynamics in the extended Pauline metaphor Such an exegesisdemonstrates that Paul has assembled an argument drawing on bothJewish (covenantal) and Hellenistic (constitutional) imagery and experi-ence to contend for the priority of his own gospel his vision for thecommunity and the honor of the divine benefactor to whose glory theassembly-temple stands as a monument Constructed in this way Paulrsquosspirited response to his critics turns on the specific logic of evaluation andacclamation features on which he repeatedly and climactically insists


Chrysostom again sets an important early precedent for the interpretationof our passage treating it over the course of four homilies7 Becausemany of his observations continue to resonate with contemporary inter-preters they are worth rehearsing here For Chrysostom the reintroduc-tion of personal names connected with faction in 34ndash5 is an importantpart of the transition from Paulrsquos deconstruction of worldly wisdom andarrogant pride (118ndash216) to his accusatory attempt at a reconstructionof the communityrsquos view of its ministers and the goal of their ministry(31ndash45) Paul begins with the rhetorical questions of 35 (ldquoWhat thenis Apollos And what is Paulrdquo)8 more openly to accuse those whom hethinks are improperly (ie unspiritually) evaluating the divine wisdom

7 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6170ndash94 NPNF1 1243ndash64) Chrysostom treats 31ndash11 inHomily 8(PG 6170ndash4) 312ndash17 in Homily 9 (PG 6175ndash80) 318ndash42 in Homily 10 (PG 6181ndash6)and 43ndash5 in Homily 11 (PG 6187ndash94)

8 Chrysostom has τίς instead of the neuter (and more pointedly disdainful) τί CfLightfoot (1980 187)


embodied by Christ and taught by Christrsquos ministers9 But Paul mitigatesthe invidiousness of his tone by the inclusion of his own name theaddition of clauses that soothe with an emphasis on unity (35b 8) astress on the divine origin of their blessings (36c 7c 9) and the use ofministerial (as opposed to magisterial or ldquoleadershiprdquo) language10

Chrysostom noted that it was only after the soft accusations and self-diminishment of 35ndash9 that Paul proceeds to assign himself the title ofldquowise architectrdquo in 310 He does so not to exalt himself but to offer hisown ministry as a template (τύπον) and to ldquotake the rest of them to taskconcerning their politeia since he had once bonded them and made themonerdquo by the foundation he had laid among them11 This self-designationas architect and the appeal to the dynamics of building practice in310ndash11 are central to Paulrsquos argument in the passage They demonstratefor Chrysostom the way in which Paul ldquoconstructs from menrsquos commonnotions the whole of his propositionrdquo12 When the central image of aholy spirit-filled temple surfaces in the rhetorical question and sentenceof judgment in 316ndash17 Paul evades invidiousness by silence he avoidsmentioning the chief opponent whom he has in mind but with thelanguage of defilement already presses ldquourgently toward the one whohas committed fornication (1 Cor 5)rdquo13 Chrysostom also interpreted318 as referring to ldquothat personrdquo seeing 321a as marked by a stylisticvehemence against those carried away by that opponentrsquos worldly pre-tensions This vehemence is moderated only by the refreshing crescendoof 321bndash314 Then in 41ndash5 Paul aligns himself with those in theassembly who because of their low status (yet beloved by God) wereexcoriated by those of higher status (who were ignoring their own sin) Inresponse to this pretentious false evaluation ndash as if they were publicjudges ndash Paul denies their jurisdiction admits his unworthiness modelscourage for the weak and points to the only true judge Especially in 45as he directs his hearers toward the judging divine gaze Paulrsquos rhetoricrumbles like the thunder of an approaching storm whose fury threatensto break on the immoral man15

9 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6171)10 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6171)11 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6172)12 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6172) Earlier (PG 6171) in regard to the final verses of 35ndash9

Chrysostom commented that Paul ldquokeeps to the metaphorrdquo (τῇ τροπῇ ἐπέμεινεν)13 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6178ndash9)14 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6179ndash80 83)15 Hom 1 Cor (PG 6188)


Many commentators have followed Chrysostom in his understandingof 1 Cor 35ndash4516 With F C Baurrsquos 1831 essay17 the matter of thenumber identity and character of the parties in question in 112 andthe shadow of stasis they cast over our passage became a fixture ininterpretations of chapters 1ndash418 But it was J Weiss who buildingon Chrysostom in the modern era gave meticulous attention to thegrammatical structure and subtle changes in tone evident in 35ndash4519

Thus Weissrsquos exegesis deserves our detailed attentionAccording to Weiss Paul begins graciously to address the commu-

nityrsquos view of their teachers in 35ndash920 adopts a sharper tone andshifts imagery in 310ndash1521 and then builds to the urgent warning of316ndash1722 before returning to the evaluation of teachers in the magnifi-cent train of thought that culminates in 321bndash2323 This latter is aprelude to 41ndash524 where Paul concludes the entire section (35ndash45)redoubling his forceful defense against those who would wrongly eval-uate him25 He does so first by applying ministerial (servile) status tohimself yet again26 and second by refuting the call by some to subjecthim to a hostile quasi-formal inquiry (cf 93)27 He responds withaudacity (44a) in the face of specific Corinthian criticisms28 appealingto the Lord who alone will conduct the final legal evaluation (44bndash5)29

The entire section concludes with an emphasis on the eschatologicalpraise to be received by each minister at the divine judgment30

Beyond his incisive description of the general flow of the passageWeiss also contributed to several matters of exegetical detail that concern

16 Noticeably Calvin (1948 98ndash126)17 Baur (1831) treats our text only in passing but his elaboration of J E C Schmidtrsquos

thesis (at 76) regarding the Pauline-Petrine (Gentile-Jewish Christianity) opposition hangsover subsequent interpretations of 35ndash45 Cf Lincicum (2012)

18 Typology of views in Kuck (1992 150ndash1) subsequently Ker (2000) Smit (2002)Mihaila (2009)

19 First Weiss (1897 207ndash9) more fully in Weiss (1910 75ndash100)20 Weiss (1910 75)21 Weiss (1910 78ndash9)22 Weiss (1910 84ndash5)23 Weiss (1910 86ndash9)24 Weiss (1910 91)25 Weiss (1910 92)26 Weiss (1910 93ndash6)27 Weiss (1910 96ndash7)28 Weiss (1910 97ndash9)29 Weiss (1910 98) Paulrsquos word choices (eg ἀνακρίνω δικαιῶ) have distinct nuances

as part of a prevailing use of legal terminology in this section30 Weiss (1910 100)


us in this chapter First he noted the careful often rhythmic compositionof 35ndash9 17 and 21ndash3 The ldquoalmost elegant form and rhythmrdquo in 35ndash9exhibits a ldquopeaceful and collegial moodrdquo that ldquogrows out of the subjectmatter itselfrdquo Weiss sketched the three elements variously repeated ofthat rhythmic form

ldquoPaul ndash Apollos (their work) Godrdquo is repeated four times the1st and 4th time (vv 5 8ndash9) with four beats the 2nd and 3rdtime (vv 6 7) with three beats Whoever grasps this rhythm hasheard something not only of the writerrsquos fine craft but has alsocome one step nearer to his human feeling31

In treating 317 Weiss noted Paulrsquos skillful use of antanaklasis in hisφθείρειφθερεῖWortspiel the aural effect of the judgment clauses juxta-posed just so is that of two wave crests crashing32 Of 321ndash3 Weissremarked two important features ndash its soaring fervent structure33 andits melding of Jewish and Hellenistic commonplaces34 We return tothese observations regarding the rhythmic variation in 35ndash9 the crash-ing wordplay of 317 and the climactic coda of 321ndash3 in the exegesisthat followsA second contributionWeiss made to the understanding of our passage

was his sensitivity to Paulrsquos passion roiling just beneath a rhetoricalreserve as the apostle repeatedly points (Weiss argued) to one particularopponent standing behind the agitation over the content and character ofhis ministry35 This is evident in at least three places ndash 310 13 16ndash17 Incontrasting himself (ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων) with ldquoanotherrdquo (ἄλλος δέ)Paulrsquos tone in 310 has an edge even as he consciously avoids naming aparticular critic he has in mind36 A few verses later in 313 Weiss againsensed Paul cloaking a personal thrust in general terms he commentedldquothe community-work of each [ἕκαστου τὸ ἔργον] of Paulrsquos successors(in truth he is thinking of one figure or a single category) is revealed in itstrue qualityrdquo37 Likewise in 316ndash17 as his tone intensifies Paul speaks

31 Weiss (1910 75) cf Weiss (1897 207)32 Weiss (1910 85) cf Weiss (1897 208) For antanaklasis (repetition of a term where

the second instance introduces a change of meaning) see Quintilian Inst 936833 Weiss (1910 88ndash9) cf Weiss (1897 209) See also Betz (2008)34 Weiss (1910 89ndash90)35 Weiss (1910 88 104) inclines toward partisans of Apollos36 Weiss (1910 78) Paul avoids names when he has specific opponents in view and the

more agitated he becomes the more he restrains his invective For 2 Corinthians seeWelborn (2011)

37 Weiss (1910 80ndash1)


to the assembly (οὐκ οἴδατε) urgently about holiness but simultaneouslyaims the threat of judgment at one leading opponent in particular38

Weissrsquos observations will figure in our exegesis of 35ndash45 as well as inthe Excursus on 46

A third contribution of Weiss important for our purposes comes inthe form of several extended comments concerning Paulrsquos use of certainkey terms Weiss took δοκιμάζω39 in 313 and ἀνακρίνω40 in 43ndash4 astechnical legal terms performing specific functions in the context Wetest these claims of technical legal significance in the exegetical frame-work developed in the following sections

In summing up these three areas of insight in Weissrsquos work we notehis rhetorical and psychological sensitivity Thesemark his interpretationas an advance in the history of scholarship

Another advance this one passing almost unnoticed came from theRomanist Otto Eger nearly a decade after Weissrsquos commentary In his1918 Basel Rektoratsprogramm Eger referred to recent collections ofinscribed temple-building regulations and pointed out certain lexicaland conceptual correspondences with 1 Cor 39ndash1741 Eger summarizedtheir dynamics as follows

These working regulations play a significant role in theapproval examination and acceptance of the work which iscarried out by the managing authority (eg the ναοποιοί [civicofficials who oversaw temples] and the architect) specificallyupon completion of the work Only when the completed ἔργον isexamined does the contractor receive the full payment (μισθός)If he has not used the prescribed materials or performs badly heis fined (ζημιωθήσεται) by the ναοποιοί42

Eger rightly noted that there are considerable resonances when onesets these inscriptions next to Paulrsquos text he even suggested that Paulmay have been familiar with and inspired by such inscribed constructionregulations43 Nevertheless evocative though the comparison was(Deissmann referred to Egerrsquos ldquoluminous expositionrdquo)44 Egerrsquos focuswas not NT interpretation and he did not pursue a full exegesis of 1 Cor

38 Weiss (1910 84)39 Weiss (1910 82)40 Weiss (1910 67ndash8 96)41 Eger (1919 37ndash9) cf Eger (1918)42 Eger (1919 38)43 Eger (1919 38ndash9)44 Deissmann (1927 319 n1) Otherwise only Straub (1937 87) Vielhauer (1979 77)


39ndash17 It would be seventy years before another NT scholar turnedindependently to such epigraphical comparanda but even then the greatimport of the social dynamics implied by the Greek building contractswould be overlooked45

In continuing our overview of scholarship we must note three specifictrajectories ndash lexical-rhetorical studies46 studies emphasizing Jewishevidence47 and studies focusing on Graeco-Roman data48 Some ofthese currents such as the tendency to emphasize either Hellenism orJudaism as the key to interpreting Paul are familiar in the wake of oursurvey in Chapter 6 and reflect larger trends in twentieth-century NTstudies For example the very different studies of J R Lanci (1997) andG K Beale (2004) argue respectively for understanding the sourceof Paulrsquos temple imagery (and its rhetorical-theological function) asderiving from Graeco-Roman civic temples or from the Ancient NearEasternndashOld TestamentndashJewish temple tradition All three lines of inves-tigation (rhetorical Jewish Graeco-Roman) however are important toconsider within our constitution-covenant framework representativesof each figure in our exegesis At present a summary of one importantwork that of D W Kuck will help us frame many of the exegeticalquestions to which we attendKuckrsquos study (1992) brought into focus four key issues related to our

passage First Kuck decisively delimited the textual unit of 1 Cor 35ndash45 He did so on rhetorical and exegetical grounds demonstrating that35ndash45 is a unified section composed of five sub-units 35ndash9 10ndash1516ndash17 18ndash23 and 41ndash549 Paulrsquos ldquoclimactic applicationsrdquo come at theldquodouble high pointrdquo of 318ndash23 and 41ndash5 just before he ldquotakes arhetorical breathrdquo and ldquotips his rhetorical hand explicitlyrdquo in 4650

45 Shanor (1988) has an almost exclusively philological focus and fails to relate earlyinscriptions (mostly IV BC) to first-century Roman Corinth

46 Vielhauer (1979) Kitzberger (1986) Cf Papathomas (2009)47 Kaumlsemann (1955) Roetzel (1972 163ndash70) notes covenantal ldquoparallelsrdquo from

Qumran Kuck (1992) Konradt (2003 201ndash95) Beale (2004 245ndash52) Hogeterp (2006)Vahrenhorst (2008 145ndash54)

48 Mitchell (1991) Clarke (1993) Lanci (1997) Martin (1999) Goodrich (2012)49 Cf Smit (2002 238) Hogeterprsquos contention (1992 312) that א offers evidence that

supports a unit of 310ndash17 appears unfounded The ldquoparagraphingrdquo he refers to is used (onthe same folio) to mark sense units and not necessarily rhetorical subdivisions of the text Itis in any case arbitrary to use the otherwise unmarked layout of the text to argue as he doesI am not familiar with the other two minor mss Hogeterp cites ([] 104 547 both dating tothe eleventh century)

50 Kuck (1992 151ndash6) Cf Zeller (2010 155ndash78)


Kuckrsquos analysis of the limits sub-units and flow of our text is perceptiveand is augmented by our findings in this chapter

Second Kuck described 35ndash45 as the integrative locus of Paulrsquosargument concerning wisdom faction and judgment in 110ndash42151

Failure to see this Kuck argued has led many to undervalue the cen-trality of this section for understanding Paulrsquos concerns52 In his viewldquoPaul in 35ndash45 appeals to the promised judgment of God as a means ofdiscouraging such individual jockeying for position on the basis ofwisdomrdquo53 Kuckrsquos analysis of the critical role of judgment and evalua-tion in this section is perceptive Whether it provides the ultimate rheto-rical and theological fulcrum for Paulrsquos argument in just the way Kuckenvisions remains to be seen54 He may well have misconstrued theprecise configuration of Paulrsquos judgment language and therefore failedto grasp the fullness of its political and theological function rightly55

Third Kuck realized that one cannot fully account for Paulrsquos rhetoricalconstruction in 35ndash45 without recourse to both Jewish and Graeco-Roman sources56 Although he emphasized the Jewish ldquobackgroundrdquoof apocalyptic judgment language with reference to Paulrsquos text Kuckalso acknowledged diagnostic Graeco-Roman features of the argumentThis led him to describe 1 Cor 35ndash45 as a ldquoparenetic adaptationrdquo ofjudgment traditions distinct from other Pauline uses of such languageand argument It was a parenesis calibrated precisely for the situation atCorinth and demonstrates Paulrsquos ldquorhetorical flexibilityrdquo57 To illustrateKuckrsquos approach we may note two points of exegetical detail in histreatment One is his reading of the building materials in 312 and theldquoodd sort of buildingrdquo it depicts Kuck rightly noted the inadequacy ofGraeco-Roman texts (eg Plutarch or Lucian) to account for Paulrsquos listof terms he pointed instead to the fact that ldquothe closest parallels to thelist are found in descriptions of the tabernacle or temple in the OTrdquoconcluding ldquo[i]t would seem that the OT descriptions of the building ofthe tabernacle provided the starting point for Paulrsquos list in 1 Cor 312rdquo58

51 Kuck (1992 155) calls this the ldquomajor structural problemrdquo of 110ndash421 but fails toexplore the thematic and rhetorical links between 35ndash45 and 14ndash9

52 Kuck (1992 153)53 Kuck (1992 155ndash6)54 Kuck (1992 220ndash2) locates the rhetorical force of Paulrsquos judgment language in its

unifying potential55 Kuck (1992 223ndash39)56 So Weiss (1910 89ndash90)57 Kuck (1992 234ndash9)58 Kuck (1992 176ndash7) italics mine notes Ex 253ndash7 314ndash5 3532ndash3 1 Chron

2214ndash16 292 cf Beale (2004 245ndash52)


Later however Kuck was alert to the converse fact that Paulrsquos languageof reward (μισθός) in 38 and 314 finds almost no corollary in the Jewishsources being drawn instead from Graeco-Roman texts and settings ofeveryday labor59 On this basis Kuck claimed ldquoThis relative absenceof such [reward] language in Judaism and Christianity makes Paulrsquoslanguage in 1 Cor 3ndash4 stand out all the more strikingly Here we seeclearly the degree to which Paul has adapted judgment traditions in afresh way to address the problems in Corinthrdquo60

Fourth the typology of four views that Kuck offered on the centralthematic problem of the number nature and cause(s) of divisions in theassembly was thorough at the time he wrote and sufficiently embracessubsequent views expressed in the past two decades61 The methodolo-gical judgment he offered still stands ldquoNo exegete can make an informeddecision on this issue without taking adequate account of the judgmentpassages [chiefly 35ndash45] since they are centered around Paul Apollosand those who build up or destroy the churchrdquo62

These four aspects ndash defining the limits of the text placing it at therhetorical center of chapters 1ndash4 observing the striking mix of Jewishand Graeco-Roman language and concepts in the extended buildingmetaphor and noting the import of a correct understanding of the Paul-Apollos relationship in the larger context of the argument ndash are amongKuckrsquos exegetical contributions to the history of scholarship and high-light areas relevant to our new interpretation in this chapterBut Kuckrsquos treatment also raises questions We must ask whether

Kuck had recourse too readily in some cases to literary sources incontextualizing Paulrsquos argument whether his category of ldquoapocalypticjudgmentrdquo accomplishes all he claimed and whether the primary rheto-rical function of 1 Cor 35ndash45 is in fact communal unity Furthermorewe must consider as Kuck did not why the language related to thebuilding metaphor is so prevalent in this section and how understandingthat might further enhance our appreciation of the central motif ofjudgment63 Finally despite Kuckrsquos close reading of the flow of the

59 Kuck (1992 168ndash9 232ndash4)60 Kuck (1992 234) without probing further Paulrsquos adaptive strategy61 Kuck (1992 150ndash1) The four options are (1) Paulrsquos response is against factionalism

per se and not specific figures or groups (2) Paul alternates between responding to variousgroups (3) Paul only ever has one faction in mind or (4) Paul is offering a defense of hisauthority

62 Kuck (1992 151) One might invert this no interpretation can adequately account for35ndash45 without taking a position on the issue of Paulrsquos critics

63 Kuck (1992 170 n97)


five subsections making up this passage there remains the question asto why the shifts in imagery and focus occur at these finely knit seamsand just how they are held together in thematic unity interpreted andultimately applied by 46

At this point we may recapitulate our findings and specify thequestions that bear our consideration in the remainder of this chapterWe have seen that 1 Cor 35ndash45 is a deliberately constructed clearlydemarcated rhetorical unit With its extended metaphor it carriesforward Paulrsquos argument by means of rich imagery rhythmic compo-sition and assonant elements It is a complex section drawing togetherstrands of Jewish and Graeco-Roman concepts and melding themmetaphorically into a new rhetorical edifice We saw too that impor-tant themes of ministry community purity and evaluative judgmentare built into its structural fabric The outer limits of 35 and 46make clear that Paul arranges the unit to anchor his larger point inchapters 1ndash4 References to Paul and Apollos (and to Cephas in 322)importantly but only partially reveal the early social history of theCorinthian conflict at least from Paulrsquos perspective Finally we haveglimpsed two moments in the history of scholarship at which epigra-phical comparanda in the form of Greek temple-building contractswere offered as a way of integratively reading Paulrsquos text (at least310ndash17) such a suggestion however if noted at all is usually rele-gated to a footnote64

In light of this history and broad consensus we now summarizesix exegetical and rhetorical questions that deserve further consid-eration Each in its own way presents ongoing challenges to theexegete of 1 Cor 35ndash45 More importantly taken together theyawait a compelling interpretive framework that accounts for both thedetails and the overall composition and function of the unit withinthe epistle

711 The Extent and Structure of the Building Metaphor

Exegetes do not agree on the precise extent or structure of the buildingmetaphor within 35ndash4565 Most understand it to be operative in some

64 While Egerrsquos study is rarely cited Shanorrsquos is routinely But its potential for applyingthe social dynamics of public works construction (of which these inscriptions are but animportant trace) to the situation at Corinth remains unexplored Cf Thiselton (2000 308)

65 Earliest consideration of the rhetorical structure and function of the imagery Straub(1937 72ndash3 85ndash8 88) ie 72ndash3 (36ndash9) 85ndash8 (310ndash15) 88 (316f)


way from 310ndash1766 Almost all interpreters see a ldquoshiftrdquo in metaphoricalimagery among subsections of the passage And although 41ndash5 is theclimactic sub-unit it is unclear how (if at all) the ministerial language(ὑπηρέτης οἰκονόμος 41ndash2) and focus on evaluative judgment[λογίζεσθαι (ἀνα)κρίνω φανερῶ 41 3ndash5] relate to the building meta-phor it concludes67 Paul seems himself to indicate the use of multiplemetaphors when in 46 he declares ldquoThese things (ταῦτα)68 brothersI have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos on account of yourdquoYet one study touching on our text only obliquely has argued thatthe construction metaphor is ldquosufficiently broad and complexrdquo ldquofullyself-consistentrdquo having a logic of its own that creates ldquoa scene of realismand unity worthy of a one-act playrdquo69

In what follows we must ask ldquoIs Paul more or less casually shiftingmetaphors borne along by his passion in the dictation of the letterrdquo70

Or is there indeed a discernible inner structure that once excavatedreveals a coherent architecture to his rhetoric throughout 35ndash45 Andmight Paulrsquos political theology rhetorically inscribed in the assembly-monument build powerfully on his opening political statement in 14ndash9

712 The Sources and Functions of the Metaphorical Imagery

As we saw earlier there is agreement that the mosaic of imagery evokedby Paul is complex both in its sources and functions From whereexactly and to what effect does he draw the important language andrelated concepts of construction temple and judgment Given theinsights of Koumlvecses and cognitive-linguistic metaphor theory (seeSection 533) must we limit ourselves to pinning down one source ortarget for these images whether Jewish or Graeco-Roman And furtheronce we grant the careful composition and thematic unity of 35ndash45noted by Kuck how are we to understand the primary functions of thismetaphorical imagery Is it directed primarily toward unity Or arematters of purity and glory more thematically significant How do

66 Lightfoot (1980 188ndash9) sees 39 as a hinge cf Weiss (1910 78ndash80) Mitchell (199199) locates the building metaphor in 39ndash17 Thiselton (2000 307ndash18) in 39cndash17 Beale(2004 246) suggests the images in 36ndash17 form a coherent metaphor

67 Goodrich (2012 106 117ndash64) stresses the integration of these images in 41ndash5 intothe larger unit

68 See the Excursus to this chapter for an evaluation of the referent of ταῦτα69 Welborn (2005 240ndash1)70 So Fee (1987 133 136 139 156) ldquohe shifts imagesrdquo (39) ldquohe changes imagesrdquo

(39) ldquoan intrusion into the analogy properrdquo (311) ldquohe changes imagesrdquo (41ndash5)


these various meaning foci interrelate Ciampa and Rosner have rightlyobserved ldquoThe main challenge for the interpretation of this passage [ie35ndash9 10ndash17] is the question of how to understand the metaphoricallanguagerdquo71

713 The Prominence of Ministerial Terminology

A further issue deserving consideration is the remarkable prominence ofministerial terminology within the extended metaphor of 35ndash45 Paulstudiously avoids the language of leadership and magistracy in thissection precisely where one might expect him to assert his authorityin civic-like terms72 In doing so he displays his skill as a rhetoricalarchitect constructing a discourse filled with status reversals that aim atdisrupting colonial lines of social relations and evaluation Accordingto Martin this is one function of the ministerial imagery that dominatesthis passage an imagery that derives from the ldquorhetorical commonplacethat portrayed the body politic as a houserdquo73 But such rhetorical topoiusually appeared within elite discourses that discouraged conflict bybolstering the oligarchic status quo74 We must ask whether Paulrsquosconspicuous emphasis on status disruption by means of ministeriallanguage derives not from an elite topos but from a lower stratum ofsocial discourse and practice one consonant with the word of the cross(118ndash25) so central to his commission and model (117 21ndash4 310ndash1141 16ndash17)

714 The Relationship between Paul and Other Ministers

It is largely by means of the ministerial titles he adopts (and those heavoids) that Paul constructs an apology for his own authority and hisrelationship to others (ie Apollos) who have ministered to the assem-bly This is perhaps most evident in his appropriation of the title σοφὸςἀρχιτέκτων (310) but it also characterizes four of the five sub-units that

71 Ciampa and Rosner (2010 143)72 Clarke (1993 118ndash27) emphasizes Paulrsquos rejection of ldquosecularrdquo models of authority

and honor but retains the language of ldquoleadershiprdquo throughout (ldquonon-status leadershiprdquoldquotask-orientated leadershiprdquo ldquoleadership in terms of servicerdquo Paulrsquos ldquoparadigm of leader-shiprdquo ldquoChristian leadershiprdquo) Paul insists on the terminology of ministry cf Welborn(2005 234ndash47) on ministerial language and imagery in Graeco-Roman mimic discourse

73 Martin (1999 64ndash5 102ndash3 at 64)74 So also Mitchell (1991 99ndash111) Lanci (1997) But Paulrsquos deployment of the

extendedmetaphor with its emphasis onministry may reveal his commitment to disruptingunity for the sake of other ends


make up the passage75 How precisely does Paul arrange the lines ofauthority and participation in the ministry of the assembly And are weable to peer behind the veil of his rhetorical temple to glimpse the facesof its attendants and their true relations to one another Was Weisscorrect to register a change in tone in 310ndash15 that targets an unnamedopponent (perhaps Apollos or Cephas or an influential partisan)76 Ormay we affirm with one recent interpreter that ldquoPaul does not construct apolemic against Apollosrdquo but targets the communityrsquos ldquohigh esteem ofworldly wisdomrdquo while maintaining a perfectly ldquocongenial relationshiprdquowith Apollos77

715 The Nature of Judgment and Evaluation

We must consider in addition the role that ldquotechnical termsrdquo forevaluative judgment (eg δοκιμάζω ἀνακρίνω) play in the rhetoricalsweep of 35ndash45 In the logic of the extended metaphor what functiondoes judgment fulfill If building is so fundamental in Paulrsquos metapho-rical vision how should we understand the crashing verdictive in 317and the quasi-legal judgment language of 41ndash5 Are ldquoapocalypticjudgmentrdquo and ldquopost-mortem rewardrdquo sufficient categories for graspingPaulrsquos point78 Or is it possible that scholars have sometimes been toohasty to theologize from Paulrsquos complex cultural metaphor therebyover-interpreting its details while leaving unarticulated their combinedforce79 Finally if many interpreters are correct in seeing 41ndash5 as anldquoeschatological climaxrdquo akin to 17ndash8 what exactly is the relationshipbetween that earlier passage and 35ndash4580

716 The Meaning and Function of the RhythmicSections (35ndash9 21ndash3)

Interpreters of earlier eras (ie Chrysostom and Weiss) noted the stylis-tic composition and rhythmic structuring of sub-units in the passage

75 35ndash9 (Paul Apollos planting watering) 310ndash15 (wise architect each otherbuilder) 318ndash23 (wise fool Paul Apollos Cephas) 41ndash5 (assistant steward)

76 Weiss (1910 78ndash9) Welborn (2005 102ndash9)77 Mihaila (2009 214)78 So Kuck (1992)79 Eg debates over the theological import of 44 see Thiselton (2000 341ndash2)80 Theissen (1987 59ndash66) fails to anchor his analysis of 41ndash5 firmly in the larger

rhetorical unit Zeller (2010 173ndash4) calls 41ndash5 an eschatologischen Klimax and alludes to14ndash9


particularly 35ndash9 and 21bndash23 Modern scholars seem to have lost sightof these formal aspects of Paulrsquos text in their analyses of its content81

What are we to make of these highly rhetorical subsections in the flowof the extended metaphor Is there any organic relation between therhythmic form of these verses and the building imagery comprising thecontent Weiss insisted (of 321bndash23) that the rhythm of these sectionsmust be felt (ie read aloud and heard) to be appreciated82 Might wethereby discover not only the skill and human feeling of Paul but alsosomething integral to his rhetorical purpose in responding to a rivalconfiguration of wisdom authority and evaluation in the community

To conclude our review of scholarship for 1 Cor 35ndash45 we mayobserve that the many decisions facing the interpreter are sometimesmade without reference to the form and function of the whole unit Inwhat follows we begin to address the matter of the overall paradigmconstructed by Paul in this text with reference to the epigraphicallypreserved temple-building contracts identified by Eger and Shanor Farfrom offering only lexical assistance in interpreting Paulrsquos rhetoricalassemblage these building contracts provide valuable insights into thepolitics of construction at Roman Corinth especially when set within aconstitutional and socioeconomic framework Such a setting and thesocial dynamics it unveils help us appreciate the force of Paulrsquos argumentand its connection to the overarching purpose of 1 Cor 1ndash4 and inparticular to the opening thanksgiving of 14ndash9

72 The politics of construction

Before we address the considerations just outlined we must return to thesorts of epigraphical texts first adduced by Eger in 1918 AlthoughDeissmann referred to Egerrsquos ldquoluminous expositionrdquo of 1 Cor 39ndash17in truth Eger only gestured however perceptively to formulaic termsand stages of construction preserved by the building contracts that findcorollaries in Paulrsquos text Eger emphasized the public nature of theseinscriptions and it is this fact that encourages us to probe the facets oftheir familiarity in civic life83 We take as our exemplar an inscriptionfrom the central Greek city of Lebadeia (IG VII 3073 IIIII BC)84 Its

81 Conzelmann (1975 72) concedes only that the ldquostyle [in 35ndash17] is determined by thepictorial languagerdquo

82 See Weiss (1910 89)83 Eger (1919 37)84 Shanor (1988 461ndash71) focuses on a Tegean (Arcadian) inscription from IV BC

lingering only over terminological correspondences


date like most of these building contracts requires us to test its applic-ability to Roman Corinth something that the constitution supportedby Corinthian epigraphy and archaeology allows us to do with positiveresults Having grasped the political dynamics involved in public worksconstruction and having demonstrated their relevance to Paul and theassembly we turn to the Jewish (especially the covenantal) elements thathelped shape the apostlersquos adaptation These are most clearly compre-hended in view of texts from Jeremiah and Qumran It is after graspingthe sources and specific formulation of Paulrsquos covenantal discourseof temple-community purity and glory that we finally return to 1 Cor35ndash45 with appreciation for the complex cultural metaphor he hasconstructedAs in Chapter 6 it is beneficial to outline initially some of the

important elements of the political pattern that will surface Each of thefollowing aspects has relevance for 1 Cor 35ndash45 either because itprovides a productive general social and economic setting for interpreta-tion or because it supplies an important specific part of the pattern towhich Paul explicitly appeals

721 Contracts and Competition

As both Eger and Shanor have demonstrated there is considerableterminological overlap between Greek building contracts and 1 Cor35ndash45 This has rightly been taken as a signal that Paul is familiarwith the register of public building85 But this register leads to a genre ofbuilding contracts that have consistent and recognizable legal featuresand social practices86 In Greek poleis and later in Roman civic contextsone such social reality was the sometimes invidious public competitionamong contractors bidding for the commission87 The building of localmonuments (itself a component of competition for glory among localelites as we saw in the previous chapter) could thus lead to partisancompetitiveness involving contractors and laborers Once the commis-sion was won the architect then assembled his subcontractors to com-mence work according to comprehensive contractual specifications

85 Eger (1919 39) Shanor (1988 471)86 Paulrsquos experience as a skilled tradesman (σκηνοποιός Acts 183) especially while

in residence at Corinth (1 Cor 91ndash27 2 Cor 117ndash15) lends plausibility to his familiaritywith the form such a contract would take in Roman law Cf Hock (1980) Welborn (2005111ndash12)

87 Plutarch Mor 498EndashF Treatment of this text in this chapter


722 Design Specifications and Penalties

Within the broad genre of Greek building inscriptions is a sub-categoryof contracts and specifications for the execution of the projectSpecifications (συγγραφαί) posted at the work site on either whitenedwooden boards or inscribed in stone provide our clearest window intothe ldquoeconomics of temple buildingrdquo88 Included in these texts are detailedand graduated penalties for deviation from specifications bad practiceor damage ([δια]φθείρω) to structural materials Penalties in such casestook the form of fines (ζημιῶ) or exclusion from the work site Romanarchitects and contractors (redemptores) were likewise expected to givecareful regard to the written specifications (leges locationis) in a buildingcontract (a lex of the type locatio-conductio) to avoid disputes (contro-versiae) and penalties in colonial settings89 The primary purpose ofthese specifications epigraphically recorded in Greek (and later Latin)was to ensure ldquothat everyone concerned in the work should know exactlywhat was expected of himrdquo90

723 Authority and Accountability at the Work Site

Drawing clear lines of authority and accountability was a primaryconcern of the contractual specifications for temple building Buildingcommissioners architects sub-architects and a variety of competent(ἱκανός) workers and craftsmen had distinct obligations In the case ofGreek temple building the architect had authority over the manuallaborers whom he subcontracted and who were not necessarily oflower social status and often enjoyed a comparable rate of pay91

Roman architects seem to have been of quite varied social status butwere especially when acting as redemptores92 the legally responsibleand authoritative figures with regard to the construction work93

Accountability for satisfactory work according to the written specifica-tions (variants on the phrase καθὼς γέγραπται) assumed political socialand economic forms ndash especially in the case of major public worksprojects such as temples

88 Burford (1969 9ndash11 85ndash192) In the Roman period inscribed visual plans may havebeen incised on red-painted surfaces or executed as plastic models see Jones (2000 50ndash7)

89 Vitruvius De arch 1110 cf 51690 Burford (1969 11)91 Burford (1969 140)92 Anderson (1997 3ndash4)93 Gros (1983)


724 Payment and Approval

Contractual specifications provided for payment (μισθός) usually ininstallments to the parties involved Payment was reckoned([ἐκ]λογίζομαι) according to current valuations and was always pendingexamination and approval (Gk ἀποδείκνυμι [from the workerrsquos stand-point] δοκιμάζω [from the commissionerrsquospatronrsquos standpoint] Latprobare) Laborers had to exhibit their work to the architect or hisassistant for endorsement At the end of the entire building processusually within a specified length of time the commissioning authorityor patron had on a set day to conduct the final examination (adprobatiooperis) and grant or refuse approval (pronounce probatioimprobatio)This especially in Roman law was the crucial point at which liabilitytransferred from contractor to commissioner and final payment wasissued If approved the completed work (ἔργον) awaited only the form-alities and spectacle of public dedication

725 Monument and Acclamation

The dedication of a public building such as a temple marked the rolemonumental construction played in civic identity and glory Andparticularly in Roman times (ldquowell and widely establishedrdquo by thefirst century according to Rouecheacute)94 such dedications were asso-ciated with mass gatherings and shouted rhythmic acclamationsThese acclamations often occurred in public spaces such as theatersand offered conspicuous glory to the city the patron-benefactor orboth (with the architect eclipsed)95 One of the ldquomost common of allacclamatory formulaewas the ldquoIncreaserdquo acclamation (αὔξε or αὔξειαὔξι)96 Once performed these acclamations were especially by lateantiquity often inscribed in conjunction with the monument honoringeither city or patron In combination with our observations in theprevious chapter it is here that we begin most clearly to glimpse theway in which the politics of thanksgiving was connected to the politicsof construction With these five elements in mind we now turn toexamples in Greek Roman and Jewish sources that help us mark thestructure and force of Paulrsquos extended metaphorical construction in 1Cor 35ndash45

94 Rouecheacute (1984)95 Anderson (1997 37 51)96 Rouecheacute (1989)


73 The politics of construction and Greek temple building

Both Eger and Shanor were led to the Greek temple-building contractsby their semantic overlap with Paulrsquos text each noting identical termsand phrases employed by the inscriptions and by the self-described wisearchitect of the Corinthian assembly-temple Eger especially made abrief overture to a larger pattern these texts also shared

It may be considered quite likely that Paul was led to thiscomparison by inscriptions of the kind just outlined Heexploited this knowing that they were probably well-knownto his readers and sought to illustrate for the Corinthians newideas with these familiar expressions However here as else-where he interweaves various images with each other to theimage of the building built by various workers and the inves-tigation of the same is nicely joined the image by the fiery trialof the metal and also ndash following Old Testament passages ndash thatof the final judgment97

Decades later Shanor doubted Paul had any specific inscription in mindbut allowed ldquoThe similarity of structure and vocabulary does suggestthat temple construction provided the Apostle with material formetaphor there is still further light to be gleaned from these ancientcontractsrdquo98

Content with literary comparison neither Eger nor Shanor pushedbeyond the texts to explore the social practices that formed their settingsWith the aid of several archaeological and epigraphical studies wemay proceed further in the direction they indicated These studies post-date Eger and many of them are focused on one lengthy Greek buildinginscription from Lebadeia that we take as our guide into the politics andeconomics of the temple work site

This Lebadeia text sits within the larger currents of temple building incentral Greece and the Peloponnese A Burford introduced his majorstudy of Greek temple building by arguing that these inscriptions illu-mine an important cultural practice that receives hardly a mention inthe literary sources The light they shed on the ldquoeconomics of templebuildingrdquo reveals the significant fact that ldquohighly skilled craftsmen thejoiners and stone masons the decorators the gold and ivory workersrdquowere joined by ldquomen from every level of societyrdquo99 This temporary

97 Eger (1919 39)98 Shanor (1988 471)99 Burford (1969 9)


association of workers for the purposes of construction met a number ofeconomic needs ldquowhether for the increased dignity of the cult andreverence for the god for whom the temple was being built or for thecivic prestige to be gained from temple building the personal glory tobe derived from participating for the expense or for the economicadvantages of public worksrdquo100 Ultimately Burford emphasized theimportance of such inscriptions for the historian lies less in their archi-tectural detail than in ldquothe information they provide of how and bywhom temple building was organized and executedrdquo that is they giveus ldquoa reasonably complete picture of the way in which the buildingscheme progressed and how it was runrdquo101 In sum the various sub-genres of Greek building inscriptions open a window into the socialworld of architects and other figures connected to the constructionproject102 It is this social setting and the relations among fellowworkersthe architect the patron and the civic commission that interests usparticularly in terms of how the language and practices of Greek buildingcontracts may have survived and evolved by the time of Roman CorinthAlthough Burford based his study on the inscribed texts of Epidauros

from the third and fourth centuries BC the general portrait he composesof the social practices and relations involved in Hellenistic templebuilding holds true for the later text from Lebadeia (175ndash72 BC) Thetext in question103 was discovered in 1875 (footnoted by Eger absentfrom Shanor)104 Because of its date the Lebadeia contract105 providesus with a view of the social dynamics we are interested in nearerchronologically to Paulrsquos Corinth than Shanorrsquos chief example106

Early in the second century BC the Boeotian city of Lebadeia107 justacross the Gulf of Corinth from Lechaion undertook a large projectto construct a temple of Zeus Basileus108 IG VII 3073 is an inscribedstele which presumably stood near the temple (perhaps during theconstruction process) and which preserves 188 lines of contractual

100 Burford (1969 9ndash10)101 Burford (1969 10ndash11)102 Burford (1969 11) argues ldquowhat we have [in the Epidauros inscriptions] is a

selection of information so that everyone concerned in the work should know exactlywhat was expected of himrdquo

103 IG VII 3073 (=SIG 540)104 Eger (1919 37ndash9 nn86ndash8 91) Cf Garland (2003 114)105 Fullest treatment Turner (1994) Cf Bundgaard (1946)106 IG V 2 6 (IV BC from Tegea in the Peloponnese)107 See Paus Descr 939108 Turner (1994 269ndash314) gives a full treatment Translations follow Turner with

minor modifications


terms and specifications for the construction of a large pavement com-posed of thirteen blocks that formed part of the temple complex109

Turner categorizes it as a subset of ldquoacts of inaugurationrdquo a type ofbuilding inscription with ldquodecrees or resolutions authorizing a buildingprojectrdquo A comparison of the Lebadeia text with Paulrsquos extendedmetaphor in terms of three sets of terms and associated dynamics ndash

specifications and penalties authority and accountability and paymentand approval ndash will prove particularly instructive

731 Specifications and Penalties

Throughout the processes involved in construction included multiplesteps and detailed regulations The goal was twofold to ensure qualitywork and conformity to design Both aspects are captured in the recur-rent legal phrase ldquoaccording to the written specificationsrdquo (κατὰ τὴνσυγγραφὴν γεγραμμένων)110 This phrase and variants such as καθὼςγέγραπται111 frequently occur with verbs of compliance or conformity(πείθω)112 placement (τίθημι)113 or work (ἐργάζω)114 The followingare characteristic examples

καὶ ἐρ[γᾶ]ται πάντα καθὼς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐπάνω γέγραπται

He will work everything exactly as it has been written aboveabout the (other) things (l 74 cf l 82)

ἔπειτεν ἀναθυρώσει τοὺς ἁρμοὺ[ς πρὸς τὸν] κανόνα τὸν λίθινοντῶν κειμένων

καταστρωτ[ήρων πρὸς] οὓς μέλλει τιθέναι καθὼς καὶ περὶτῶν ἀπιόντων [ἁρμῶν] γέγραπται

Then he will ldquoanathyrosizerdquo the joints of the paving blocks lyingin position according to the stone rule115 against which heintends to set exactly as it has been written (ll 142ndash5)

εἶτεν θήσει τοὺς καταστρωτῆρ[ας ἐργα]ζόμενος καθὼςγέγραπται

109 Turner (1994 270) accession 253 on display in the Chaeroneia Museum110 IG VII 307315ndash16 18ndash19111 IG VII 307374 82 113ndash14 144ndash5 151112 IG VII 307314ndash15 21ndash3 178ndash80113 IG VII 3073144ndash5114 IG VII 3073150ndash1115 On κανόνες for ldquotruing uprdquo the joints of a building see Bundgaard (1946 17ndash19)


Then he will set the paving blocks working exactly as it hasbeen written116 (ll 150ndash1)

During the course of the work alterations to the specifications by thecommissioners could be communicated on a λεύκωμα a wooden boardcoated with white gypsum utilized for posting public notices117 Thosematters not prescribed explicitly were referred to the larger framework ofpublic law118 According to Burford the Lebadeian documents (amongothers) carefully combined regulations and instructions

[T]he emphasis is all on safeguarding against the contractorrsquosdefault and ensuring the best possible workmanship fromhim The impression given by these documents is thatevery clause is relevant to the work in question It seemslikely that contracts were so composed that a contractor whoinfringed the terms of his contract would automatically haveproduced bad work119

As the Lebadeia inscription makes clear quality and conformity of workwere judged according to the written specifications120 These regulationswere publicized and referred to and were so detailed that an experiencedworkman needed little further guidance apart from oral instructions fromthe supervising architect or supplementary drawings or models121

Nevertheless the emphasis for architects and builders on site duringthe working process especially during the Roman period was on theverbal template drafted by the building inscriptions rather than visualplans and elevations122 As we shall see presently the weight placed ondesign specifications that characterizes the building inscriptions findsan analogue in Paulrsquos metaphorical construction most obviously in310ndash15 but also in 46 This raises the question of their function in thestructure of 35ndash45 as a wholeOne other feature of the Lebadeia text that relates to specifications

is its anticipation of conflict among contractors on the job Since archi-tects sub-architects and other contractors might disagree over the

116 Bundgaard (1946 35ndash7) translates this ldquoproceeding as describedrdquo117 IG VII 30735118 IG VII 307387ndash9119 Burford (1969 92) italics mine120 Burford (1969 90)121 Burford (1969 91) Cf Coulton (1983)122 Coulton (1983 457)


interpretation or execution of certain specifications there was the provisothat commissioners would adjudicate any conflict

ἐὰν δὲ πρὸς αὑτοὺς ἀντιλέγωσιν οἱ ἐργῶναι περί τινος τῶνγεγραμμένων διακρινοῦσιν οἱ ναοποιοὶ ὀμόσαντες ἐπὶ τῶνἔργων πλείονες ὄντες τῶν ἡμίσεων τὰ δὲ ἐπικριθέντα κύρια ἔστω

If the contractors disagree with each other about any of thethings written the naopoioi having sworn an oath at the projectsite will adjudicate (among them) being more than half (pre-sent) and let what they decide be authoritative (ll 41ndash4)

Given that the Lebadeia inscription typically of such building contractsis so insistent regarding conformity to specifications it is no surprise thatpenalty clauses appear frequently Like other such inscriptions pointedto by Eger and Shanor the most common is a fine expressed by the verbζημιῶ also used by Paul in 315 Prominent among acts of bad practicethat attracted a fine was damage to building blocks

καὶ ἐάν τινα ὑγιῆ λίθον διαφθείρηι123 κατὰ τὴν ἐργασίαν ὁτῆς θέσεως ἐργώνης ἕτερον ἀποκαταστήσει δόκιμον τοῖςἰδίοις ἀνηλώμασιν οὐθὲν ἐπικωλύοντα τὸ ἔργον ἐὰν δὲμὴ ἀποκαθιστῆι ἢ μὴ ἀκῆται τὸ καταβλαφθέν καὶ τοῦτοἐπεγδώσουσιν οἱ ναοποιοί ὅτι δrsquo ἂν εὕρηι τοῦτο αὐτὸ καὶἡμιόλιον ἀποτείσει ὁ ἐργώνης καὶ οἱ ἔγγυοι

And if the contractor for the setting should damage any soundblock during the working (of it) he will substitute anotherapproved one at his own expense If he does not replace ormend whatever is damaged this also the naopoioi will let outagain (on contract) and whatever it may fetch this itself andhalf again as much the contractor and the guarantors will repay

(ll 33ndash9)

In addition to fines for damaged building materials there was also thepossibility of exile from the work site for those laborers collaboratingin bad practice with a supervisor in a way that undermined the executionof the project according to specifications Both penalties appear in thefollowing excerpt

123 The δια- prefix to the compound διαφθείρω appears to lose its force by the firstcentury implying that there is little or no semantic difference between it and φθείρω Paulrsquoschoice in 1 Cor 317 (but see 2 Cor 416) Cf LSJ sv διαφθείρω and Muraoka svvδιαφθείρω φθείρω


ἂν δέ τι μὴ πείθηται τῶν κατὰ τὴν συγγραφὴν γεγραμμένων ἢκακοτεχνῶν τι ἐξελέγχηται ζημιωθήσεται ὑπὸ τῶν ναοποιῶνκαθότι ἂν φαίνηται ἄξιος εἶναι μὴ ποιῶν τῶν κατὰ τὴνσυγγραφὴν γεγραμμένων καὶ ἐάν τις ἄλλος τῶνσυνεργαζομένων ἐξελέγχηταί τι κακοτεχνῶν ἐξελαυνέσθω ἐκτοῦ ἔργου καὶ [μ]ηκέτι συνεργαζέσθω ἐὰν δὲ μὴ πείθηταιζημιωθήσεται καὶ οὗτος μετὰ τοῦ ἐργώνου

If in some way he [contractor] does not comply with the thingswritten in the specifications or should be convicted of badpractice in some way he will be fined by the naopoioi accordingto whatever he seems to deserve (for) not doing the thingswritten in the specifications and if anyone else of the co-workers is convicted of bad practice in any respect let him bedriven out of the job and no longer work with the others if hedoes not comply he too will be fined along with the contractor

(ll 15ndash21 cf ll 173ndash9)

In these relations of building specifications to various workers situationsof conflict and penalties for bad practice (either monetary or exile) webegin to see the clear lines of authority and accountability articulated andassumed by such texts

732 Authority and Accountability

The two most frequently mentioned parties in temple building contractssuch as IG VII 3073 were building commissioners (ναοποιοί)124 and thecontractor(s) (ἐργώνης) There were also guarantors (ἔγγυοι) acting asfinancial backers craftsmen (τεχνίται) providing labor and boiotarchs(βοιωτάρχοι) who aided in assessing damages But our interest is natu-rally drawn to the architect (ἀρχιτέκτων) the figure who (assisted by hissub-architect [ὑπαρχιτέκτων]) stood between the building commissionand the contractor and was authorized to act as an expert extension ofthe commissionerrsquos authority125 Unlike the later Roman organization ofpublic building in Greek building the contractor and architect wereapparently never the same figure the former bearing legal and financialliability for the project and the latter bearing authority over the workersand responsibility for the quality of the work126

124 Building superintendents went by different names according to city In Delos (CIG2266) they were agoranomoi see Pringsheim (1950 289) Cf Burford (1969 127ndash34)

125 Turner (1994 293ndash4)126 Coulton (1977 15)


This picture of the levels of authority and the key position of theGreek architect squares with other evidence examined by BurfordThe architect as a ldquomaster-craftsmanrdquo was the chief delegate of thecommission a ldquotechnical adviser essential to the administration of theworkrdquo who carried the ldquomain burden of technical responsibility forplanning and specificationrdquo of the undertaking127 We see this in theLebadeia stele in a description of work done in the architectrsquos author-itative presence

having engraved the lines in the presence of the architect (καὶγραμμὰς καταγραψάμε[νος παρόν]|τος τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος) lethim remove the existing surplus (stone) with a point makingthe specified width making everything true sharp edged

(ll 130ndash3)

Very importantly however although craftsmen and laborers wereunder the authority of the architect their status and pay were oftencomparable As Burford put it ldquoThere was no other distinction techni-cally speaking between the architect and the craftsmen who workedwith him on the temple than that the architect was more skilled andthus was competent to command themrdquo128 Authority relative to designand accountability for execution on the work site not social or economicstatus were what distinguished the architect from his fellow workersAs we will see throughout 35ndash45 Paul effectively exploits this distinc-tion of authority versus status in the politics of construction Theserelations further structured the dispensing of payment for work and theapproval of the finished project


When the building contract was let out (ἐκδίδωμι)129 payment130 forwork was publicly determined installments were delivered pendingapproval by the architect the sub-architect or the commissionersThese were reckoned (ἐκλογίζομαι)131 according to specified or currentvaluations An example comes in the following lines

127 Burford (1969 140ndash9) Cf M-M sv ἀρχιτέκτων128 Burford (1969 149) Cf Gros (1983 426ndash8) Arzt-Grabner et al (2006 146ndash8)129 Eg IG VII 30735ndash6130 Commonly μισθός but in the Lebadeian text usually specific monetary amounts (see

ll 6 10 56 58 61) δόσις (ll 13 48 54 60 78 81) or ὑποτίμημα (l 9 55 58ndash9)131 IG VII 307356 cf l 61 (ὑπολογίζομαι)


ὅταν δὲ ἀποδείξηι πάσας εἰργασμένας καὶ ὀρθὰς πάντηι καὶτέλος [ἐ]χούσας κατὰ τὴν συγγραφὴν καὶ μεμολυβδοχοημέναςἀρεστῶς τοῖς ναοποιοῖς καὶ τῶι ἀρχιτέκτονι λήψεται τὴν |δευτέραν δόσιν πάντων τῶν γραμμάτων τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς | ἐκτοῦ ὑποτιμήματος πρὸς τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸν ἐκ τῶν ἀντι|γράφωνἐγλογισθέντα

[W]hen he exhibits all (the stelae) worked and true on all sidesand having the finish according to the specifications and pouredaround with lead satisfactorily to the naopoioi and the architecthe will receive the second payment for all the letters of theinscription according to the valuation on the basis of the numbercalculated from the copies (ll 50ndash3)

Endorsement of specific tasks and payment at defined stages culminatedin final inspection and approval The whole and not only the parts had tosatisfy the commissioners and architect the repeated term for ldquoapprova-blerdquo or ldquosatisfactoryrdquo is δόκιμος and its verbal and adverbial forms132

The contract specified that the guarantors (who were liable for thecontractorrsquos fines)133 would not be released until all passed the finalexamination (ἕως τῆς ἐσχάτης δοκιμασίας)134 In fact all the specifica-tions incremental inspections and investments of capital and laborinclined toward the day of final approval when the liability for thestructure (including any faults) shifted legally from the contractor tothe commissioners and the preparations for a civic dedication couldbegin135

In summary our investigation of the semantic features attested bythe Lebadeian temple paving inscription demonstrates overwhelminglinguistic correlation with 1 Cor 35ndash17 Even more importantly thesephilological connections have led us to legal and social features that bearon Paulrsquos larger metaphorical construction in 35ndash45 Insistence on workaccording to specifications the assignment of penalties for bad practicewell-defined lines of authority and accountability that do not derivedirectly from socioeconomic status satisfactory conditions for paymentpenalties for damages and the ultimate inspection for approval arefeatures of the Greek temple-building process that promise to reveal acoherent structure and function to Paulrsquos text But though IG VII 3073

132 IG VII 307331 34 57 (δοκιμασθῆι) 64 72 85120 123 150 159 185 (δοκίμως)100ndash1 ([ἐδοκ]ιμάσθησαν)

133 Burford (1969 96ndash7)134 IG VII 307328ndash9135 Burford (1969 98)


is temporally more proximate to first-century Corinth than ShanorrsquosTegean inscription we still must deal with the question of whether thefeatures visible in the Lebadeian process are applicable in the laterconstitutional context of Roman Corinth Given the complex admixtureof Greek and Roman in first-century colonial Corinth does the patternhold

74 The politics of construction in Roman Corinth

Having surveyed the legal forms and social functions of Greek buildingcontracts we may now turn our attention to first-century RomanCorinth With the aid of the colonial constitution and other literaryepigraphical and archaeological evidence we seek to uncover the formof the politics of construction most relevant to the interpretation ofPaulrsquos text What that evidence demonstrates is that the general patternwe have seen so far persists with important alterations in the Romanlaw of contract and the colonial organization of public works Byanchoring this more concretely in Julio-Claudian Corinth we are ableto attend sensitively to the resonances and dissonances of Paulrsquosextended temple-building metaphor for ministry

In a study underlining the importance of temple imagery for theargument of 1 Corinthians J R Lanci remarked ldquoAlthough each ofthese terms might be used in a non-construction situation the presence ofall of them here together when Paul is setting up the image of theconstruction of a building suggests that in using these terms Paulis evoking the image of literal constructionrdquo136 Lanci drew togetherevidence mostly literary to demonstrate that the construction and ded-ication of monuments such as temples were public events that involvedthe community137 He suggested that the community-uniting force ofthis idea is primary138 But if as Lanci seemed to assume Paul isexploiting a complex cultural metaphor known to many of those in theCorinthian assembly not only by observation and ritual participationbut perhaps by physical and economic experience then we may gofurther in situating it within the embodied politics of construction atRoman Corinth To do so we turn once more to the colonial charter

We recall fromChapter 3 Crawfordrsquos observation that the granting of acivic charter was naturally linked to the development of a monumental

136 Lanci (1997 64)137 Lanci (1997 57ndash8) refers briefly to the lex Urs138 Lanci (1997 45ndash56 76ndash9 89ndash113)


urban center and that the latter process was envisioned and regulatedin detail by the constitution itself139 In both the lex Urs and the lexFlavia we read of public works contracts those magistrates responsiblefor project oversight limits on demolition and reconstruction obliga-tions incumbent on citizens and incolae to provide labor or resourcesthe rendering of payment and accounts and the attempt at regulatingagainst conflict of interest and corruption In short public works con-struction was a major feature of the constitution precisely because it wasrequired by colonial politeiaLetting contracts was a process in which magistrates entrepreneurs

and their subcontracted laborers and suppliers engaged This occurredregularly for instance each time the sacra publica were provided forofficial rituals The contractual process was an urgent requirement forcolonial life as demonstrated by Ch 69 of the lex Urs

IIviri qui post colon(iam) deduclangtrangam primi erunt ii in su|omag(istratu) et quicumq(ue) IIvir(i) in colon(ia) Iul(ia) eruntii in | diebus (sexaginta) proxumis quibus eum mag(istratum)gerere coe|perint ad decuriones referunto cum non minus |(viginti) aderunt uti redemptori redemptoribusque | qui earedempta habebunt quae ad sacra resq(ue) | divinas opus eruntpecunia ex lege locationis | adtribuatur solvaturq(ue) nevequisquam rem ali|am at decuriones referunto neve quot decuri|onum decret(um) faciunto antequam eis redemp|toribuspecunia ex lege locationis attribuatur | solvaturve d(ecurionum)d(ecreto) dum ne minus (triginta) atsint cum | e(a) r(es) con-sulatur quot ita decreverint ei IIvir(i) | redemptori redemptor-ibus attribuendum | solvendumque curato dum ne ex ea pecunia| solvent adtribuant quam pecuniam ex h(ac) l(ege) | [ad] easacra quae in colon(ia) aliove quo loco pu|blice fiant dariadtribui oportebit

Whoever shall be the first IIviri after the foundation of thecolony they during their magistracy and whoever shall beIIviri in the colonia Iulia they in the sixty days next followingthose on which they shall have begun to hold that magistracy areto raise with the decurions when not less than 20 shall bepresent the procedure by which a sum may be assigned andpaid according to the conditions for the letting of the contractto the contractor or contractors who shall hold the contract for

139 Crawford (1995 421)


those things which shall be necessary for sacrifices and religiousfunctions Nor is anyone to raise any other matter with thedecurions or pass any decree of the decurions before themoney be assigned or paid according to the conditions forthe letting of the contract to those contractors by decree of thedecurions langunlessrang not less than thirty be present wheneverthat matter may be discussed Whatever they shall have sodecreed those IIviri are to see that it is assigned and paid tothe contractor or contractors provided that they not pay orassign from that sum which sum it shall be appropriate togive or assign according to this statute for those sacrificeswhich may be publicly performed in the colony or any otherplace (RS I 25)

Public works construction140 also involved the contractual mecha-nism141 Accountability and competition was fostered by the publicdisplay and archiving of contracts not only immediately after colonialfoundation but also annually thereafter In Roman law contracts forthis kind of work were subsumed under the legal category of locatio-conductio in which a party (the locator) in need of labor (opus) let outthe job by ldquohiringrdquo the services (operae) of a contractor (the conductoror redemptor) who ldquorentedrdquo the terms of the contract142 So we see inCh 63 of the lex Irn

R(ubrica) De [l]ocationibus legibusque locationum pro|ponen-dis et in tabulas municipi referendis Qui IIvir iure dicundopraerit vectigalia ultroque | tributa sive quid aliut communinomine munici|pum eius municipi locari oportebit locatoQuasque lo|cationes fecerit quasque leges dixerit et quantiquit | locatum sit et qui praedes accepti sint quaeque praedia |subdita subsignata obligatave sint quique praedio|rum cogni-tores accepti sint in tabulas communes mu|nicipum eius muni-cipi referantur facito et proposita | habeto per omne reliquumtempus honoris sui ita ut | d(e) [p(lano] r(ecte) [l(egi) p(ossint)]quo loco decuriones conscriptive proponenda esse censuerint

Rubric Concerning the displaying and entering in the records ofthe municipium of ldquoofferings for rentrdquo and conditions for

140 Also the supply of sacra publica collection of taxes141 Liebenam (1967 134ndash64 382ndash416) Cf Goffaux (2001) DrsquoHautcourt (2001)142 du Plessis (2012) See also Martin (1986) Martin (1989) Martin (2001)


ldquoofferings for rentrdquo Whoever is IIvir in charge of the adminis-tration of justice is to ldquooffer for rentrdquo the revenues and thecontracts and whatever else it is necessary to ldquooffer for rentrdquo inthe common name of the municipes of that municipium And heis to have entered in the common records of the municipes ofthat municipium whatever ldquoofferings for rentrdquo he has held andwhatever conditions he has laid down and for how much any-thing has been ldquorentedrdquo and who have been accepted aspraedes143 and what praedia have been furnished and regis-tered and pledged and who have been accepted as cognitores144

of the praedia and he is to have them displayed for the wholeof the rest of his time in office in such a way that they can beread properly from ground level in the place in which thedecurions or conscripti decide that they should be displayed

(JRS 1986)

Two aspects of Ch 63 are important to note First public contracts fellwithin the charge of the civic magistrate who provided oversight of theentire process Second the terms and specifications of contracts werepublicly posted through the end of each magisterial year after whichthey were retained in the public archives This meant that contractualspecifications like the constitution itself were always visibly present inthe colonial center145 Such display also provided legal and publicaccountability since (as we saw in Ch 69 of the lex Urs) final paymentwas issued ldquoaccording to the conditions for the letting of the contractrdquo(ex lege locationis) Already in the public display of leges locationiswe see the visible legal Roman form that Greek building contracts ofthe sort we saw earlier from Lebadeia would have taken in a colonysuch as CorinthIn both the Caesarian lex Urs (assigned to the midndashfirst century by

Stylow)146 and the Flavian lex Irn we see the development and applica-tion of Roman public law to the exigency of construction demolitionand rebuilding of public and private structures147 Because Ch 62 of the

143 A Berger EDRL sv praedes ldquosureties who assumed guaranty for a person whoconcluded a contract with the state (eg a lease a locatio conductio operarum etc)rdquo

144 Berger EDRL sv cognitor ldquoa representative of a party in a civil trialrdquo Cf lex IrnCh 64

145 Cf Cicero Agr 17 255ndash6 display of public contracts146 See Chapter 3147 Cf Phillips (1973)


lex Irn brings together magisterial authority demolition or damage tostructures and financial penalties148 it warrants full citation

R(ubrica) Ne quis aedificia quae restituturus non erit destruatNe quis in oppido municipi Flavi Irnitani quaeque ei oppido |

continentia aedificia erunt aedificium de[t]egito destrui|todemoliundumve curato nisi langderang decurionum conscriptorum|ve sententialtmgt cum maior pars eorum adfuerit quod res|tituturus intra proximum annum non erit Qui adversus | eafecerit is quanti ea res erit t(antam) p(ecuniam) municipibusmunicipi Flavi | Irnitani d[are] d[amnas] esto eiusque pecuniaedeque | ea pecunia municipi eius municipi [q]ui volet cuiqueper h(anc) l(egem) li|cebit actio petitio persecutio esto

Rubric That no one is to destroy buildings which he is not goingto replace

No one in the town of theMunicipium Flavium Irnitanum orwhere buildings are continuous with that town is to unroof ordestroy or see to the demolition of a building except by resolu-tion of the decurions or conscripti when the majority of themis present unless he is going to replace it within the next yearWhoever acts against these rules is to be condemned to payto the municipes of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum asmuch money as the case is worth and the right of action suitand claim of that money and concerning that money is to belongto any municeps of that municipium who wishes and who isentitled under this statute (JRS 1986)

To regulate the condition and development of urban spaces the lawrequired public approval for major structural alterations149 Those actingcontrary to statute (qui adversus ea fecerit) were liable to be fined Anymonies collected belonged to the city and could be used to fund publicconstruction or other endeavors150

When a colony prepared to enagage in public works construction acontract was readied and a process initiated Eligible contractors bidcompetitively for the lucrative job spurred on by the prospect ofincome and in the case of major building projects the possibility ofglory by association Magistrates their families and their attendants

148 Cf lex Urs Ch 75149 Cf Lamberti (1993 85ndash96)150 Gonzaacutelez (1986 218) Cf lex Irn Ch 66


(apparitores) were ineligible for any share in public contracts151

Competition among bidders could be invidious Plutarch used thiswell-known fact as the basis for a moralizing appeal

Cities as we know when they give public notice of intent to letcontracts for the bidding of temples or colossal statues (ὅτανἔκδοσιν ναῶν ἢ κολοσσῶν προγράφωσιν) listen to the propo-sals of artists competing for the commission and bringing intheir estimates and models (περὶ τῆς ἐργολαβίας καὶ λόγουςκαὶ παραδείγματα κομιζόντων) and then choose the man whowill do the same work with the least expense and better thanthe others and more quickly Come then let us suppose thatwe also give public proclamation of intent to contract for mak-ing life wretched (ἡμᾶς ἔκδοσίν τινα βίου κακοδαίμονοςπροκηρύσσειν) and that Fortune and vice come to get thecommission (προσιέναι τῇ ἐργολαβίᾳ) in a rival spirit(διαφερομένας) (Mor 498EndashF Loeb translation)

Although every detail related to Roman colonial contract law and build-ing regulations will not have applied to the Greek poleis it is clear fromPlutarch that the process of public proclamation of the contract and ofcompetitive bidding was a shared experience of politeia for many citiesand of the craftsmen who provided labor for contractors152 There wassignificant overlap in the social experience as well as the legal form ofpublic building in the Graeco-Roman civic centersThe constitution also provided the authority for magistrates annually

to require corveacutee-style work or to requisition resources from adultmale citizens incolae and others We find the following in Ch 98 ofthe lex Urs

quacumque munitionem decuriones huius|ce coloniae decrever-int si m(aior) p(ars) [[]] decurionum | atfuerit cum e(a) r(es)consuletur eam munitionem | fieri liceto dum ne amplius inannos sing(ulos) in|que homines singulos puberes operas quinaset in iumenta plaustraria iuga sing(ula) operas ter|nas decernanteique munitioni aed(iles) qui tum | erunt ex d(ecurionum)d(ecreto) praesunto uti decurion(es) censu|erint ita munien-dum curanto dum ne in|vito eius opera exigatur qui minorannor(um) (quattuordecim) |aut maior annor(um) (sexaginta)natus erit qui in ea colon(ia) | intrave eius colon(iae) finlangerangs

151 Lex Irn Ch J For apparitores see also lex Urs Chs 62 63 93152 Burford (1972 esp 68ndash123) Cf Dio Chrysostom Cont (Or 47)


domicilium praediumve habebit neque eius colon(iae) colon(us)erit is ei|dem munitioni uti colon(us) parelangnrangto

Whatever construction work the decurions of this colony shallhave decreed if the majority of the decurions shall have beenpresent when that matter shall be discussed it is to be lawful forthat construction work to take place provided that they notdecree more each year for each adult man than five daysrsquowork each and for pairs of draught animals (for) each yokethree daysrsquo work each And the aediles who shall then be (inoffice) are to be in charge of that construction work accordingto the decree of the decurions As the decurions shall havedecided so they are to see that the construction work is doneprovided that work be not exacted unwillingly of that personwho shall be less than fourteen years or more than sixty yearsold Whoever in that colony or within the boundaries of thatcolony shall have a domicile or estate and shall not be a colonistof that colony he is to be liable to the same construction workas a colonist (RS I 25)

It is difficult to tell how often such operae were actually required whatform such an obligation might take in each case or in what wayssome might evade the requirement or provide substitutes Yet the reap-pearance and development of this statute in lex Irn Ch 83 suggests it wasimplemented in colonial life over the first century as Julio-Claudiancommunities such as Corinth experienced building booms153

According to the charters it was aediles who most often administeredthe processes of public construction and who afterward oversaw theirmaintenance154 As we saw in lex Urs Ch 69 duoviri and decurionsapproved and saw to the payment for completed work Contractors whowere engaged for public business such as building were required torender accounts which were recorded and archived by public scribeswithin 150 days of completion or cessation of work155

In sum the constitution testifies abundantly to the regulation of publiccontracting for projects such as temple construction The letting ofcontracts was a public process overseen by colonial magistrates and

153 Lex Irn Ch 83 Traces remain in the inscriptions (not at Corinth) see Liebenam(1967 401ndash2 417ndash30) Crawford RS I 25 p 444

154 Cf lex Urs Ch 77 lex Irn Ch 19 Lamberti (1993 64ndash7) Management of templesby magistri fanorum lex Urs Ch 128

155 Rendering accounts lex Urs Ch 80 lex Irn Chs 67ndash9 Scribae lex Urs Ch 81 lexIrn Ch 26 lex Flavia Ch 59


involving contractors and craftsmen Chapters from the constitution giveus insight into the competition for such contracts their stipulationscommunal participation in public construction and the processes ofapproval levying fines and final payment It is clear that this frameworkintersects with both the form of Greek temple-building contracts andthe concerns and shape of Paulrsquos extended metaphor in 1 Cor 35ndash45strengthening our case for interpreting the latter in terms of a colonialpolitics of construction But what did such a politics look like at thesocial levels of patron architect and laborers and on the job site in aRoman setting And is there reason to believe the framework of theconstitution actually shaped the practice of public building in RomanCorinthUnfortunately our direct evidence disappoints us at precisely the

points we are most interested the manner of the appointment of anarchitect156 for a civic building project and the exact form that legeslocationis assumed in such contracts157 We are able however to recon-struct to a surprising degree the shape of a Roman Corinthian politics ofconstruction by joining literary juristic and archaeological evidenceWe have already seen from Plutarch that the experience of competitive

bidding for public contracts was assumed to be shared cultural knowl-edge of a distinctly public kind158 It is likely that an architect involvedin major public works projects landed the job in one of two ways Either apatron appointed him or he won a competitive bidding process159 It isonly natural to assume that once a project was let out negotiationsamong those funding and those executing the construction were fina-lized Aulus Gellius grants us a glimpse of the players in such a designphase Recalling a visit to the home of the orator M Cornelius FrontoGellius writes

156 RE II1 (1895) svv architectus (esp cols 551ndash2) architectura (cols 543ndash51)ἀρχιτέκτων (cols 552ndash3)OCD4 sv architectus ldquoRoman architects are mostly anonymoussupervisors during constructionrdquo

157 See Pearse (1975 28ndash9) ldquoIt is difficult to form from the available evidence a clearpicture either of the building contractors or of the whole organisation of building in thesecond and first centuries [BC] Another important absentee from much of the evidenceof this period is the architect We do not know how an architect was appointed for apublic projectrdquo up-to-date collections of epigraphic evidence are found in Donderer(1996) Hellmann (1999)

158 Cf Polyb 617 Plutarch Ti C Gracch 63ndash4 Cicerorsquos indictment of Verres (Verr2151130ndash50) includes important information on public works contracts the appeal tospecifications (im)probatio operis and magisterial corruption du Plessis (2004 295ndash300)

159 Of course these may have coincided see Pearse (1975 107ndash8) Cf PlinyEp 10394


By [Frontorsquos] side stood several builders (fabri) who had beensummoned to construct some new baths and were exhibitingdifferent plans for baths drawn on little pieces of parchment(depictas in membranulis) When he had selected one plan andspecimen of their work (unam formam speciemque operis) heinquired what the expense would be of completing that entireproject (totum opus) And when the architect (architectus) saidthat it would probably require about three hundred sestercesone of Frontorsquos friends said ldquoAnd another fifty thousand moreor lessrdquo (Noct att 1910 Loeb translation JC Rolfe)

We are treated here to a view of three types who figured in the politics ofRoman building the patron the architect and the builder Although itappears that this is a scene of Fronto hiring building services in a privatecapacity local elites could double as public overseers during theirterms as civic magistrates160 Fronto who was presumably funding thebath project appears in Gelliusrsquos vignette as the one selecting the pre-ferred design161 When he asked about the projected costing Fronto wasanswered by the one in charge of the group of builders namely thearchitect162 Later in the scene when Fronto embarrasses a grammarianwho was also there those present laugh at the discomfiture of theeducated man He responds with a sneer referring to the group (lumpingarchitect and builders together) as ldquoignorant folkrdquo (inscitiores) appar-ently on account of their social status

All three types (patronmagistrate architect and builder) appear inbold detail on a sculptural relief from Terracina (see Figure 6) dated tothe late Republican or early Imperial period163

Recent comments by Jones on this relief are relevant to ourinvestigation

Part of a sculptural relief found at Terracina presents a rareinsight into the world of a successful architect-contractorUnlike the static representations of funerary portraits thisshows an architect in action at the town port The fact that

160 As did Babbius Philinus at Corinth see further this chapter161 Vitruvius assumes familiarity with architectural drawings even for non-architects

Cf Jones (2000 49ndash57)162 Apparently an instance where the architectus may also have functioned as

redemptor163 Terracina is a port city just south of Rome on the Tyrrhenian coast The relief is in the

Museo Nazionale in Rome See Coarelli (1996 444ndash6) for dating the iconographic style to43ndash27 BC


this was a major operation is conveyed by the presence of ahigh-ranking official seated on a sella curulis possibly AgrippaMeanwhile the architect is represented no fewer than threetimes each time with a volumen or roll of drawings in onehand In chronological sequence he appears first by his masterrsquosside and subsequently to both the right and left of the A-framelifting device in the act of directing the workforce Thequality of the relief the fact he was shown thrice and his closerelationship with such a senior figure all suggest that this archi-tect was a man of elevated social status perhaps the maincontractor (redemptor) for the whole project164

Laid out in visually narrative form this scene depicts the ultimateauthority of the magistrate the derived authority and presence of thearchitect with his workmen and the tools and physicality of labor withconstruction materials165 From the roll in his hand his dress and hisstance we may infer that this architect is of relatively high status Yetnot all Roman architects were so well placed socially Ambiguity ofstatus is a consistent feature of our evidence166 and ldquoprobably reflects a

Figure 6 Architect reliefTerracina relief with workers architect and magistrate Museo NazionaleRomano (Museo delle Terme) Drawing from J-P Adam Roman BuildingMaterials and Techniques (Bloomington IN Indiana University Press 1994)73 fig 90 Used by permission

164 Jones (2000 28 and fig 114) Drawing fromAdam (2005 45 and fig 90) A slightlydifferent reading of the iconography in Taylor (2003 9 n20)

165 Coarelli (1996 454)166 Pearse (1975 58 102ndash3) Gros (1983 425ndash31) Jones (2000 27ndash30) Cf Columella

Rust 513


real ambiguity in Romansrsquo own perceptions of the architectusrdquo167Whilesome such as Vitruvius were apparently well educated respectable andperhaps wealthy many more were probably citizens freedmen or evenslaves of modest means who learned their trade as masons or as appren-tices on the work site168 Martial the first-century satirist drips withsarcasm when he quips

To what master to entrust your son Lupus has been an anxiousobject of consideration with you for some time Avoid I adviseyou all the grammarians and rhetoricians let him have nothingto do with the books of Cicero or Virgil If he makes versesgive him no encouragement to be a poet if he wishes to studylucrative arts make him learn to play on the guitar or fluteIf he seems to be of a dull disposition (si duri puer ingeni videtui)make him a herald or an architect (praeconem facias vel archi-tectum) (Ep 556 Loeb translation DR Shackelton Bailey)169

Regardless of an architectrsquos precise social status whether in private orpublic construction he had to adhere to the contractual specifications(leges locationis) to receive payment approval and associated gloryThe republican agricultural writer Cato is yet another to refer to buildingspecifications and the obligations between contractor and owner forfurnishing materials and reckoning remuneration170

The only surviving glimpse of a Roman contract for public constructioncomes from Puteoli near Pompeii in the Bay of Naples Dated to 105 BCthe inscription is not the contract per se but records the terms specifica-tions and provisions for approval concerning the alterations to a wall infront of the local temple of Serapis171 It is notable for the formalresemblances it bears to both the earlier Greek contracts and the chapterson construction that would be included in later colonial and municipalcharters The lex parieti faciundo Puteolana comprises three columns

Col 1In the nineteenth year from the foundation of the colonia

Numerius Fufidius son of Numerius and Marcus Pullius asduoviri and the consulship of Publius Rutilius and Gnaeus

167 Anderson (1997 37)168 Pearse (1975 102ndash19)169 Contrast Martial Ep 756 (in praise of Domitianrsquos architect)170 Cato Agr 14 Cf Cicero Quint fratr 1026 See also the Vitruvius citation (De

arch 689) at the head of this chapter171 FIRA III153 See du Plessis (2004 291ndash5)


Mallius Second contract (lex) relating to works Contract (lex)for making a wall in the space that is before the temple ofSerapis across the road whoever shall contract shall havegiven sureties and shall have registered estates according tothe decision of the duoviri

[Stipulations for wall measurements and construction follow]Col 2

[construction details continue]Col 3

[construction details conclude]He shall undertake all this work according to the decision of

the duoviri and former duoviri who customarily sit in council atPuteoli provided that no fewer than twenty members are pre-sent when this matter shall be under consideration Whateverthe twenty of them shall approve (probaverint) under oath it isto be approved (probum esto) Whatever they shall not approve(inprobarint) it is to be unapproved (inprobum esto) Day forbeginning the work (dies operis) the first day of NovemberDay of payment (dies pequn(iae)) one half shall be given whenthe estates shall be satisfactorily registered the other half shallbe paid when the work is completed and approved (effectoprobatoque)

[names of primary contractor and three others]172

As du Plessis notes ldquoThe inclusion of [the specifications in Col 2] wasan important legal convention in the context of the final approval of thecompleted work They provided the contractor with instructions con-cerning the overall result expected by the locator operis and thereforeserved as guidelines to ensure the approval of the finished productrdquo173

Here we see the close interrelation between stipulations (leges locatio-nis) payment and the day of final approval (adprobatio operis) in aRomanmunicipal context These elements recur frequently in our juristicsources and not only in relation to public building Contractual stipula-tions and probatio were the lived experience of wine merchantsthose who shipped freight and other tradesmen and entrepreneurs174

172 Translation slightly modified from du Plessis (2004 292)173 du Plessis (2004 293 300ndash3) relates this to the lex Urs and lex Flavia174 For probatio per aversionem (approval at the end of the job) in the wine trade

building shipping and rental engagements see Jakab (2009 246ndash66) du Plessis (201255ndash119) discusses contractual stipulations and liability relative to fullering and tailoringapprenticing goldsmithing and engraving carriage by land or water and in relation to


Locatio-conductio was also discussed in relation to freedmen whoseservices could be rented out by their patron and to slaves whose personsor services could be subject to contract175

Of the many encounters with the law of contract construction figuresprominently in the jurists and concerns us most directly In legal disputesarising from construction the most frequently cited issues are lossesresulting from structural damage arising from vis maior176 or disagree-ments over contractual stipulations177 In the jurists it becomes clear thatpayment for labor and the bearing of contractual risk were bound up inthe all-important approval of the work the adprobatio operis178 Legallyapproval could take either of two forms179 probatio at designatedstages180 or once at the end of the project181 If the extent and qualityof the work were deemed satisfactory according to contractual stipula-tions the patron or supervising magistrate(s) gave formal approvalissued payment and assumed full risk and liability for the structure

Do we see any evidence of such stipulations liability and approvalrelated to colonial construction in Roman Corinth In fact we do thoughthe evidence permits us only a glimpse of what was surely a largerphenomenon Two epigraphically preserved texts from the Julio-Claudian era are situated in what appears to have been an extendedbuilding boom phase at Corinth apparently peaking in the lateAugustanearly Tiberian years and then again under Claudius182 Thefirst is associated with the local benefactor Babbius Philinus whom weencountered in Chapter 6 The second is in connection with severalimportant new fragments some of which are currently in publicationbut have been discussed in publicly accessible forums

741 Cn Babbius Philinus Construction and Approval

One wealthy local benefactor who was heavily involved in publicbuilding and who served in various magistracies and as a priest was

doctors land-surveyors and architects advocates teachers philosophers scribes actorsgladiators and miners

175 du Plessis (2012 116ndash20)176 Acts of unforeseeable ldquogreater forcerdquo (eg an earthquake) similar to the modern

legal notions ldquoAct of Godrdquo or ldquoforce majeurerdquo See Berger EDRL sv vis maior177 Martin (1989 89ndash102) du Plessis (2012 74ndash81)178 Martin (1989 103ndash13) du Plessis (2012 78ndash81)179 du Plessis (2012 79)180 per pedes mensuras or per singulos dies181 per aversionem182 Stansbury (1990 212ndash27 313ndash27) Cf Walbank (1997) DrsquoHautcourt (2001)


Cn Babbius Philinus183 Inscriptions (of varying quality and size) bear-ing his name have been found at nearly all points of the civic compass ofRoman Corinth the fountain and monument on the western edge ofCorinthrsquos forum184 in the cavea of the Odeion185 near the Lechaionroad186 on the eastern side of the forum187 and near the SE Buildingand South Basilica188 While many of these inscriptions are quitefragmentary189 two associated with the fountain of Poseidon and theso-called Babbius monument190 are the most impressively executed andare important for our discussionWest 132 is the marble epistyle block from the Babbius monument

Babbiusrsquos name and offices are inscribed in large letters on the convexsurface beneath a decorative molding191 Most significant for us is thefinal letter P an abbreviation that expands to probavit (he approved it)

[C]n(aeus) Babbius Philinus aed(ilis) pontif[ex][d(e)] s(ua) p(ecunia) f(aciendum) c(uravit) idemque IIvir

p(robavit)

Set off by interpuncts this P is one of few surviving occurrences of theformula for approval (probavit) in the third person singular extant atCorinth192 The preceding phrase idemque IIvirmakes the expansion of P

183 RP I COR 111 gathers only ten inscriptions usually associated with Babbius Philinusand notes the ascription of his son (Cn Babbius Cn f Italicus RP I COR 110) to the tribeAemilia West 122 + Kent 323 (dedication of the porticum coloniae) Kent 364 and Kent391 may also be connected to Babbius (the father)

184 West 2 West 3 West 131 West 132 Kent 155185 Kent 241186 West 98187 West 100188 Kent 364 Kent 391189 Some of unspecified provenance West 99 and West 101190 Williams (1989 158ndash9) calls the monument an aedicula See Torelli (2001 148ndash52)

for a typology of Roman structures and a possible association with M Vipsanius Agrippa191 See Corinth excavation notebook 39 pp 48ndash9 West 132 gives letter heights of

07ndash08 m (315ndash275 in)192 The others occur in the fragmentary West 135 and in Kent 314 the latter in

connection with Corinthian public works (possibly a bath) associated with the Euryclids

[ mdash mdash ]CR[ mdash mdash ]IS[ mdashndashmdashndashndashndashndashmdashmdashmdash ]HIC[mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashndashmdashndashndashndash ]R ∙ A[mdashmdash ]Coloniae Laud[i Iuliae Cor]inth[iensi][ ]LAM et STAT[mdashmdash ]GN[mdashmdashmdash ][Euryc]lis Her[c]ulan[imdashmdashmdash ]SIGN[ ]MQUE or[navit()mdashmdash IIvir() pr]obavit[prob]ante patre


to probavit secure193 What this means is that the monument was fundedand formally approved by Babbius Whether it was constructed under aprivate or public contract is difficult to say but the addition of IIvir toidemque suggests he pronounced the probatio in his official capacityas duovir This fact was advertised in at least one other place on themonument this time in slightly larger lettering194 on a marble orthostateblock (Figure 7) located at or near ground level The text on this revet-ment slab (Kent 155) reproduces that on the epistyle

[Cn(aeus) Babbius Philinu]s aed(ilis) pontif[ex][d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(aciendum) c(uravit) idemque] IIvir

p(robavit)

Figure 7 Babbius inscriptionInscribed orthostate for Babbius monument (Corinth Inv 2147) Archive of theAmerican School of Classical Studies Corinth ExcavationsPhoto I Ioannidou and L Bartzioti American School of Classical Studies atAthens Corinth Excavations Used by permission

193 As opposed to other possibilities such as posuit More than a dozen Latin inscriptionsfrom the Julio-Claudian period have variations on the phrase idemque probavit cf ILGR219 (=AE 1978731) Augustan Thessalonike IGLR 179 (=AE 1915113) the Augustancolony of Dium CIL 312279 Dyme Corinthrsquos neighboring Augustan colony

194 Kent 155 gives letter heights of 088ndash11 m (35ndash43 in)


Although we cannot know the procedural details of Babbiusrsquos finalinspection we may imagine that he worked closely with the architectdirecting the project Babbius would have released payment accord-ing to the terms of the contract and on the day of the adprobatiooperis would have granted final approval Then after the finalinscribed and ornamental touches were in place there might havebeen a dedication of the impressive monument so visible in Corinthrsquosdeveloping Roman center Babbius was as the patron and magistratethe focus of glory a fact to which the inscriptions so eloquentlytestify We might also note that nowhere in the epigraphy associatedwith the monumental benefactions of the local magistrate and patronBabbius is anyone mentioned but himself The archictects who surelyplayed an important role in his projects remain hidden from us in anepigraphic penumbraAs West observed in 1931 since Babbiusrsquos name appears so

frequently in connection with monumental epigraphy in lateAugustanearly Tiberian Corinth ldquowe may conclude that his bene-factions were an important factor in the beautification of thecolonyrdquo195 In the person of Babbius we see the connection betweenthe politics of patronage and of public construction the combinationresulting in colonial gratitude and personal glory196 This connectionbetween benefaction and building between thanksgiving and increas-ing civic glory is shown to be a feature of first-century Graeco-Roman culture with a firm evidentiary basis in Corinth Furthermorethe explicit use of probavit suggests that the politics involved inBabbiusrsquos benefactions sat comfortably within the framework ofCorinthrsquos constitution

742 Kent 345 and Colonial Probatio

One additional epigraphical set is relevant to our reconstruction of thepolitics of construction at Roman Corinth In June 2008 Paul Iversenannounced that his work on a new volume of Corinth inscriptions had

195 West p 108196 If Paulrsquos Erastus (Rom 1623) were identified with the aedile of early Roman Corinth

(Kent 232) he would provide a perfect example of someonewithin the Corinthian assemblywell familiar with the colonial politics of construction On this debate see now Welborn(2011 260ndash82) who sees the evidence inclining toward an identification of the two Erastibut thinks Erastus was not among Paulrsquos early converts in Corinth


led him to link several unpublished fragments with the previously pub-lished Kent 345197 When three fragments are joined they offer anotherwindow into public building contracts and approval within the colonialconstitutional framework

Iversen A [=Kent 345]

[mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash ][mdash mdash ] bull M(arcum) bull Instle[ium Tectum mdash ][mdash mdash mdash ] bull Corint[hu]m bull C bull Anṭ[mdash mdash mdash mdash ][mdash mdash mdash ]M bull et bull Q(uintum) bull Cornelium [mdash][mdash mdashmdash mdash ]pṛobaruṇt bull XX[mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash ][mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash ]

Iversen B

[mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]

[mdash mdash mdash mdash] ỊỊA bull decuṛ[ionmdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash]s bull apparitoruṃ [mdash mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash]er LXII bull M bull C[mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash]ṣpuṇ[mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]


Iversen C

[mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]ỊḄṚỊ[mdash mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]nus bull IIỊ[mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]Cbull Fideḷ[mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]Ịbull Caesaris [mdash mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash A]ntiochus bullIbull [mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash]canus bull I[I mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash][mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]ṾỊ bull [mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash]

For a full appreciation we must await Iversenrsquos publication of thesefragments In his preliminary analysis however he noted thatH M Robinson former director of Excavations at Corinth originallyspeculated in 1976 (the year Fragments B and C were unearthed) that

197 Preliminary text photos and commentary available in the ldquovirtual seminarrdquo at httpwwwcurrentepigraphyorg20080624virtual-seminar-on-some-unpublished-inscriptions-from-corinth-iii [accessed December 22 2012] Initially Iversen linked three fragments(ldquoBrdquo ldquoCrdquo and ldquoDrdquo) with Kent 345 (ldquoFragment Ardquo) He has since dissociated ldquoFragmentDrdquo on the basis of find-spot I thank Dr Iversen for discussing these fragments with me indetail


they were part of Corinthrsquos colonial charter He was led to his hypothesisby the co-occurrence of terms found elsewhere only in the lex Urs(Caesaris decurionndash apparitorum) Although this interpretation mustbe abandoned in view of the personal names and numerals in the frag-ments it is highly probable that they formed an inscribed documentrelating to colonial construction of a project subject to joint approvalby commissioners Little else can account for the combination of termi-nology names numbers198 and particularly the third person pluralprobarunt199 It would not be surprising if additional fragments of thisinscription were found to discover the language of contract (locare)further attested200 In sum despite their incomplete nature and publica-tion status these new fragments provide another set of evidence locatingthe politics of public construction in Julio-Claudian Corinth201

743 Summary

We may conclude this section by reviewing our findings on the Romanform processes and social dynamics of public building and the evidencefor the politics of construction in first-century Corinth We began bylaying out the considerable constitutional evidence dealing with theprocess of public contracting particularly for public works There itbecame evident that Corinthrsquos politeiawould have provided a frameworkfor the letting of contracts with detailed stipulations (leges locationis)these guided the construction work from inception to completion finalapproval and payment Evidence adduced from literary and icongraphicsources aided us in adding to this general framework We discovered thatcontracts for public construction involved competition and relationshipsamong a patron (or commissioner[s]) architect and laborers Architects

198 These large numbers could be either figures of measurement or payment199 Cf AE 1973220 (from the municipium of Rubi in Italy) for the use of probarunt to

mark the civic approval of a project of wall and tower construction by decision and decreeof the decurions Iversen preliminarily dated the inscription between 44 BC and theTiberian era It is prudent to await the final publication before discussing further eitherthe date or the names indicated by the inscription

200 For inscriptions with locare and probare see AE 1982764 (Dalmatia I BC) AE1984389 (Etruria I BC) AE 192286 (Latium and Campania I BC) AE 1982263(Umbria I BC) AE 198753 (Rome 63 BC) IGLR 179 (Dium in Macedonia AD I)IGLR 219 (Thessaloniki AD 24) AE 1962159a (Rome ) AE 1925127 (Rome ) AE1914268 (Venetia and Histria )

201 Cf Kent 306 Millis (2010 27ndash30) mentions other under-studied artifacts (ie rooftiles) from Roman Corinth that indicate widespread contracting and manufacturing


varied in socioeconomic status but acted as an extension of the patronrsquosauthority on the work site Together with their laborers architects couldbe viewed with opprobrium by literate elites We saw in addition that anextant inscription from Puteoli documenting a public works projectbuttressed the Roman juristsrsquo view of the centrality of probatio operis ndashthe final approval of the work according to technical conformity andquality Finally we were able to locate the processes of Roman buildingfirmly in Julio-Claudian Corinth with the assistance of epigraphicalevidence In summary the constituent elements of specification andpenalties authority and accountability and payment and approval forpublic building are present in our reconstruction of the politics ofconstruction in Roman Corinth But the Graeco-Roman contours ofconstruction even so firmly anchored in first-century Corinth are insuf-ficient to account for important elements in 1 Cor 35ndash45 Therefore wemust consider now the Jewish theology of covenantal construction thatshapes Paulrsquos ecclesial adaptation of an embodied colonial experience

75 Jeremiah and the Pauline politics of covenantalconstruction

Certain features of Paulrsquos political theology animate his adaptation of thepolitics of construction By these he reworks the Graeco-Roman andCorinthian dynamics of civic temple construction and dedication focus-ing especially on issues of theological architecture apostolic authoritydivine approval and communal acclamation A crucial element of hisreworking especially in his rejection of critical judgment of his author-ity derives from his Jewish experience Of course the physical socialand political aspects of civic construction examined thus far were alsopresent in the experience of first-century Jewish communities in formsthat differed little from those characterizing the politeiai of Greekand Roman cities Synagogues are a case in point bringing togetherwealthy donors (Jewish or Gentile) Jewish communities in Palestineand the diaspora and ndash although rarely glimpsed ndash architects and theirsubcontractors202 But we must turn as Paul does from physical struc-tures to the scriptural resources deployed and debated within them if weare to account for the differences that shape his rhetorical constructionin 1 Cor 35ndash45 and his theology of ecclesial formation throughoutthe Corinthian correspondence We must move taking our cue fromPaul himself from colonial to covenantal construction

202 Lifshitz (1967) Levine (2005) Donderer (1996)


Various facets of a Pauline political theology emerge in each of thesubsections that make up this unit These are examined in turn in theexegesis that follows Here however we must focus on the guidingtheological impulse behind Paulrsquos metaphorical construction of hisauthority and on the meaning he gives to the ecclesial communityrsquossocial composition and ethical orientation That impulse surfacesinitially in the combined functional titles he assumes namely planter(36ndash8) and builder (310ndash11) The planter-builder self-designation asa rhetorical tool in Paulrsquos hands imports a distinctly Jewish andcovenantal theology203 one most explicable in terms of the propheticcommission of Jer 110 and one that may have been lost (at leastinitially) on many Gentiles in the Corinthian assembly Paulrsquos famil-iarity with and dependence on Jeremiah in other texts has been notedpreviously204 But few have given attention to the collocation ofplanting and building just here in 1 Cor 35ndash45 Why might Pauldraw on Jeremiah in connection with the temple-building metaphor205

What linkage is there between Jeremiah and his extended use ofconstruction language for the assembly and for his own ministerialauthority throughout the Corinthian letters That Paul introduces andcombines planting and building to describe his apostolic task here hasimplications for his self-understanding and his vision for the politicsand ethics of the covenant community he claims to have founded atCorinth (2 Cor 1014)As interpreters have noticed when he asserts the constructive char-

acter of his authority in 1 and 2 Corinthians Paul invokes Jeremiah toportray himself as divinely commissioned to administer a new covenantin Corinth206 Important traces of Jeremiah surface at three points in thecorrespondence 1 Cor 35ndash9 2 Cor 108 and 2 Cor 1310 In the lattertwo the echo of Jeremiahrsquos commission (Jer 110) is undeniable207 Thisis best apprehended if we set the texts side by side as in the accompanyingtable

203 These same motifs appear epigraphically touching on civic foundation benefactionand temple-precinct construction eg CIG 4521 Cf David (2006)

204 Ciampa and Rosner (2007)205 Zeller (2010 158ndash61) exemplifies the approach that carefully analyzes each con-

stituent Bild and the Jewish comparanda in 1 Cor 35ndash45 but fails to grasp the metaphoricalconfiguration Paul has rendered (or its Jeremianic precursor)

206 Lane (1982) Cf Furnish (1984 466ndash7) Thrall (1994 622ndash6) Thiselton (2000696)

207 Windisch (1924 303) ein Gedanke der offenkundig auf Jer 110 anspielt CfVielhauer (1979) Kitzberger (1986)


Jer 110 (LXX) 2 Cor 108 2 Cor 1310

ἰδοὺ κατέστακά σεσήμερον ἐπὶ ἔθνηκαὶ βασιλείαςἐκριζοῦν καὶκατασκάπτεινκαὶ ἀπολλύεινκαὶ ἀνοικοδομεῖνκαὶ καταφυτεύειν

ἐάν τε γὰρπερισσότερόν τικαυχήσωμαι περὶτῆς ἐξουσίας ἡμῶνἧς ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριοςεἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶοὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσινὑμῶν οὐκαἰσχυνθήσομαι

διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἀπὼνγράφω ἵνα παρὼν μὴἀποτόμως χρήσωμαικατὰ τὴν ἐξουσίανἥν ὁ κύριος ἔδωκενμοι εἰς οἰκοδομὴνκαὶ οὐκ εἰςκαθαίρεσιν

Behold I haveappointed youtoday overnations andkingdoms touproot and to teardown and todestroy and torebuild and toplant

Really if I boastsomewhat too muchabout our authoritywhich the Lord gavefor building you upand not for tearingyou down I shall notbe put to shame

On account of thesethings I write whileabsent so that whenI am present I maydeal with you notseverely accordingto the authoritywhich the Lord gaveme for building upand not for tearingdown

Both of these allusions to Jer 110 in 2 Cor 10ndash13 are adaptively set inlarger contexts of conflict irony and emotional intensity208 With theassertion that his divinely granted authority is meant to be constructiverather than destructive for the community Paul interprets his own apos-tolic experience209 and expresses the spiritual power of his own words inJeremianic terms210 Considerations of theme language and exigenceencourage us to align these two passages in 2 Corinthians with 1Cor 35ndash45

208 Windisch (1924 290 303ndash7 412ndash26) Vielhauer (1979 72ndash3) Thrall (1994595ndash629 871ndash900) Welborn (2011 62ndash3 84ndash104 182ndash202)

209 Windisch (1924 303 n4) refers Paulrsquos language of destruction (καθαιρῶ) to hisexperience of persecuting the early Christian assemblies But in none of the texts headduces do we find the same terminology of destruction (Paul employs διώκω for thisaspect of his former pattern of life)We ought instead to understand Paulrsquos word choice hereas a result of reintroducing the political theology of divine covenantal commissioning inJeremiah to clarify his preceding militaristic language (2 Cor 103ndash6) characterizing thepower of his divinely authoritative speech This may explain why he does not borrow any ofthe verbs of destruction in LXX Jer 110 turning instead to Hellenistic military languageCf Malherbe (1983) Brink (2006)

210 Windisch (1924 303ndash7) Bultmann (1985 187ndash91) Thrall (1994 624ndash6 899ndash900)


In both 2 Cor 108 and 1310 Paul is concerned broadly with theproper evaluation of his authoritative ministry the same point at issue in1 Cor 35ndash45211 All three texts contain similarities of content languageand tone Paul refers to a critical assessment of his ministry with the verbλογίζομαι in 1 Cor 41212 and in 2 Cor 102 (2x) 7 11213 He speaks ofhis divine commissioning by the Lord in 1 Cor 35 2 Cor 108 and 2 Cor1310 with variants on the clause ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν μοι214 Paul claims asdoes Jeremiah that his words are the very words of God utterancesthat have a constructive effect in the community (2 Cor 1219 cf 1 Cor117ndash25 21ndash5 53ndash5 1622 2 Cor 217ndash36 518ndash21 133) Both 1Cor 41ndash5 and 2 Cor 131ndash10 address the Corinthian desire to subjectPaul to a quasi-formal inquiry215 Whereas he speaks of a final eschato-logical examination of ministerial work in 1 Cor 313 (καὶ ἐκάστου τὸἔργον τὸ πῦρ δοκιμάσει) he employs the evaluative language ofδοκιμάζω(ἀ)δόκιμος in 2 Cor 133 5 (2x) 6 7 (2x) to challenge hisexaminers correctly to test themselves and to assess his own workClearly in all three passages Paul is responding to critics in the commu-nity whose views of the character of his authoritative ministry he desiresto refute and correct That all three share similar language and rhetoricalexigencies also suggests a continuity in Paulrsquos attempt to define vis-agrave-visthe Corinthian assembly his own ministerial authority in terms of aJeremiah-like commission It is an authority he tenaciously defendsand then repeatedly qualifies by insisting it is for the purpose of ecclesialconstruction216

If the thematic connections we have highlighted are persuasivethen we are led backward from the explicit allusions to Jer 110 in2 Corinthians to an implicit originary allusion to the prophetic-architectonic commission in 1 Cor 35ndash11217 Here we witness an impor-tant formulation of Paulrsquos self-understanding it is the expression of hisapostolic authority in terms of covenantal construction While it is true

211 Also at issue in 1 Cor 9 where (despite an unrelated use of φυτέω in 97) Paul adoptsa different apologetic strategy

212 1 Cor 41 elaborated in 434 by the semantically similar ἀνακρίνω213 Also 2 Cor 115 126 Welborn (2011 83ndash6)214 Thrall (1994 624) takes the aorist ἔδωκεν in 2 Cor 108 to refer to Paulrsquos initial

calling She agrees with Furnish (1984 467) that ὁ κύριος refers to Christ See Paulrsquoslanguage for ministerial commissioning in 1 Cor 35 καὶ ἑκάστω ὡς ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν

215 Welborn (2010)216 Schuumltz (1975 224ndash5) points to Jer 110 claiming Paul and Jeremiah share ldquothe same

eschatological consciousnessrdquo Consider also the ldquoJeremianicrdquo vision Paul experienced inCorinth according to Luke (Acts 189ndash10 cf Jer 18)

217 Vielhauer (1979 72ndash82) treats the texts in this order


that Paul uses the metaphor of building in other early epistles (cf 1Thess 511 Gal 218) it is nowhere so prevalent in his letters as in 1Corinthians218

In Oikodomē Vielhauer noted that building language was variouslyapplied in the rhetoric of Jewish early Christian and other Hellenisiticwritings Its uses vary too in Paulrsquos letters and even in 1 CorinthiansVielhauer treated Paulrsquos usage of the building image under three heads(1) images of the missionary authority of the apostle (2) images ofrelations within the community and (3) a (single) anthropological meta-phor (2 Cor 51)219 Of these the first two concern us directly Withinhis first broad category (ie apostolic authority) fall the Corinthian textswe are examining These Vielhauer divides further into two subsets (1a)the substance of the apostolic task (2 Cor 108 1310)220 and (1b) themanner of executing that commission (1 Cor 35ndash17)221 Relationalimages of building language in 1 Corinthians fall similarly accordingto Vielhauer into two sub-categories (2a) cultic (1 Cor 14) and (2b)ethical (1 Cor 8 10) Although Vielhauer evidently intended his classi-fication to be descriptive his sub-categories correlated with the unfold-ing Corinthian correspondence suggest an inner progression in Paulrsquostheology and pastoral practice There is an organic relation that Vielhauerdid not pursue and its origin is in Paulrsquos decision to appropriate Jer 110in 1 Cor 35ndash17 To proceed to an elaboration of these relations amongPaulrsquos Corinthian building metaphors is to appreciate more fully thestructural logic by which the self-described wise architect binds thetheological politics of construction entailed by Jer 110 with the socialpolitics of construction at Roman Corinth

We must remember that Jer 110 had an effective history stretchingfrom the end of the seventh century BC to Qumran and of course to Paulhimself Within Jeremiahrsquos prophecy the language of the commissionespecially the shorthand of planting-building was redeployed in multiplecontexts In tracing the ldquoearly careerrdquo of Jer 110 Olyan points outthat particularly with respect to the final two of the climactic six infini-tives (ie ldquobuildrdquo and ldquoplantrdquo)222 ldquoNeither the international scope ofJeremiahrsquos appointment (ldquoover nations and kingdomsrdquo) nor his destruc-tive and constructive power as Yahwehrsquos agent are unprecedented in the

218 Οἰκοδομέω and cognates appear explicitly in 1 Cor 35ndash45 81 10 1023 143ndash512 17 26

219 Vielhauer (1979 72ndash104)220 Vielhauer (1979 72ndash3)221 Vielhauer (1979 74ndash85)222 The final two Hebrew infinitive constructs are libnot (bnh) and linṭoalsquo (nṭh)


prophetic traditionrdquo223 Planting and building had a long prophetic pedi-gree Consistent throughout the Jeremianic contexts is the notion ofYahwehrsquos prophet as a commissioned authority acting as the divinemessenger for the heavenly court his word is covenantal in its declara-tive modes ndash alternately constructing and destructing nations includingIsrael Eventually the power of planting-building becomes oriented tothe future and is linked to Yahwehrsquos direct agency and the presenceof the Spirit in the eschatological garden-temple-assembly of Israel(especially in Jer 246 3128 40b 4210 cf Ezek 3636)224 Suchreworkings contemporize Jer 110 in the prophets and anticipate theso-called rewritten Bible of Second Temple texts (eg Jubilees)225 Bythe time of the Qumran texts explicit citations of Jeremiahrsquos commissionare scarce226 but the motif of planting and building applied to theeschatological covenant community is attested especially in 1QS (TheCommunity Rule) and CD (The Damascus Document)227 These textsshare Paulrsquos concern for purity in the covenanted temple-assembly (1 Cor316ndash17)228 Nevertheless the rhetorical adaptations for the commu-nities behind the Qumran texts are distinct from those that Paul rendersin 1 Cor 3229 Only in Paulrsquos use of the planter-builderplanting-buildingmotif does he figure as minister-architect of a temple built from Jewsand Gentiles He claims to have planted and built in a Roman setting farfrom Jerusalem a new covenant communityWhat this brief history of reception in respect of Jer 110 demonstrates

is that the motif of planting-building had become by Paulrsquos day and inJewish discourse a formula weighted with implications of authority andcovenant community Put differently planting building and templewere elements of covenantal discourse that expressed an important andcomplex Jewish cultural metaphor J K Jindo has recently explored thisphenomenon in a study of Jer 1ndash24 through the lens of cognitive meta-phor theory Jindorsquos investigation of the conceptual system encoded and

223 Olyan (1998 63ndash72) cites as precursors 1 Kgs 1915ndash17 1717ndash24 2 Kgs 315ndash2068ndash23

224 Olyan (1998 66ndash9)225 Olyan (1998 70)226 Jer 110 is apparently not cited in any Qumran text Its reworking in Jer 1213ndash17

and 4210 are however attested in the fragmentary 4QJera and 2QJer respectively SeeTov (2002 194)

227 See eg 1QS 84ndash10 117ndash8 (covenant assembly founded as an ldquoeverlastingplantationrdquo) and CD-A 319 (=4Q269 2) Cf Maier (1960 161ndash2) Christiansen (1995156ndash8) Beale (2004 154ndash60)

228 Bitner (2013a)229 Hogeterp (2006 75ndash114 295ndash330)


cultivated by Jer 110 is relevant to our examination of Paulrsquos rhetoricaladaptation of that same text and similar system in 1 Cor 35ndash45 espe-cially so since Jindo draws on the work of Koumlvecses and cognitive-linguistic metaphor theory230

Jindo criticizes earlier scholars for their ldquoatomisticrdquoword-based focuson metaphors in biblical texts231 This practice ldquoprevents [scholars] fromconsidering the possibility that the metaphors belonging to the sameframe of reference or the same lsquoconceptual domainrsquo as cognitive scho-lars put it may well be interrelated and thus represent a single imagina-tive realityrdquo232 Jindo proposes an alternative mode of interpretation thatis alert to culturally specific conceptual information ldquoalready knownto language users and therefore not usually spelled out in the givendiscourserdquo233 In the case of Jer 110 Jindo contends that traditionalinterpretations fail to account for ldquothe qualitative juxtaposition of twokinds of verbs one belonging to the semantic field of architecture andthe other to horticulturerdquo and asks ldquoHow can we understand thisjuxtapositionrdquo234 This same question faces the interpreter of 1 Cor35ndash9 although an answer is further complicated by Paulrsquos ldquodual alle-giancerdquo to Judaism and Hellenism235 According to a propositionalapproach notes Jindo ldquoplantrdquo in Jer 110 merely restates the earlierpositive verbal elements But according to the cognitive-linguisticapproach ldquoplantrdquo (together with ldquobuildrdquo) provides a ldquomode of orienta-tion through which to perceive the proposition statedrdquo by the earlierverbs236 Jindo concludes that the horticultural-architectural combinationin Jer 110 and other Jeremianic texts reflects the ANE ldquodivine gardenparadigmrdquo in which the prophet is Yahwehrsquos covenantal emissary and thecommunity is the Exodus-plantation On Jindorsquos reading Jer 110 is afundamental text for the developing Jewish covenantal politics centeringon the eschatological garden-temple-assembly237 Planting and buildingespecially when joined to the temple motif in later Jewish texts thereforedeserve to be investigated as surface signals indicating a much larger andculturally basic covenantal framework They are elements of a complex

230 Jindo (2010)231 Jindo (2010 5ndash21) Bourguet (1987 98ndash9) treats Jer 110 and its Jeremianic echoes

and is particularly critiqued by Jindo on this account232 Jindo (2010 19)233 Jindo (2010 35)234 Jindo (2010 175)235 Phrase from Mitchell (1991 300)236 Jindo (2010 176)237 Jindo (2010 152ndash77)


conceptual metaphor that assumes cultural (and theological) knowledgeand so works to orient the knowing auditorrsquos perception both politicallyand ethically in each new reconfigurationIn view of Jindorsquos insights we are able better to comprehend Paulrsquos

recourse to Jeremiahrsquos language of planting and building in 1 Cor 3 Thecollocation suggests an important reason underlying the apostlersquos choiceof language to describe his commission in response to criticism fromsome in the nascent covenant community one that he planted and beganto build up by his word of the cross when first among them But if thiswas the case for Paul it must also have been the case that such a Jewishtheo-political metaphor may have been largely incomprehensible tomany in the assembly238 Paul appears to have sensed this andtherefore begins in 39 to adapt and expand his metaphor239 ndash and itsentailments240 ndash by means of a related and more familiar localizedcultural model241 the politics of Graeco-Roman constructionWhat this means is that in 1 Cor 35ndash9 we catch Paul in the act

of cultural accommodation He refits a major Jewish conceptual andtheological image of covenantal construction together with its politicaland ethical implications by conjoining it with a fundamental Graeco-Roman metaphor of politeia to render it effective in its RomanCorinthian setting Paulrsquos pastoral instincts no doubt led him to it Andin the composition of 1 Corinthians he determined to unfold and applythe buildingmetaphor repeatedly (81 10 1023 143ndash5 12 17 26) In 2Corinthians he was forced to defend and clarify his claims as they relatedto his own person his commission and his vision for the community242

In seeing Jer 110 and the larger metaphor of covenant administrationas a generative theological impulse for Paul in 1 Cor 35ndash9 we are led toa greater appreciation of the ordering principle and rhetorical purposeof 35ndash45 Rather than flitting from one topos to another Paul moves

238 Wemight press the rhetorical signpost in 316 (ldquoDo you not know rdquo) as revealingsomething of Paulrsquos teaching about the community as a holy temple(-garden) while amongthem see Chapter 4

239 This opposes the view of the majority of interpreters who see Paul as more or lessrandomly shifting images from agriculture to architecture in 39 Beale (2004 246) is anexception arguing along lines similar to Jindo

240 Koumlvecses (2005 164ndash9) speaks of metaphors ldquobecoming realrdquo a phenomenon thatin terms of entailments he describes as metaphors having ldquosocial consequencesrdquo

241 In terms of cognitive metaphor theory Paul would therefore be combining twodiscourse metaphors comprehensible in distinct communities (ie Jewish and Graeco-Roman) on the basis of common elements they share in a first-century globalmetaphor (iecommunity as a building) Cf Semino (2008 32ndash4) Koumlvecses (2005 89ndash95)

242 Contra Fee (1987 133 n19) who dismisses the Jeremianic allusion here


purposively from planting to building in 35ndash9 He frames his larger unitwith the fundamental theological authority and accountability of hisdivine covenantal commission243 But aware that many among hisauditors would need clearer and more forceful rhetorical signpostingto grasp his response Paul begins to add with the focus on buildingand architectural economics in 39ndash10 another metaphorical layerNonetheless the Jewish and covenantal frame remains firmly in placethroughout the unit and accounts for the several features that find nonatural correlate in the Graeco-Roman politics of construction (ieTabernacle materials 312 apocalyptic judgment 313ndash15 17 41ndash5)Paulrsquos rhetorical emphases also draw on Jeremiahrsquos commission to strikeat his opponents and to instruct the community He stresses his divinecommission authoritative gospel the need for purity in the garden-temple-assembly and the divine nature and source of ultimate evaluativejudgment We may therefore rearrange and integrate Vielhauerrsquos cate-gories and place 1 Cor 35ndash45 in a fundamental position by noting Paulrsquoslanguage244 In our text the covenantal-architectonic character of hiscommission and its relation to the communityrsquos political and ethicalshape erect a scaffold on which Paul would build over the course of hisCorinthian correspondence He reconstitutes a covenantal metaphorfor those at Roman Corinth among whom were some well familiarwith the dynamics of colonial construction and some who were Paulbelieved resistant to the obligations in view of Christ crucified ofecclesial formation

Summary

We may conclude with a brief summary of the Jewish politics of con-struction in this section and of the larger argument to this point Webegan this section by noting that Jews too would have been familiar tovarying degrees with the embodied experience of synagogue construc-tion a social pattern that would have differed little from its Hellenisticcounterpart of civic benefaction and construction projects More impor-tantly however in view of Paulrsquos discourse in 1 Cor 35ndash45 we argued

243 Jindo (2010 50ndash1) notes the notion of ldquoframerdquo in cognitive metaphor theory is ldquoarepertoire of conceptual knowledge that has its own constituent elementsrdquo Cf Koumlvecses(2005 11)

244 Weiss (1910 79) notes that Paul could have used ἐφύτευσα from 36 again in 310(where he uses σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων instead) but sees the conceptual parallelism as onlyapparent with an underlying change of mood We concur but explain this with reference tothe metaphorical fusion of social patterns Paul effects here


for his dependence on the discourse of covenant administration andconstruction from texts such as Jer 110 We contended that his explicitevocations of Jer 110 in 2 Cor 108 1310 were not his first deploy-ments of that text and its theo-politics in the Corinthian correspon-dence Rather it is in 1 Cor 35ndash9 with the language of planting andbuilding that Paul introduces a major metaphor to construct his ownauthority and his vision for the community We saw that Jer 110 is atext with a fecund effective history its motif of planting and buildingappearing in a variety of contexts over many Jewish centuries yetconsistently related to covenant administration and construction Withthe help of Jindo we saw that this basic ANE cultural metaphor had twomajor foci (1) divine agency and power at work through a commis-sioned emissary and (2) the community as a garden-temple-assemblyAs Vielhauer noted in his study of building language these are in somany words Paulrsquos rhetorical emphases in 1 Cor 35ndash17 Our conten-tion is that Paul has combined two cultural metaphors in 1 Cor 35ndash45both concerned with the construction of the community He aims by theuse of the Jewish image of the assembly as a garden-temple and himselfas the planter and chief builder to unseat certain deeply rooted socialand theological assumptions inherent in the Graeco-Roman topos ofthe community as a building Just how he does so is the focus of theexegesis to followYet we have also seen that Paulrsquos reconfiguration of the covenantal

motif of planting and building is achieved by a keen awareness andmanipulation of the Graeco-Roman politics of public construction Wesaw earlier that Paulrsquos language displays familiarity with the formfunction and social pattern of Greek building contracts We discoveredfurther that the social dynamics entailed by public works construction areevident in the Roman sources and that clear traces of such architectureauthority and approval are extant in first-century Roman Corinth Thiscombination of Greek Roman and Jewish evidence supports the hypoth-esis of this chapter that Paul is keenly attentive to the patterns of publicbuilding desires to answer his critics and wants to instruct the commu-nity He accomplishes this by the rhetorical construction of an extendedmetaphor that is dependent for its social and theological force on culturaland scriptural assumptions Having now restored to Paul his metapho-rical materials both Jewish and Graeco-Roman we are ready to observethe wise architect at work We will see that he attempts by addressing inturn the related dynamics of architecture authority approval and accla-mation to deconstruct one political theology and to reconstruct anotherin its place


76 Architecture in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

We are now ready having detailed the colonial and covenantal politics ofconstruction to return to 1 Cor 35ndash45 and the six exegetical questionsoutlined at the start of the chapter The first involves the extent andstructure of the building metaphor the second relates to the sourcesand functions of the metaphorical imagery245 Each concerns the archi-tecture of the unit An analysis of the structural logic and flow of the textallows us to address both questions

As we have argued Paul does not casually shift metaphors Ratherthere is a conceptual coherence to the images he selects and deploysfor an ethnically and socially composite audience This is not to saythat Paul employs a single simple metaphorical image throughoutthe passage Indeed that he refers to ldquothese thingsrdquo (ταῦτα)246 in theepexegetical verse 46 suggests a complex multifocal metaphor in35ndash45 precisely of the kind discussed by Koumlvecses and others247

If we take the metaphorical signal of 46 (μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸνκαὶ Ἀπολλῶν) as our hermeneutical starting point it is no surprise that35ndash45 should be viewed not only as the rhetorical248 but also themetaphorical unit249 Paul sets up the extended metaphor with hisrhetorical question challenging the Corinthiansrsquo evaluation of himselfand Apollos in 35 (ldquoWhat then is Apollos And what is Paulrdquo) Hecloses the unit in 45 with a corrective exclamation point shiftingthe temporal and social reference of that evaluation Paul moves in35ndash45 from present to future (ldquoso that you may not judge anythingbefore the time that is until the Lord should comerdquo) and from steward-ministers to the patron-magistrate (ldquoAnd then each shall receive hispraise from Godrdquo) In the space between he constructs a creative andcoherent apology centered rhetorically on the proper evaluation ofministry and ministers At each joint he cements the building blocksof his metaphor The very syntax and subject matter of each sub-unittraced in the following exegesis brings the matter of evaluative judg-ment to the fore

245 A full account of structure and function in terms of cognitive-linguistic metaphortheory is beyond the scope of the present section Such a study taking the politicaleconomic and spectacle metaphors in the Corinthian correspondence as its subject mattercommends itself

246 See the Excursus to this chapter247 Koumlvecses (2005 11 223ndash6 261ndash8) Cf Semino (2008 24ndash7)248 Kuck (1992 151ndash61) contra Fiore (1985 93ndash4) Wagner (1998 282)249 Although Jindo (2010 48) correctly notes the two units may not always coincide


761 1 Corinthians 35ndash9

In 35ndash9 Paul raises the related issues of a misguided evaluation ofministry (it is service and work not rule or leadership) and misplacedpraise of ministers (acclaim is properly directed to the beneficent giver ofgrowth not to his staff or contracted workers) The inferential emphasis(ὥστε 37) on proper acclaim and the grounding statement (γάρ 39) thatdefines ministers as fellow workers (συνεργοί) bring 38 to rhetoricalprominence With a double δέ (38) Paul sets the idea of ministerialunity and equality within a frame of evaluation that supersedes thefigures in the community250 by building to the notion of divine recom-pense (μισθός) for ministerial labor (κόπος)251 The language of 38begins the shift from a Jeremianic metaphor of covenantal constructionto the language of colonial construction anticipating the explicit movetoward building language in 39c


The primary contribution of this sub-unit to the larger passage is its focuson the proper content manner and evaluation of ministry Paul sews twostitches at the rhetorical seam of 310 each holding the fabric of theextended metaphor tightly together First with κατά plus the accusativePaul focuses on his own ministerial commission it is with reference tothe beneficence of God given to him252 Paulrsquos language here connectswith his opening thanksgiving253 and links divine beneficence withcommissioned building In terms of colonial patronage this is the patternwe have come to expect as the politics of thanksgiving is typicallylinked with that of public works construction Second Paul employsthe analogical ὡς to reinvigorate and propel the metaphor firmly towardthe language and social pattern found in Roman building contracts It isas a wise architect that he claims authority to confront false conceptionsof evaluation in the community this as also signals that he does so inrelation to the Corinthiansrsquo colonial horizon254 The planter-builder

250 The triple genitival θεοῦ expressing accountability with reference to ministers andownership or source with reference to the community in 39 clarifies the unstated externalevaluative agent of 38b

251 Weiss (1910 75ndash6) Kuck (1992 164ndash70)252 LSJ sv κατά B IV2253 310 κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσαν μοι 14 ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ

δοθείση ὑμῖν Elsewhere in the traditional corpus Paulinum Gal 29 Rom 1515 Eph 37Cf Lanci (1997 120)

254 The title architect according to the social pattern of building is an apology in itself


becomes the architect charged with overseeing the construction of hispatronrsquos monument a structure founded on and built up in accordancewith the messianic testimonial Paul drives this home with the ldquofounda-tionrdquo repetition in 310ndash12 ἔθηκα θεμέλιον θεμέλιον A true andfinal evaluation of any building work will be undertaken with referenceto the stipulated building pattern inherent in Paulrsquos foundation proclama-tion of Jesus Christ (see further Excursus) This grounding assertion(γάρ) in 311 supports the first and overarching imperative of the unitin 310 let each attend carefully to (βλεπέτω) how he builds on (andaccording to) that foundation

The resumptive δέ of 312 carries forward this analogy of buildingaccording to stipulations akin to leges locationis Rhetorical emphasis ineach apodosis of the chain-like series of three simple conditionals in313ndash15255 foregrounds this interplay of building stipulations and finalevaluation In 313 the quality and conformity of each builderrsquos work(ἔργον) will become manifest (φανερὸν γενήσεται) because (γάρ) it willbe disclosed (δηλώσει) and examined (δοκιμάσει) at the last day Thesecond conditional in 314 continues the analogy with the notion thatlasting building work according to design will bring each worker hispayment (μισθός) In the final and most rhetorically prominent andcompact conditional in 315 the accent falls in the apodosis on thebuilderrsquos liability work of poor and unacceptable quality will bring apenalty (ζημιωθήσεται) In each of these conditionals the language ofJewish apocalyptic and the motif of covenant blessing and cursing areexpressed in the conceptual and terminological framework of the build-ing contracts Viewed in this way as a complex extended metaphor thelogic of the alternating Jewish and Hellenistic patterns and vocabularynoted by interpreters such as Weiss and Kuck becomes apparent256 Therhetorical force of their combination is a strong warning about the properevaluation of ministers and ministry that draws on covenantal themesof eschatological judgment and clothes them in a form with strongresonance for those in the community familiar with contracted laborAlready the prospect of a divine evaluation analogous to the familiaradprobatio operis intrudes It will emerge fully in 41ndash5 This samecontractual analogy works aggressively against those in the communitywho being of higher status were accustomed to standing on the otherside of such economic arrangements To one tempted to transfer a

255 BDF sect372256 Weiss (1910 98) Kuck (1992 234ndash9) a paranetic adaptation demonstrating Paulrsquos

ldquorhetorical flexibilityrdquo


colonial economic paradigm to ministry in the community ndash and espe-cially to one in the habit of laying down contractual stipulations con-ducting a final examination of the result of labor and issuing paymenthimself ndash the assertion that ministers were instead workers under contractand liable to payment or penalty could hardly be anything but offensive


This central sub-unit asserts a political-ethical frame for ministry in theassembly that is properly eschatological again with an emphasis bymeans of building language on divine judgment in the verdictive of 317Here at the midpoint of the unit Paul punctuates the extended metaphorwith another rhetorical question in 316 His use of οὐκ οἴδατε implieshe is connecting the unfolding building metaphor with the Jewish-scriptural temple theme257 he had developed in his teaching whileat Corinth258 After referring them to that earlier teaching and its escha-tological implications for them as a garden-temple-assembly259 Paulemploys a simple conditional whose force hinges on the figure ofantanaklasis260 His earnest play on damagedestroy reiterates theongoing theme of evaluative judgment (in its curse aspect) loomingover those convicted of bad practice according to the building stipula-tions The grounding motivation (γάρ 317c) for such judgment is theall-important holy character of the temple-community Purity is far moreprominent than unity in Paulrsquos constructive configuration261


In 318ndash23 Paul applies the prospect of future judgment to the presentmoment of those socially prominent critics of his ministry in a series ofthree imperatives The first two ndash let no one deceive himself (318) let thewise262 become a fool (318) ndash find their basis in the scriptural citations of

257 For relevant Jewish sources integrating temple and Spirit in ldquocontemporaryJudaismrdquo see Hogeterp (2006 326ndash31)

258 Weiss (1910 84) Hurd (1965 85ndash6) contra Lanci (1997 118ndash20) Cf Hogeterp(2006 323ndash6)

259 Beale (2004 245ndash52) Jindo (2010 152ndash77)260 Weiss (1910 85) evokes the aural analogy of crashing waves to describe the effect of

the φθείρειφθερεῖ juxtaposition when read aloud Cf Weiss (1897 208)261 Ciampa and Rosner (2006 208ndash9) contra Kuck (1992 186ndash8) Lanci (1997 57ndash88

129ndash34)262 Paulrsquos contrast of himself as the wise architect (σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων 310) with those

who consider themselves wise in this age (εἴ τις δοκεῖ σοφὸς εῖναι ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι


319ndash20263 The final summary imperative ndash let no one boast among men(321) ndash represents the pinnacle of Paulrsquos argument thus far and leveragesthe full strength of the extended metaphor in critiquing the pridefulmode of self-evaluation introduced in 1 Cor 1 (explicitly in 131) Eachcommand prompts a critical self-reflection according to the larger para-digm he has constructed264 removed from the socio-legal pattern ofpublic building his metaphor evokes Paulrsquos critique loses considerableforce precisely for those to whom it is directed

This critique culminates in the crescendo of 321bndash23 with its escalat-ing rhythmic reminder of the true patron-benefactor who resources thecommunity-temple and the implications of that fact for the right evalua-tion of ministers265 Weiss noted that the similar rhetorical swell in Rom838ndash39 has a soteriological emphasis whereas our text focuses insteadon the overflow of divine benefits granted to the assembly in its ministersand especially in the gift of Christ for the purpose of upbuildingHe rightly saw this both as an expression of Paulrsquos fervent social andspiritual vision for the ecclesial community and as a challenge to anywho thought such ministerial service beneath them266 Thematically thissoaring benefaction language (πάντα γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν 321b) recallsthe fulsomeness of the opening thanksgiving (πάντοτε 14 ἐν παντὶἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ 15 παντί πάσῃ 15 μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐνμηδενί χαρίσματι 17) and the logic of the testimonial-memorial267

The monument suggested by the politics of thanksgiving is here realizedmajestically and solely by divine resources But the socially inferiormaterials with which it is constructed268 may well have rendered therhetorical monument constructed in 35ndash45 preposterous within acolonial-oligarchic political theology In the simple coda of the climactic323 (ὑμεις δέ Χριστός θεοῦ) we see a gentle transition to the final

τούτω 318) connects to the theme of eschatologically differentiated and opposed wisdomsintroduced in 26ndash8 Weiss (1910 86ndash7) equated the δοκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν of 318 with theἔκρινα ἐν ὑμῖν of 22

263 Kuck (1992 189ndash93) Heil (2005 77ndash88) Betz (2008 26ndash8)264 Betz (2008) links self-evaluation being ldquoknown by Godrdquo and the presence of

the Spirit (citing inter alia Gal 49 1 Cor 82 1312) Cf the Spirit and wisdom in 1Cor 26ndash16

265 Weiss (1897 208ndash9)266 Weiss (1910 89ndash91)267 Most ignore connections reaching back beyond 110 eg Kuck (1992 196)268 Kirk (2012) argues that the building materials of 312 though sourced terminologi-

cally in the LXX target human persons in the logic of the metaphor But his theologicalexegesis leaves unexplored the social and economic implications of his view The force ofour argument does not depend on this reading


sub-unit269 There the focus returns explicitly to the Corinthiansrsquo eva-luation of ministers (especially Paul) and the overarching theme ofeschatological judgment270


In this second rhetorical climax Paul moves from a poetic to a proposi-tional mode to conclude his argument in the overall unit In combinationwith 46 it is perhaps the most important sub-unit for grasping Paulrsquosrhetorical aim in 35ndash45271 That aim ndash a proper evaluation of ministryand a proper view of the assignment of praise ndash mirrors the themesand returns to the ministerial metaphors introduced in 35ndash9272 Paulappeals to the extended metaphor he has constructed with the openinginferential οὕτως (ldquothusrdquo ldquoin this mannerrdquo)273 The analogical as onceagain refreshes the metaphor in terms of an economic reckoning(λογίζομαι) of ministerial assistants (ὑπηρέτης οικονόμος 41)274 Theargument builds first by incremental progression (δέ 43 supported bythe γάρ-clauses 44) to a final evaluation (inferential ὥστε καὶ τότε45) on a day of judgment (43 5) These terms and themes find theirgreatest coherence and rhetorical force when read within the extendedbuilding metaphor In the logic of evaluation entailed by the politics ofconstruction the recompense of parties is linked to final approval bythe magistrate-patron in the adprobatio operis As in 17ndash8 so herethe eschatological notion of a day of examination and the need forapprovability appearsWith this outline of the extent structure and resulting rhetorical force

of the extended metaphor constructed by Paul in 1 Cor 35ndash45 before uswe are better able to answer our first two exegetical questions directlyIn terms of extent and structure the building metaphor viewed as acomplex and unfolding unity coincides with the rhetorical unit It beginsin 35 and climaxes in 45 with an interpretive gloss following in 46Structurally each of its five sub-units develops important aspects of thecentral theme of evaluative judgment related to ministers and ministryThe unit begins and ends with the proper assignment of approbation thistakes the alternate forms of estimation by the assembly (36ndash7) and

269 Weiss (1910 91) Cf Χριστός θεοῦ in 41270 Kuck (1992 196)271 Kuck (1992 196ndash210) Smit (2002 238) Goodrich (2012 125ndash31)272 Smit (2002 238) Cf Kuck (1992 197)273 Kuck (1992 196ndash7 and n243)274 On possible implications of οἰκονόμος in 41ndash5 see Goodrich (2012 117ndash64)


commendation from the divine benefactor (45) Both are further exam-ined in Section 79 Each sub-unit provides and applies new informationthat coheres with what has come before resulting in a developeddynamic multifocal metaphor composed of several layers Centrallyimportant is the identification of the assembly as a holy temple in316ndash17 But additional images and practices arising from the socio-economic pattern of public building develop this central image in theservice of constructing a new mode of political and ethical orientationAmong its most important elements are the authority of ministers theapproval of ministerial labor and the ascription of acclamation Thesethemes are explored briefly in turn in Sections 77ndash79

As for the second question the sources and functions of the metapho-rical imagery our interpretation of covenantalconstitutional construc-tion goes beyond earlier interpreters in accounting for the curiouscombination and alternation of Jewish and Hellenistic features ofPaulrsquos argument Given the complexities of important cultural metaphorssuch as the one Paul adapts we are not forced to choose a single sourcedomain for the rich imagery he employs in 35ndash45 From the Jewishdomain of covenantal commission signaled by the allusion to Jer 110in 36ndash8 Paul is able to draw important elements such as the divinearchitectonic word (310ndash12) a covenant assembly directed towardpurity and divine glory (39 16ndash17) and the prophetic theme of escha-tological divine judgment (313ndash15 43ndash5) Among these are featuresof our passage that the ablest interpreters have judged to resonate mostwith Jewish texts and concerns From the Graeco-Roman domain ofpublic works construction signaled most clearly by Paulrsquos choice ofthe title architect (310) flow the language and emphases of ministryas labor carried out in conformity to stipulations resulting in paymentor penalty and ultimately approval in the adprobatio from the one whocommissioned and funded the building

If these are important sources for the imagery Paul employs they alsomake sense of his variegated target domain On the one hand headdresses a mixed ethnic assembly of Jews and Gentiles who given thesocial composition of Roman Corinth in the period would have includedlocals as well as those who hailed from a much wider geographic swathof the Greek East and indeed the Roman West The covenantal-constitutional layers to Paulrsquos metaphor would have found compellingchallenging and varied resonances with members of such a heterogenousgroup even while keeping with the purposes the apostle envisioned forhis careful construction We may imagine that contours of covenantcommunity and such a prominent concern with purity (especially as it


unfolds in the following chapters) would seem familiar to some espe-cially those with synagogue experience and perhaps strange to othersOn the other hand the way Paul configures his politics of construction

and its logic of evaluation addresses another division in the assemblythis one economic Members with more resources and especially thosefew who may have been fairly well off react more negatively toward theemphatic conception of ministry as labor and the removal of ultimateapproval of ministers (especially any right to examine Paul formally)from their purview But those members with much less in the way ofresources and privileges ndash legal economic and otherwise ndash may haveresponded more positively to Paulrsquos political and theological reconfi-guration These hypotheses buttress the contention that any unifyingappeal to Paulrsquos building metaphor is not the only or the primaryfunction these images served To argue otherwise is to fail to attend tothe dissonances emerging from the collision of social expectationsevoked and deconstructed by Paulrsquos text within its colonial settingCertainly the image of the assembly as garden-building-temple hadunifying potential but not of the oligarchic type in the renditions ofthose who like Dio Chrysostom most often employed it conservativelythey did so to support an oligarchic political order and in conjunctionwith Hellenistic moral assumptions that highlighted the meritoriousvirtues of civic elites Paulrsquos elaborate metaphor of construction how-ever casts a provocative social vision of a constituted-covenanted com-munity But it is a social vision located first within the ecclesial assemblyan apparently improbable collection of members called together andreconstituted by Paulrsquos testimonial about Christ Its preservation andgrowth are determined Paul contends by the receptiveness of itsmembers to the new shape and telos of community pressed on them byits apostle-architect Paul places the holy presence of the divine Spiritamong this modest gathering of people (316ndash17) he presumes the needfor that Spirit to reorient the evaluative faculties of the assemblyrsquosmembers but does not assume a direct correlation between social statusand right judgment (26ndash16) Strange as it must have seemed Paul wouldhave them rise as a monument founded on the testimonial to the meritsof the crucified Messiah and spiritually inscribed to the glory of thatunlikely patronIt is tempting to believe that given the close thematic connections with

14ndash9 Paul had this extended metaphor in mind from the beginning ofthe letterrsquos composition Was it suggested to him by his experience ofcontractual work (Acts 183) and the prevalence of public building ashe debated and expounded Israelrsquos scriptures during his first Corinthian


sojourn275 Or was it generated by the language or issues communicatedto him either by letter or orally276 Or did the socioeconomic profile ofa certain critic prompt Paulrsquos rhetorical reconstruction These possibi-lities and others must remain just that in view of our limited evidenceWhat is certain is that the unit 35ndash45 is a rhetorical and metaphoricalwhole a masterpiece of political and theological architecture that surelyelicited varied and vigorous responses in the assembly277 It is integralnot only to the discourse of 11ndash421 but also to many of the sections thatfollow It fixes in place a framework by which Paul would approachmany of the themes he addresses in the remainder of the epistle where wefind him returning to the language and images of temple (619) buildingup the assembly (81 10 1023 143ndash5 12 17 26) and the labor ofministry (412 91 13ndash14 125ndash6 1558 1610 15ndash16)

77 Authority in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

When we come to address the third exegetical problem namely theprominence of ministerial terminology we are faced with the mannerin which Paul constructs and asserts his authority This also touches onthe relationship between Paul and other ministers our fourth problemPerhaps the single most important matter to stress here is the constitu-tional implication of the ministerial terms chosen without exceptionby Paul to describe himself and other ministers To emphasize theministerialmagisterial distinction is not novel but it is often under-appreciated Coletrsquos formulation (c 1500) memorably captures theparadoxical legacy of Paulrsquos pattern magistratus in Christianitateomnes non magistri sed ministri sunt ecclesie [sic] (ldquoThe officers in theChristian realm are all not masters but ministers of the Churchrdquo)278

Constitutionally the Roman minister was one under authority His ownauthority was derivative and representative he was under oversight andwas accountable for his service More specifically the ministerial lan-guage adopted by Paul when set within the politics of constructionrenders the minister directly accountable to the one commissioning thebuilding project and to the stipulations laid down to guide the workWork that does not conform to design (ie the word of Christ crucified118ndash25 21ndash5 310ndash12 cf 151ndash11) or that damages materials

275 Eger (1919 38ndash9)276 Hurd (1965 75ndash7 85 93) saw this section as a response to oral communication277 Deissmann (1911 246) ldquoein Meisterstuumlck des apostolischen ἀρχιτέκτωνrdquoMitchell

(2010 5)278 Colet (1985 112ndash13)


(ie members 317 cf 56 66ndash8 87ndash12 1120ndash22 1533) rendershim liable to penalty or even exclusionThese insights from the pattern of construction and evaluation under-

lying 35ndash45 have social and theological implications for Paulrsquos view ofauthority vis-agrave-vis the Corinthian assembly Others have commented onthe status ambiguity registered by Paulrsquos ministerial language But to sayonly that he ldquoproblematizesrdquo and ldquorelativizesrdquo apostolic and ministerialstatus thereby is perhaps to understate the total denigrating effect withreference to colonial politeia279 If we grant that instead of a rhetoricalcommonplace the ministerial titles draw on the experience of embodiedwork then the language of labor and the insistence on recompense andevaluation are seen to act relentlessly in creating a sobering and sociallyunflattering profile Ministers in the lexicon and social pattern Pauldirects toward certain status-conscious members are not leaders theyare workers builders280 Once again we must emphasize that Paulrsquospolitical theology has its epicenter in the ecclesial assembly For him theauthority of ministers is entirely with reference to the members and lifeof the garden-temple Theologically then the accent in the buildingparadigm falls on the ministerrsquos divine commission to proclaim onlythe Christ of Paulrsquos testimonial This is the force of the adverbial πῶς(ldquohowrdquo) modifying the first imperative (βλεπέτω) of the buildingstipulations (310c) Faithfulness (42) to these contract-like stipulationshinges on gospel-building activity that is consonant with Paulrsquos(310ndash12) a ministry that upbuilds by producing trust in the powerof God revealed in Christ (35b cf 25) and one that promotes peace(38ndash9) and protects purity (316ndash17) in the communityIt is the manner in which these latter two elements of this commission

are expressed that invites the hypothesis that Paul is directing his build-ing paradigm toward a specific situation and person(s)281 If there is anytruth to the assertion that German commentators have focused overlymuch on theories of party divisions in Corinth then English-speakingscholarship may at times have shied away from the social realitiesgiving rise to Paulrsquos carefully calibrated rhetoric282 Whatever onersquos

279 Martin (1999 64ndash5 102ndash3)280 Ellis (1970) notes Paulrsquos references to coworkers in labor terms (διάκονος ὁ κοπιῶν

συνεργός)281 Inter alia Horrell (1996 112ndash23)282 Hurd (1965 106ndash7) cites Ramsay (quoting Alford) ldquothe German commentators are

misled by too definite a view of the Corinthian partiesrdquo cf Dahl (1967 314) Thiselton (2000123ndash33) Fee (1987 59) exemplifies those who doubt the presence of actual ldquopartiesrdquo in theassembly Most who agree depend to some degree on Munck (1959 135ndash67)


predilections three assumptions operate in any interpretation of Paulrsquosrelationship to Apollos in 1 Cor 35ndash45 as it impinged on others minis-tering in the assembly onersquos view of the personalities and politics283

lying behind the party slogans in 1 Cor 112 onersquos reading of theimplications of Paulrsquos indefinite signals throughout 1 Cor 3 and onersquosunderstanding of 1 Cor 46284 Our treatment of the third issue (46) isdeveloped in the Excursus For now it suffices to note that Paul carefullycloses the frame he opened in 35 with another specific mention ofApollos The Alexandrian is an exemplar held up beside Paul almostcertainly because it is in his name that some are criticizing Paulrsquosauthority and message In regard to the first issue of party slogans weare inclined with Welborn285 and others to regard the situation atCorinth particularly as presented in 1 Cor 110ndash611 as one in whichpolitical-patronal factions were present Indeed we need not see suchallegiances and conflict as the sole province of reasonably educated andwealthy figures and their clientela286 (or of sophistic rhetors and theirdisciples287) as the elite comparanda so often adduced might suggestRather our investigation of the politics of construction has shown thatsuch invidiousness could be present as well in the broader economicaspects of colonial politeia teams of workers organized by contractorsangling for commissions and the building work overseen by architectsprovide a case in point (cf Acts 1923ndash41)288 Members of differentsocial classes ethnicities families and households could be caught up ina swell of stasis that focused not only on ldquopeople and personalitiesrdquo289

but also on intricate and socially divisive political economic and ethicaldifferences Surely the nascent community in Corinth was no exceptionWith respect to the second issue namely the use of indefinite pronom-inal elements (ἕκαστος τις) in 1 Cor 3 we take seriously Weissrsquosobservation that such signals coupled with a rhetorical restraint pointto a Paul who feels himself provoked and responds pointedly yet withoutoffensiveness290 This is a critical observation and one that may be

283 Or to connecting Paulrsquos rhetoric to the sociohistorical specifics however difficult todiscern But see Welborn (1997)

284 Especially the meaning of μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν διrsquo ὑμᾶς and thereferent of ἃ γέγραπται

285 Welborn (1997 1ndash42)286 Chow (1992 113ndash66)287 Winter (1997) Winter (2001 31ndash43 184ndash211)288 Builders on the job Buckler (1923)289 Clarke (1993 92)290 Weiss (1910 78ndash84) Dahl (1967 319) Cf Marshall (1987 341ndash8) Welborn

(2011 208ndash30)


strengthened by further considerations to suggest that Paul has certainwell-positioned ldquopartisansrdquo of Apollos very much in view in 1 Cor35ndash45291

There are three reasons for taking the position that local partisansof Apollos who were critiquing Paul are the focus of his response(1) Paulrsquos emphasis on his own authority in distinction to that ofApollos (2) Paulrsquos decision to focus on Apollos in framing the rhetoricalunit and (3) Paulrsquos clustered deployment of indefinite pronouns men-tioned earlier Taken individually these are not new considerations Butset together within the new interpretive framework of this chapter theyfacilitate a hypothesis concerning named partisans of Apollos withpolitical-theological influence in the assembly292 With this influencethey are threatening to subject Paul to a critical inquiry Moreover theyare ignoring pressing ethical issues or even engaging in practices thatin Paulrsquos view are damaging to the community in social legal andtheological terms These are contested claims that we must seek tovalidateFirst there is Paulrsquos self-designation as σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων in 310

This has been seen by many as setting up a distinction between Paul andApollos in terms of the formerrsquos authority293 although some havedemurred294 What is decisive is the paradigm of public constructionand the lines of authority building contracts attest In Greek buildingcontracts the architect was the one with authority on the work site bothby virtue of his commission and his experience and expertise Otherbuilders were legally subject to his evaluation of their work at interimstages In the case of Roman architects and contractors although theirsocial status was often ambiguous their authority was clear An archi-tect though rarely receiving the public glory that went to the patronenjoyed authority on site especially with reference to the leges locationisand their stipulations Therefore when Paul appropriated the title ldquowisearchitectrdquo and went on to build an elaborate metaphor centered on socialand legal features of construction (whose main thrust was the properevaluation of ministry) he was in fact distinguishing quite strongly

291 Ker (2000 88ndash9) Cf Barrett (1971 87ndash8) Some still see Cephas behind Paulrsquosresponse Goulder (1991 520) These seem influenced by the older Hellenism-Judaismopposition of Baur or by an untenable interpretation of the position of Cephas in the list ofnames in 322 Apollosrsquos appearance at the hermeneutical edges of the rhetorical frameargues strongly against this

292 Cf Horrell (1996 123)293 Recently Barnett (2003)294 Mihaila (2009 198ndash202)


his own authority from that of Apollos and others ministering in thecommunity295 This distinction holds generally as Paulrsquos foundationalministry is thrice reiterated (θεμέλιος 310ndash12) set twice against theongoing building ministry of others (ἐποικοδομῶ 310 12)296 It alsointerprets the earlier contrast between Paulrsquos planting and Apollosrsquoswatering in 36ndash8 as more than stylistic The stress on unity in ministryunder authority in those verses modulates from 310 into an emphasis onPaulrsquos authority to define approvable ministry Ministerial accountabil-ity message conformity and communal purity figure in 310ndash17 far moreprominently than unity297 It is thus no objection to our argument to pointeither to the opening unity-in-ministry motif (35ndash9) or to the focus onGod as commissioning benefactor (36ndash9 21bndash23) and the priority ofthe Christ proclaimed over the proclaimer (310ndash12)298 Paul may or maynot have been perfectly collegial with his brother and fellow teacherTheir mutual friends Prisca and Aquila would likely have informed himof any specific hermeneutical and theological deficiencies and pastoralpotential of the gifted orator299 Finally Paul claims to have had frequentcommunication with Apollos after leaving Corinth his tone is level whenwriting of him to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1612)300 Yet we cannotimagine Paul allowing Apollos the same authority he claims for himselfin 1 Cor 35ndash45 and elsewhere certainly not with reference to hisfoundation and guidance of the Corinthian assembly301

Second there is Paulrsquos careful use of Apollos in his composition ofthe rhetorical unit Apollos is mentioned by name four times302 and isalluded to three more303 After reviving (and reducing to two) the partyslogans in 34 Paul opens the section in 35 with a pair of terse rhetorical

295 The Is 33 ldquoallusionrdquo though perhaps faintly resonant is probably inert within Paulrsquosrhetorical frame σοφός is accounted for by the context and argument (from 120 onward)and the ἀρχιτέκτων by the extended construction metaphor

296 The prefix ἐπ- indicates a consistent subtle distinction with Paulrsquos foundational andauthoritative commission οἰκοδομεῖν intensified by the ἐποικοδομεῖ ἐπί in the apodosis ofthe first stipulation in 312

297 Ker (2000 86)298 Fee (1987 138ndash9)299 Acts 182ndash3 24ndash26 1 Cor 1619300 Hurd (1965 206ndash7) Thiselton (2000 1332ndash3) is among those placing Paul and

Apollos in Ephesus together in the early mid-50s AD Cf Welborn (2011 411ndash12)301 1 Cor 414ndash21 2 Cor 1013ndash14302 35 6 22 46 whereas Cephas is mentioned only in the benefaction crescendo (at

322) in the fourth sub-unit (318ndash23) Cephas is also omitted in 34303 37 (ὁ ποτίζων) 8 (ὁ ποτίζων) 9 (συνεργοί) Despite a generalizing sense that builds

the statement in 36 means the name of Apollos reverberates in the auditorrsquos ear throughout37ndash9


questions placing Apollos first In 46 Paul again names Apollos statingthat his ministry in relation to Paulrsquos own animated the entire rhetoricalconstruction in 35ndash45 Although in neither place is Paulrsquos tone aggres-sive or aggrieved his choice of Apollos is clearly intentional Thisprominence of Apollos in the overall argument concerning the properevaluation of ministers strongly suggests that Paul was driven by neces-sity (μετασχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν διrsquo ὑμᾶς 46) and notby art to name his eloquent brother304 That necessity has been rightlyglimpsed through the increasing tension building beneath Paulrsquos rheto-rical reserve from 310 onwardThird then is Paulrsquos intensive and targeted use of indefinite pronouns

throughout the middle three of the five sub-units (310ndash23) In 310ndash15Paul unambiguously asserts his authority as architect against a critic (orcritics) on whose lips was found the slogan ldquoI am of Apollosrdquo Whetherthey actually preferred the Alexandrianrsquos rhetorical prowess (Acts1824ndash8) to Paulrsquos manner of speech or whether they deemed himmore socially acceptable and therefore a convenient screen for theircritique of Paul is impossible to know with certainty Perhaps somecombination of these factors is likely given Paulrsquos response But whenPaulrsquos careful arrangement of indefinite pronouns is correlated with aseries of imperatives and grasped within the social and legal pattern ofbuilding contracts the likelihood grows that we may identify the profileof such a person Weiss argued that we do an injustice to 310ndash15 if weignore its darker more forceful tone in comparison with 35ndash9305 Thisshift in tone is best apprehended by a close attention to syntacticalconstructions the absence of personal names and the use of pronounsPaul moves from the congenial references to Apollos as a fellow workerin 35ndash9 to a series of sharp and escalating statements in which Apollos isunmentioned These statements commence with the imperative of 310continue through three real conditionals expressed in the style of buildingcontract stipulations (312ndash15) and culminate in the penalty declarationin 317 In 35c 8b and 10c Paul employs ἕκαστος in a primarilygeneralizing way to speak of the unity to be found in the variety ofministerial tasks (cf Gal 64) But the use of ldquoeach onerdquo in 310c registersan alteration in mood and is separated from those preceding it by theclause ἄλλος δὲ ἐποικοδομεῖ (310b) with the ἄλλος and the ἐπι- prefixPaul draws an authoritative line Then in 310c the adversative δέ andthe imperative βλεπέτω lend a flinty note to Paulrsquos tone The command

304 Ker (2000 91ndash3)305 Weiss (1910 78)


ldquoBut let each one take care how he buildsrdquo comprehends in a single starkdirective the entirety of Paulrsquos argument in the two sub-units 310ndash1516ndash17 We may be permitted to imagine among the responses to the firstpublic reading of this letter at Corinth a rising indignation or disdainon the part of some who understood themselves to be included in theἄλλος and the ἕκαστος of 310bndashc This impression is reinforced by therepetition of ἄλλος in 311 this time modifying θεμέλιος and explicitlydenying to other builder-ministers the authority to define the message andmanner (cf πῶς 310c) of ministry in Corinth Following the explicitconstruction signals of 310ndash11 (ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιος) the serial con-ditionals of 312ndash15 and that of 317 mimic the style and content of abuilding contract Just as we saw in the Lebadeia inscription (IG VII3073) each has a conditional particle introducing a protasis concerningbuilding practice and is followed by an apodosis employing a future orfuture passive verb306 that specifies evaluation payment or penalty Thisis best understood if the text is laid out as follows

And if anyone builds (εἰ δὲ τις ἐποικοδομεῖ) upon thefoundation the work of each will become manifest(φανερὸν γενήσεται) (312ndash13)

If anyonersquos work remains (εἴ τινος μενεῖ) which he shallbuild (ὅ ἐπικοδόμησεν) he will receive payment (μισθὸνλήμψεσται) (314)

If anyonersquos work shall be burned up (εἴ τινος κατακαήσεται)he will be fined (ζημιωθήσεται) (315)

If anyone damages (εἴ τις φθείρει) Godrsquos temple God willdestroy (φθερεῖ)307 this one (317)

If these conditionals with their repeated indefinite pronouns (τις τινόςτινός τις) were properly stipulations in a building contract for a physicalstructure (which viewed here in isolation they very nearly could be)then we would be justified in interpreting ldquoanyonerdquo in a generalizingway all builders in the absence of further qualifying clauses would beincluded But in the sweep of Paulrsquos rhetoric these stipulations intensifyand narrow their focus until in 318 the apostle-architect momentarilyremoves the building template to apply unambiguously the reversal hehopes to achieve by his construction paradigm Here we come closest to

306 Cf analogous syntax in Latin legal clauses eg lex Urs Ch 62 (si quis faciet vincitur dupli damnas esto )

307 For φθερει rather than φθειρει see Kloha (2006 72ndash3)


glimpsing the specific figure whom Paul has in view With a secondcommand (ldquoLet no one deceive himselfrdquo) Paul employs a final pointedconditional this time with an imperative in the apodosis ldquoIf anyone (τις)thinks [himself] to be wise among you308 in this age let him become afool in order that he may become wiserdquo309 The building metaphor hasdone its preparatory deconstructive work of defining ministry as laborand has commenced reconstruction by defining lines of authority andaccountability reward and penalty Paul deems it time in 318 to beprovocatively indirect in addressing one influential figure in the hearingof the community avoiding his name despite the insistence of thewarning310 Such a focused and progressive use of indefinite pronounsseems to pinpoint a known group in response to an oral message (111) itis hardly likely that Paul speaks only generally here to ldquothe Corinthiansthemselvesrdquo311 Surely he has a specific person or persons in mind Butwhom312

Any hypothesis concerning a particular figure addressed in this unitmust necessarily fall short of proof Nevertheless Paul has left us cluesthat reexamined in view of the politics of construction may direct ustoward certain known members of the community This person need notbe the ldquoimmoral brotherrdquo whose exclusion is commanded by Paul in 1Cor 5 though Chrysostom was probably correct to draw a connectionbetween that passage 316ndash17 and 41ndash5313 It is however quite likelythat the one who is the focus of Paulrsquos response was a figure with enoughsocial capital to exert pressure by word and example (or by a persuasivesilence) on other members thereby preventing action on issues ofpurity (eg 1 Cor 5)314 or endorsing social practices detrimental to

308 See also 1 Cor 81 1116 1437 Gal 63 Phil 34309 For the division of clauses in this way taking ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτω as an emphatic

adverbial phrase beginning the second clause and denoting themode in which the commandγενέσθω is to be observed see Weiss (1910 86ndash7)

310 Here Paul breaks from the metaphor to return explicitly to his reorienting theme ofapocalyptic wisdom and judgment supporting his argument directly from Scripture in319ndash20 rather than from a further appeal to skill conformity or quality in constructionterms

311 So Fee (1987 138ndash9) Ker (2000 88ndash9) however concurs with our view312 So already Chrysostom Hom 1 Cor (PG 6178ndash80) To interpret the indefinite

pronouns as having such specific reference does not of course imply that Paul did not alsodesire to influence others in the assembly On avoiding the invidiousness implied bynaming a specific figure see Welborn (2011 213ndash29)

313 Chrysostom Hom 1 Cor (PG 6178ndash10 88)314 Note in 52 the language of work (ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας) applied to the ldquoimmoral

brotherrdquo


unity (eg 1 Cor 6)315 That is the ldquobuilderrdquowhom Paul has in view willhave been a man who first and foremost was impressed by ApollosWe suggest that he was also someone familiar with the social pattern ofcolonial construction and contracts perhaps even involved in somemanner with a building project either domestic or public If this is soPaulrsquos critic would have been a man of some financial means whethermodest or more and would have experienced the process of evaluationas one who rendered a final (im)probatio for contracted labor He wouldhave been someone known to Paul either personally or by word ofmouth conceivably a host of the assembly in some of its gatheringsIf for a moment we grant that there is much in this profile that issupported by the shape and particulars of Paulrsquos response we must atleast acknowledge it as possible In such a case we have in Paulrsquosrhetoric a carefully calibrated message shaped not only from his ownexperience theology and time in Corinth and other cities of the GreekEast but one targeting a specific person and setting

Who might fit this profile Three possibilities appear worthy ofconsideration none of which it should be stressed may be provendecisively The first that presents itself is also the most controversialDebate over whether the Erastus mentioned by Paul in Rom 1623 maybe identified with the Erastus known from early Roman Corinth (Kent232) continues unabated316 If the Erastus of the paving inscription wereindeed affiliated in some way with the Christian assembly at Corinththen he would fulfill many of the criteria we have delineated As anaedile Erastus would have overseen and approved the construction workhe offered the colony in exchange for his magistracy according to thecolonial constitution he would have done the same for many publicworks projects during his term in office317 Even if we grant that PaulrsquosErastus is at a different social level as a public slave or freedmanadministrator it is still very likely that such a man would be involvedwith public construction318 Nevertheless Paul does not mention Erastusin 1 Corinthians and it is possible he was not yet affiliated with theassembly Therefore Erastus must remain only a tentative possibility forthe one favoring Apollos over Paul and thereby fomenting conflict

A second possibility is Titius Justus who hosted gatherings at whichPaul taught after his departure from the synagogue according to Acts

315 Dahl (1967 329ndash31) closely connects 1 Cor 5ndash6 with chapters 1ndash4316 See now Welborn (2011 260ndash82)317 lex Urs Chs 77 98 lex Irn Ch 19318 See also magistri (masters) of shrines and temples lex Urs Ch 128


187 (see Section 412) We may pass by Goodspeedrsquos overstated iden-tification of Titius Justus with Paulrsquos Gaius319 without losing sight ofJustusrsquos Roman citizenship and obvious means320 Lukersquos report that thisRoman God-fearerrsquos home was adjacent to the synagogue in Corinth(συνομοροῦσα321 τῇ συναγωγῇ) may suggest additionally his involve-ment in its construction or maintenance especially if there was a sharedparty wall322 As one who may have had experience with constructionin colonial politeia as well as one with some instruction in the Jewishscriptures (by visiting teachers such as Apollos) Justus provides anotherpossible target for Paulrsquos covenantal-constitutional rhetoric But TitiusJustus is liable to an objection similar to that directed at Erastus he isnot mentioned in 1 Corinthians Thus he remains less than compelling asthe figure stirring Paulrsquos responseOur final option is Crispus a figure mentioned in both 1 Cor 114

and Acts 188 (see Section 422)323 Crispus probably also a Romancitizen324 is a strong possibility for four reasons First Luke calls himἀρχισυνάγωγος As such he was either a Jewish ldquoruler of the synagoguerdquoor a Gentile god-fearer connected to the Corinthian Jewish communitySecond in either case Crispus was a man of some means and likely tohave been a benefactor of the synagogue in some way perhaps evenfunding the structure If so he too may have had personal experienceldquofrom aboverdquowith the pattern of contractual oversight and evaluation325

Third Luke specifically draws attention to the fact that Crispus trans-ferred his loyalty to Paulrsquos Messiah along with his entire household(ἐπίστευσεν τῷ κυρίῷ σὺν ὅλω τῷ οἴκω αὐτοῦ Acts 188) and waspresumably influential in doing so Fourth and perhaps most sugges-tively Crispus is mentioned in 1 Corinthians in such a way that arousessuspicionOur wariness is piqued by the manner of Paulrsquos inclusion of Crispus in

1 Cor 114 He names Crispus and Gaius as two whom he baptized when

319 Goodspeed (1950 382ndash3)320 Judge (2005 110 112)321 The συν-prefix of the hapax legomenon συνομορῶ could imply that Justusrsquos domes-

tic space shared a common wall with the synagogue rather than simply being nearby (seeLSJ sv ομορέω) If such were the case it is further possible but highly speculative thatJustus may have leased space to the gathering Jews

322 Theissen (1982 74ndash5)323 Recently Welborn (2011 236ndash41)324 Judge (2005 112 114ndash15)325 Theissen (1982 73ndash5) Rajak and Noy (1993 75ndash93) For Theodotus an

ἀρχισυνάγωγος who built (ὠκοδόμησε) a synagogue in Jerusalem see now CIIP II 9(late I BCearly AD I)


in Corinth only to protest that this should not be interpreted within thepolitical matrix of patronage or partisanship Then in 115 Paul drives arhetorical wedge between these two and Stephanas the effect is that byldquofeigningrdquo indifference326 Paul pretends to recall his baptism of andrelationship to Stephanas almost as an afterthought in 116 Additionallythat of these three Paul names only Stephanas (and his household) in theepistolary conclusion to 1 Cor 1615ndash18 is telling327 There Stephanas isheld up to the community as the firstfruits (ἀπαρχή) of Achaia and as onewho has devoted himself to the ministry (εἰς διακονίαν) of the saints328

On this basis Paul further commends Stephanas as one to whom themembers of the assembly should submit adding ldquoand to every co-workerand laborer (παντὶ τῷ συνεργοῦντι καὶ κοπιῶντι)rdquo Paul clearly countsStephanas as a supporter one who refreshed him and who is ministeringin a way that agrees with the apostlersquos conception of the proper messageand method required (117) he holds Stephanas up as a virtual paradigmof ministry (118) Stephanas cannot possibly be one of the targets ofPaulrsquos rhetoric in 1 Cor 35ndash45329 But would we be justified on thispositive account in 1615ndash18 and because of the artful separation ofStephanas from Crispus in 114ndash16 in inferring a critique of the latteron precisely these matters of ministry Had Crispus and Stephanasdrifted into two opposed factions after Paul and Apollos left CorinthCould Crispus in his adulation of Apollos have become critical of PaulMight he have imported his colonial experience of status wisdom andevaluation into his participation in the gatherings and life of the assem-bly becoming complicit in drowning out the voices of the ldquoweakrdquo whopointed to the ethics of purity (1 Cor 5) and the theological exclusiveness(1 Cor 81ndash111) implied by Paulrsquos politics of the cross Might he havestood by while the ldquonothingsrdquo of the community faced litigation fromtheir own brothers or perhaps have pursued such litigation himself(1 Cor 61ndash8)

The honest answer to these questions can only be ldquopossiblyrdquo Paulrsquoscareful construction of 35ndash45 framed with himself and Apollos is too

326 Weiss (1910 20ndash1)327 For Stephanas see Welborn (2011 250ndash60)328 Welborn (2011 255ndash6) interprets Stephanasrsquos ministry with reference to the

Jerusalem collection But given the nimbleness of Paulrsquos rhetoric here it may be thatsomething more is meant by διακονία Even if we take the phrase καὶ παντὶ τῷ συνεργοῦντικαὶ κοπιῶντι (1616) as a generalizing concession to soften Paulrsquos glowing recommenda-tion of Stephanas in connection with διακονία (1615) it surely evokes Paulrsquos descriptionof ministry as labor in 35ndash45 Cf Winter (2001 184ndash205)

329 Dahl (1967 324ndash5)


effective in its avoidance of openly naming members of the assemblyYet surely Paul knew names and details from Chloersquos people (111) It istherefore highly likely that in his composition of the extended buildingmetaphor especially in the middle sub-units where names drop out andindefinite pronouns cluster he is targeting specific influential membersof the assembly quite possibly of the profile hypothesized hereIn summary we have seen in this section some of the factors guiding

Paulrsquos emphatic ministerial terminology and traces of his relations withother ldquoministersrdquo in the assembly On the one hand Paulrsquos theologyshapes his use of language He sees himself as one divinely commis-sioned and therefore under authority and accountable ultimately toGod Thus his efforts in building up the assembly with his testimonyto Christ are described as labor and service On the other hand Paulrsquosformulations are driven by his apologetic intent in the rhetorical unitPaul stresses his own accountability to the Lord to remove himself fromCorinthian jurisdiction Furthermore we have argued on the basis of aclose analysis of the text that Paul is responding to one or more criticswho associated themselves with Apollos Their contempt was directedat his person his gospel and his manner of ministry Given what weknow of the social composition of the assembly and the pattern evokedin Paulrsquos response we explored several named figures who might fit theprofile of such a critic We suggested that Crispus by reason of hissocial status financial means and the manner in which Paul mentionshim in the letter may have been a leader of the ldquoApollos partyrdquo Whilethis must remain strictly a hypothesis it gives further resolution to ourimage of Paulrsquos critics and helps us grasp the social and rhetorical forceof his ministerial language To such a figure Paulrsquos insistence thatministry in the assembly is labor must have galled The same is truefor the pattern unfolded by the apostle whereby all Corinthian ministersare subordinate to and called to account by the architectrsquos delegatedauthority

78 Approval in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

We may now address the fifth exegetical problem concerning the natureof judgment and evaluation Here we come to the explicit rhetoricalthrust of the entire unit This is especially evident at three points312ndash15 317 and 41ndash5330 A consideration of each of these within

330 318ndash23 largely departs from the building metaphor in its use of scriptural traditionsto reorient the wisdom of would-be ministers For 321bndash3 see later in this chapter


the paradigm of construction clarifies some of the details as well as theoverall force of Paulrsquos effort at evaluative critique and reorientation

In our examination of the pronominal elements in the previous sectionwe presented the series of conditionals in terms of the stipulationsguiding Paulrsquos construction project In the pattern of public buildingthe future and future passive verbs in the apodoses relate to points atwhich the buildersrsquowork will be evaluated This is played on by Paul andset within his framework of eschatological judgment The reality ofdivine evaluation of ministers and their ministry unfolds in step withthese conditional clauses Each worker will see the products of his laborrevealed (313) he will be rewarded for quality ministry that endures(314) and penalized for that which does not (315)331 Precisely becausePaul draws on the pattern of stipulation clauses to be found in buildingcontracts the details should not guide an overly subtle theological for-mulation of eschatological judgment The force of the section is thatministers like building contractors are accountable to oversight andliable to a final decisive evaluation of the product of their work Thisaccountability is primarily to God as the Pauline shorthand for aneschatological day of judgment (313ndashφανερὸν γενήσεται ἡ γὰρ ἡμέραδηλώσει ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται τὸ πῦρ δοκιμάσει332 315ndashτὸ ἔργονκατακαήσεται ὡς διὰ πυρός) makes clear333 But according to theapologetic logic of the metaphor Paul also presses on other ministers asecondary accountability to himself Just as the architect is vested withauthority to grant approval at specified moments in the building processso Paul by the very fact of directing these stipulations toward unnamedpersons in the assembly asserts his authority to render proleptic escha-tological (dis)approval after all that is exactly what he does in theseverses In addition to his apostolic commission as the founder of theCorinthian assembly he possesses as the σοφός architect the revealedwisdom that comes from the divine Spirit (1 Cor 26ndash16 cf 53ndash5 740b1437ndash8) Others ministering at Corinth are therefore subject to doubleevaluation ndash Pauline and divine In terms of its object such evaluation

331 The building contract pattern confirms the intuition of Weiss (1910 82ndash4) thatδοκιμάζω and ἀνακρίνω are technical terms for evaluation cf Arzt-Grabner et al (2006135 152ndash6 164ndash72) Papathomas (2009 45ndash52 55ndash8) although the juristic-evaluativesense of these terms finds its decisive building-project resonance for 1 Cor 35ndash45 in theinscriptions and not the papyri Cf the assemblyrsquos ldquoaccreditationrdquo (δοκιμάσητε) by letterof certain persons related to the collection in 163

332 Kloha (2006 71ndash2) views αυτο (attested in A B C 1739 et al) as a secondaryaddition

333 Kuck (1992 170ndash86)


targets each ministerrsquos work in building up the assembly It does so withreference to the proclamation of the Messiah in a manner that aims atpurity and peace in the community Message conformity and construc-tion quality are the criteria of approval In terms of its mode it is anevaluation carried out by the Lord at the last day and by Paul presently inwhose spiritual wisdom there is an irruption of the end of days Kuckrsquosemphasis on the future aspect of ldquoapocalyptic judgmentrdquo and ldquopost-mortem rewardrdquo is thereby qualified by Paulrsquos (or the lectorrsquos) announce-ment of these stipulations in the midst of the gathered assembly This isconsonant with the stress in the larger context on the need for properspiritual wisdom and judgment in the present (31ndash4)These apocalyptic assertions their connection to a final eschatological

evaluation and their link to the ethical exigence of the ecclesial politeiaclimax in the crashing wordplay of 317 Weiss correctly noted Paulrsquoseffective use of antanaklasis The pattern of this rhetorical figure com-bined with that of public building allows us decisively to appreciate hiswordplay According to its use in building contracts so clearly evokedhere the verb may mean either damage or destroy Thus the propertranslation of this verse has occasioned some debate Yet according to thefigure of antanaklasis the second term abutting the first has not only anaural effect but must shift its meaning otherwise the wordplay is lostWe may not be able to preserve the aural juxtaposition in English butwe may render the sense of 317 as we have already done If anyonedamages (φθείρει) Godrsquos temple God will destroy (φθερεῖ) this onePaulrsquos eschatological adaptation of the building penalty comes across asthe pronouncement of a curse It draws its urgency from the threatenedpurity of the community The forcefulness of the utterance implies aconcern for an ecclesial political theology that in being founded on thecrucified Christ presages a concern for the ldquoweakrdquo and the ldquonothingsrdquothat will unfold in later chapters Exclusion from the community for onewho damages Godrsquos living temple as a possibility latent in the buildingcontracts remains untapped in 35ndash45 only to emerge in 51ndash13Instead Paul has stretched his reconfiguration of the building pattern toits limit with a resounding sanction that stresses the finality of divinejudgment on one convicted of bad ministry practice334 Covenantal curseoverwhelms the concept of contractual penaltyWhen we come to 41ndash5 we are aided again by the construction

pattern we have identified Paul staunchly rebuts any attempt overt orimplied on the part of his critics to subject him to a quasi-formal inquiry

334 Chrysostom was broadly correct to see 316ndash17 as prefiguring 51ndash13


(ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας 43b)335 His refusal is accomplished by aneschatological revetment of the logic of final evaluation ndash the adprobatiooperis The focus of evaluation in 312ndash17 was the message and com-munal results of ministry the echo of conformity and quality accordingto stipulations is necessarily present in the image of probatio But theexamination in 45 goes further penetrating the building surfaces toreveal a ministerrsquos innermost thoughts and intentions (φανερώσει τὰςβουλάς τῶν καρδιῶν) Here the divine patron-magistrate and not thearchitect pronounces either probum or inprobum esto If the former thenthe divine praise (ὁ ἔπαινος emphatic by position) will come to each one

It is here in the extended inferential conclusion (ὥστε 45) to theentire unit 35ndash45 that we perceive the skill of Paulrsquos rhetorical recon-struction and see further into his pastoral strategy First the elaboratelyadapted building metaphor enhances our understanding of the centraljudgment motif in 1 Cor 1ndash4 by integrating the themes of wisdomevaluation purity and unity It does so by an appeal to the politics ofconstruction a social pattern that comprehends many types of peopleand one that works with its focus on labor and accountability againstany presumption of superiority on the basis of an elite mode of evalua-tion If as Kuck and others have argued 35ndash45 is the rhetorical centerof this opening section of the epistle then it effectively balances theseveral concerns Paul has foregrounded in his response336 Second themetaphor presses home the point of proper evaluation by its very natureIn the politics of construction the parties always had one eye on the joband the other on the future evaluation Whether by incremental stages ofexamination and payment or with ultimate reference to the final day ofapproval the entire experience especially of public monumental build-ing was forward looking in its outlook The adprobatio combined theforensic elements so favored by Paul in his eschatological figures with astructural image that applied it to the communityrsquos present experience

Pastorally Paul manages to render the familiar strange by an adapta-tion that had powerful potential to destabilize his critics and to reorientthe evaluative conception of ministers and ministry in the communityFinally this interpretation of 41ndash5 sees the sub-unit not as an abstractldquoeschatological climaxrdquo but as an argument and image organicallyrelated to the opening thanksgiving in 14ndash9 As we saw there Paulevokes the politics of thanksgiving most frequently experienced in thedomain of public monumental construction His testimonial to the merits

335 Weiss (1910 100) Fee (1987 156)336 Kuck (1992 155)


of Christ he claimed was confirmed (16) an important aspect of thetestimonial was that Christ their patron-advocate would confirm themin their privileges and blamelessness to the end (17ndash8) In 35ndash45 wewitness Paulrsquos unfolding blueprint and contract for the construction ofthe monument implied by 14ndash9 In its development Paul claimed acommission that authorized him to determine the foundational messageand to evaluate the building work of other ministers He viewed thecommunity-monument as a holy temple indwelt by the Spirit andunderwritten with every resource by the divine benefactor It was anodd monument in the calculus of public thanksgiving and constructionlargely because it was incompletely formed neither beautiful in its socialcomposition nor yet seeking fully by purity or proper gratitude the gloryof the one who designed it and provided for its upbuildingWe conclude this section by recounting Paulrsquos attempt at reconfiguring

the logic of evaluation for his auditors In choosing to work with imagesand language from the politics of construction Paul had at his disposala model that focused strongly on evaluation and final approval Heexploited it fully combining the language of contractual stipulationswith a covenantal conception of eschatological blessing and curse Theresult was a rhetoric that deconstructs certain colonial modes of judgmentand evaluation Paulrsquos insistence on his (present) authority and paradig-matic gospel and on the (future) certainty of the divine day of approvalreconstructs a new vision of evaluation In the conclusion to the unitPaul emphasizes this ultimate divine evaluation in the manner of theadprobatio operis familiar from the pattern of public building Its effectwould have been sobering to those who took seriously the penetratingexamination of the divine judge and patron of the Corinthian temple

79 Acclamation in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

We now come to our sixth and final exegetical problem namelythe meaning and function of the rhythmic sections in 35ndash9 and verybriefly in 321bndash23 In Chapter 6 we noted that acclamation wasan important element of the colonial politics of thanksgiving accompa-nying the inscription of testimonials to the merits of a patron337 espe-cially one who underwrote spectacles or monumental construction338

Thanksgiving was integrally related to glory Given the close thematic

337 Recall Iunia Theodora and Epaminondas of Acraephia in Section 62338 For orators and audience acclaim (or abuse) see Litfin (1994 93ndash5) Winter (1997

126ndash44)


connections between 1 Cor 14ndash9 and 35ndash45 we are prompted to searchthe latter unit for signs of such acclamation In fact as we have seenin this chapter the dedication of a monument was the ideal momentfor public acclamation that took a variety of forms perhaps the mostpopular in such instances were acclamations of the ldquoIncreaserdquo typeemploying a form of the verb αὐξάνω To this pattern we may addthree further considerations that sharpen our expectation to find sometrace of a verbal ecclesial response in 35ndash45 First it is well known thatin 1 Corinthians Paul often responds by quoting statements that havecome to his attention This is seen most clearly in the party slogans hecritiques and parodies in 112 and 34 In these Paul gives attention tohis audience and is effective in adapting their words in his rhetoricalresponses339 Second when we recall the allusions to Jeremiah andelsewhere to covenantal construction with its interrelated themes ofgarden temple and Spirit we might expect also a note of glory340

This is the case not only in Jewish theology but also in Jewish historicaltradition as the verbal exclamations at the dedication of the post-exilicTemple attest (eg Ezra 311ndash13 cf Zech 69ndash15) Third the rhetoricalfocus on evaluative judgment in 35ndash45 within the larger context ofpolitical division and partisanship raises the question of the form thatexpressions of loyalty and approval might take in gatherings of theassembly341 As we shall see acclamations were employed in smallercommunal gatherings as well as in larger public spaces With thesepolitical and theological connections between construction glory andacclamation in mind we return to the question at hand how do weaccount for the repetitive rhythmic elements of 36ndash9 and 321bndash23Is it possible that we hear at these points in Paulrsquos text echoes of theaural-political experience of acclaim in the assembly

That such is the case in 36ndash9 is confirmed by an analysis of therhythmic form and a comparison with extant evidence for acclamationsin Graeco-Roman civic contexts In our history of scholarship we notedWeissrsquos observations on the rhythm and repetition in these verses342

The features of composition to which he drew attention deserve furtherexamination Apollos Paul and God form a trio mentioned either byname or by title four times in 35ndash9 To grasp the pattern we may firstisolate these namings

339 Eg 612ndash13 81ndash9 1023340 Cf Gaumlrtner (1965) Beale (2004)341 Clarke (1993 121)342 Weiss (1897 207) Weiss (1910 75)


35 Apollos Paul the Lord343

36 I Apollos God(Paul)

37 the one whoplants

the one whowaters

the one whogives thegrowth

(Paul) (Apollos) God38 the one who

plantsthe one whowaters

(Paul) (Apollos)39 God God God

It is obvious that this arrangement is far from static Paul shifts theorder of the names even as he repeats and develops the idea of the unityof fellow workers each with his own commission from the LordNevertheless each series ends with the divine name or title Equallyimportant the rhythm changes as well as the ordering This is surelymore than variatio Whereas 35 introduces the three names immediatelyrelevant to the work of ministry at Corinth it is in 36ndash7 that the rhythmbecomes most concentrated and the phrasing most repetitive344 Butdespite a consistent order of persons in 36ndash7 there is syntactical varia-tion An important change comes in 37 at which stage the proper namesof both ministers are replaced by functional titles Yet there is more tothis arrangement than an emphasis on ldquotask-orientatedrdquo leadership345

The change to ldquoplanterrdquo and ldquowatererrdquo accomplishes two importantresults that are only fully grasped in the context of the performativeelements of civic politics First in terms of aural rhythmic effect theshift to substantival participial form renders all three words uniform interms of syllables and accent We hear that when read aloud φυτεύωνποτίζων and αὐξάνων each have three syllabic beats with paroxytonicstress Second the definite article affixed to each results in forms thatmimic the honorific titles given to magistrates and benefactors in

343 In view of 28 (κύριος) probably refers to Christ here (but see the less clearoccurrences in 44ndash5)

344 Semino (2008 22ndash3) repetition and recurrence are two important discourse patternsor ldquotextual manifestations that metaphors may exhibitrdquo That these metaphors mimichonorific titles ndash especially in the case of ldquogrowerrdquo one related to public building ndash isanother argument for seeing 35ndash9 as part of a larger extended building metaphor ratherthan a sub-unit with completely distinct ldquoimageryrdquo

345 Clarke (1993 119)


inscriptions as Louis Robert has argued behind these inscribed titleslay acclamations346 But would such titles bestowed by acclamationhave any relevance to groups such as the Corinthian assembly or morespecifically to the motifs of building and evaluation To answer this wemust ask in what settings by whom for whom and to what purposeacclamations were employed in the Graeco-Roman world347

De Ruggierorsquos classic definition is still useful an acclamation is ldquoanyverbal [corporate] expression of joy approval greeting or the like oreven of discontent of blame or of cursingrdquo348 Cicero pointed in thelate Republic to public assemblies and spectacles as two of three venueswhere popular sentiment could be vocalized349 Acclamations were onecommunicative mode whereby communal will was expressed Suchexpressions were not always complimentary The use of these gatheringspaces for acclamations could be either official or spontaneous and wasoften highly politicized350 Acclamations played a role in settings asvaried as the theater the arena the forum military camps and ondiverse occasions such as imperial accessions public funerals wed-dings triumphs religious festivals building dedications local councilmeetings and in associations351 Pithy rhythmic acclamations werepopular in the early imperial period becoming formulated according totight metrical patterns in later centuries A regular but flexible structureis evident for a long period with paroxytone endings being quitecommon352

346 Robert (1965 215ndash16) Robert (1981 360ndash1) Rouecheacute (1984 182) This meansthat for example when one reads in an honorific inscription a nominative singular title suchas ὁ κτίστης (founder) the acclamation giving rise to the inscribed honor may have been ina different case or form (ie the vocative κτίστα or the accusative object of a requestκτίστην) For POxy I 41 (TM 31338) see Kruse (2006)

347 RE I (1894) cols 147ndash50 sv acclamatio (J Schmidt) speaks at col 150 ofldquoverschiedenen Gattungenrdquo in the inscriptions Another older treatment with ldquocopiosiesemplirdquo from the inscriptions is DE I (1895) sv adclamatio 72ndash6 Peterson (1926)remains fundamental Relevant modern discussions include Robert (1960) Baldwin(1981) Rouecheacute (1984) Rouecheacute (1989) Aldrete (1999) Wiemer (2004) Kruse (2006)Coleman (2011)

348 DE I (1895) sv adclamatio 72 Cf OLD sv acclamatio Acclamations could alsotake the form of nonverbal applause such as rhythmic clapping Rouecheacute (1984 181) listssome related Latin and Greek terms cf Aldrete (1999 134ndash8)

349 Cicero Sest 106 The third was voting see Coleman (2011 345ndash7)350 Cf Rouecheacute (1984 184) Aldrete (1999 101ndash27 156ndash9) Rowe (2002 78ndash84 161)351 General Rouecheacute (1984 181ndash4) Aldrete (1999 101ndash64) Town councils Bowman

(1971 102ndash6) Kruse (2006)352 Rouecheacute (1984 188ndash90) Aldrete (1999 140ndash7)


At the imperial level Augustus353 Nero354 and Trajan355 areamong those recorded as recipients of acclamations in the first centuryThe wildly popular Germanicus was acclaimed at Alexandria in AD19356 later that year when the false rumor of his recovery spread inthe capital Tiberius awoke to the chant Salva Roma salva patriasalvus est Germanicus357 Local benefactors and provincial magis-trates also enjoyed acclamatory praise By the third and fourth centu-ries such acclamations were routinely inscribed or recorded in officialprotocols358 They were adapted by early Christians and had becomea routine element of expressing adulation in ecclesiastical gatheringsby late antiquity359

Around AD 300 at an apparently spontaneous public gathering duringa festival in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt a crowd seized the chance to accostverbally prominent guests with wave on wave of acclamation for a localbenefactor and council president named Dioskoros360 Of the multipletitles with which Dioskoros was hailed the favorite was ldquofounder of thecityrdquo evidently for his benefaction activity and the financial relief heprovided to the people361 By their acclaim the crowd desired to honorDioskoros in the presence of visiting high officials Their acclamationwas also a political demand for future benefits a reality confirmed by theresponse of Dioskoros himself who replied ldquoI request that such testi-monials as these (τὰς δὲ τοιαύτα[ς] μαρτυρίας) be postponed to theproper lawful time (εἰς καιρὸν ἔννομον) [ie a formal council meeting]at which you may present them with confirmation (βεβαίως) and I mayreceive them with certainty (ἀ[σφ]αλῶς)rdquo362 Here we see the tightinterconnections between the politics of thanksgiving with the logic ofthe testimonial and a civic politics from below Two inscriptions onefrom Aphrodisias and one from Corinth allow us to link this generalpicture of popular politics to a specific acclamatory formula and settingpublic building and the ldquoIncreaserdquo acclamation

353 Suetonius Aug 56ndash7354 Suetonius Nero 20 463 Tacitus Ann 1415 Cass Dio 62205 For Nero and

acclamations see Aldrete (1999 109ndash11 134ndash8)355 Pliny Pan 75356 POxy XXV 2435 Translation Sherk (1988 sect34A)357 Suetonius Cal 6 Cf Aldrete (1999 114ndash17 138ndash9)358 Kruse (2006 298)359 Rouecheacute (1984 184ndash8)360 POxy I 41361 Kruse (2006 299ndash304)362 Translation modified from Kruse (2006 300)


An elite benefactor by the name of Albinus was honored in late antiqueAphrodisias with an effusive string of at least twenty acclamations363

We excerpt seven here

6 PERDE Albinus ndash up with (αὔξι) the builder (ὁ κτίστης) ofthe stoa

8 Your buildings (τὰ σὰ [κτ]ίσματα) are an eternal reminderAlbinus you who love to build (φιλοκτίστα)

11 The whole city says this ldquoYour enemies (τοὺς ἐχθροὺςσου) to the river May the great God provide this

14 [ ndash ] envy (ὁ φθόνος) does not vanquish fortune15 Up with (αὔξι) Albinus the builder of this work also

(ὁ κτίστης καὶ τούτου τοῦ ἔργου)18 Providing [a building] for the city he is acclaimed [in it

also]19 With your buildings you have made the city brilliant

Albinus lover of your country364

As Rouecheacute emphasizes ldquoΑὔξι with the nominative is one of the moststandard acclamatory formulaerdquo365 Four aspects of these rhythmiccries of praise deserve mention First Albinus was honored for hiswildly popular building activity in this case a stoa Second it wasapparently on the occasion of the structurersquos dedication that the citygathered to acclaimAlbinus Third one purpose of the peoplersquos acclaimwas to recommend Albinus for membership in the Senate and it isevident that he had political enemies Fourth the acclamations per-formed vocally were inscribed on the columns of the very stoa built byAlbinus In these features of the acclamations for Albinus we see astrong nexus of civic benefaction in the form of public building popularacclaim political tension and the glory of the benefactor inscribed onhis building

If we glimpse the politics of popular acclaim in response to elite civicconstruction in Aphrodisias we have suggestive traces of the politicsand economics of building from a lower social stratum in Corinth Firstpublished in 1931366 this inscription also dates from the late antiqueperiod We supply the text with restorations suggested by Robert367

363 Rouecheacute (1984 190ndash9) Rouecheacute et al (1989 no 83) c AD VI364 All translations follow Rouecheacute365 Rouecheacute (1984 195)366 Meritt 245 Bees (1978 9ndash10 no 2A) Cf SEG 11115 (c AD IVV)367 Robert (1960)


[ ndash οἱ λα]οξο[ι -]ι καὶ ἀκον[ ndash ][ ndash μαρ]μαράριοι εὐχαρι[στοῦμεν][ ndash ] ο τὸ ἐνκώμιον [ ndash ][ ndash ] αὔξι θεοδοσ[ ndash ][ ndash ἀ]νανεώτα πό[λεως ndash ] 5

[ ndash ] Κορίνθου μαλ[ ndash ][ ndash ]ς καὶ κανπιακ[ ndash ]

Based on Robertrsquos important discussion we know that this inscriptionactually from Kenchreai appears to have been set up in honor of theEmperor Theodosius by local stone workers (μαρ]μαράριοι l 2) Theseskilled workers associated with quarries and building projects offeredthanksgiving (εὐχαρι[στοῦμεν] l 2) in the form of an ldquoIncreaserdquo accla-mation (αὔξι)368 This we may assume was because of the imperialbenefaction to Corinth that proved a boon to their industry369 We notehere once again the conjunction of acclamation and building this timeexplicitly linked to the politics of thanksgiving by a form of εὐχαριστῶand offered by tradesmen who benefited economically from the projectOf course the Aphrodisias and the Corinthian inscriptions both

with the ldquoIncreaserdquo formula are examples from later antiquity Wemust admit there are no such extant inscriptions evincing the sociologyof acclamation in building contexts in early Roman Corinth370

Nevertheless there are good reasons for seeing these examples as illus-trative of a pattern that extended probably with variation back at leastto the first century First of all it is well known that the late date ofmost recorded acclamations in the documentary sources is linked torecording practices in the same period In other words acclamationswere employed early but not inscribed until later centuries371 In factPliny refers to this fact in his Panegyricus to Trajan372 This fact suggestswe should not be surprised at an absence of inscribed acclamations in thefirst century Second the literary sources noted earlier make clear thatrhythmic chants and clapping were a ubiquitous feature of civic life

368 Varied forms Rouecheacute (1989 208)369 Robert (1960)370 But see Kent 361 a first-century graffito apparently etched by Greek-speaking

construction workers on a stone that became part of the eastern schola of the Corinthianbemarostra It was hidden once the stone was put in place and does not give us as muchinsight as we might like into the social or ethnic status of the two laborers nor of theirparticipation in the politics of construction

371 Rouecheacute (1984 184ndash5)372 Pliny Pan 75 Baldwin (1981 144ndash5) For first-century acclamatory graffiti from

Pompeii see Keegan (2010)


throughout the first century certain types and styles of acclamationpopular at Rome were adapted in other settings Third we have tworeports of acclamations in political contexts within the NT text itselfActs 1220ndash24 tells of the popular assembly from Tyre and Sidonacclaiming Herod as a god at Caesarea His refusal to deflect the gloryto God Luke reports led to his destruction Godrsquos word howeverldquoincreasedrdquo (ηὔξανεν)373 Is this a literary reversal that appeals to aknown acclamatory formula or simply a repetition of a Lukan refrain374

In any case Acts 1928ndash34 records another account of popular acclama-tion this time in the famous spontaneous protest of the silversmiths inEphesus who believed their livelihood threatened by Paulrsquos iconoclasticgospel Thronging into the theater Luke alleges they engaged in aswelling repetitive acclamation of the ldquoGreat isrdquo formula for twohours375 The economic and political similarities are striking betweenthe Acts 19 account and the stone workersrsquo inscription from Kenchreai(even if the tone differs) Certainly the late antique inscribed ldquoIncreaserdquoacclamations fall short of proof for such a specific form of publicpraise related to benefactors and buildings in first-century Corinth Butin view of the widespread practice of acclamation in the first centurythe later evidence justifies a cautious use of historical imagination inreconstructing the possibilities of exigence and reception that coherewith the features of Paulrsquos rhythmic language and rhetorical purpose in1 Cor 35ndash9

What have we discovered in our survey of the social patterns asso-ciated with acclamationWe have seen that acclamations were popularlyused in many settings of politeia by a wide swath of people and hadclear political and economic functions More importantly formulas suchas the ldquoIncreaserdquo (αὔξι) acclamation were associated with benefactionand public building and like other such rhythmic chants employedpenultimate stress before ending with the honorandrsquos name in the nomi-native With this in mind we now return to Paulrsquos text with a particularfocus on verse 7

As we have noted building on Weissrsquos astute observation in 37comes the third of four varied repetitions of the trio PaulndashApollosndashGod Unlike the arrangement in either 35 or 38ndash9 36 and 37 displaymore compact repetitive rhythms In 36 the flow is even with threeexplicit subjects preceding their respective verbs Each lilting clause is

373 Cf Josephus Ant 1982374 Cf Acts 67 1920 Pervo (2009 316)375 Μεγάλη ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων Pervo (2009 55 485ndash95)


evenly composed of six or seven syllables But in the result clause of 37the indicative verbs expressing distinct activities become participialtitles In the process two of the explicit subjects (IPaul Apollos) dropout As a consequence the substantival participals each assume a trisyl-labic form with paroxytone stress But the first two remain incompleteleaving the listenerrsquos ear reaching for resolution in a nominative thatnever comes Instead Paul reintroduces the denigrating neuter indefiniteτι (cf 35) a feature that frustrates the building rhythm Only in the finalelement of 37 does the aural resolution come this time in the familiarand pleasing form of penultimate stress followed by the nominativeὁ αὐξάνων θεόςThat the form αὐξάνων is not an exclamation as we have seen in the

previous examples reminds us that this is not an acclamation per se It isnot in the vocative form because of its rhetorical setting Yet surely wecome to appreciate more than simply the intensity of Paulrsquos ldquohumanfeelingrdquo by attending closely to this construction We see also that he hasfrom the opening sub-unit of 35ndash45 planted an aural seed in the mindsof his hearers one that he hopes will take root and grow along withthe communal edifice he envisions That is to say the phrase ὁ αὐξάνωνθεός bears many of the hallmarks of an acclamatory formula grantingpublic honor to a patron who has beautified his city with monumentalbuilding As such 37 models as the first inference of the unit (ὥστε)how properly to evaluate within the politics of construction by focusingglory on the one who gives the increase Paulrsquos principle here we mightsay is simple rhythmic and memorable the one who gives the growthgets the glory It is in other words everything an acclamation aims to beRouecheacute and Aldrete each draw attention to the most likely contem-

porary analogue to Graeco-Roman acclamations The revivalist andAfrican American call-and-response style meeting in which the preach-errsquos utterances are picked up modified and improvised on by audiencesusing complex established rhythms is perhaps the closest experiencein our culture to the way acclamations functioned in the theater andoratorical and other ancient settings376 How might we envision thescene as these verses of Paulrsquos letter were read out in the assemblyWe have strong indications from the slogans he cites in 112 and 34 thatPaul believed the factions in Corinth had engaged in pithy partisanexclamations during meetings of the ekklēsia Perhaps not everythingabout these gatherings was carried out decently and in order (1440cf chapter 14 generally) It is conceivable then that some on hearing

376 Rouecheacute (1984 183) Aldrete (1999 140ndash4)


Paulrsquos formulation in 37c (assuming it was well read) might haveinterrupted with fervor echoing back the catchy clause In such a casePaul would have succeeded in a manner of speaking in inscribing anaspect of his testimonial (16) on the very monument he hoped wouldrise to his patronrsquos glory Perhaps others of the Apollos party howeverperceived the direction of Paulrsquos rhetoric and grumbling began to shiftuneasily In either case it may have been that later as the meeting brokeup some walked through the streets turning the phrase over on theirtongues and in their minds377

Whether our modest reconstruction is anything more than plausible isimpossible to prove What is certain however is that we have too easilylost our feeling for the rhythmic rhetorical features of 35ndash9 that werepicked up by interpreters such as Chrysostom andWeiss When we focussolely on a propositional ldquotranslationrdquo of Paulrsquos text especially textsso compressed and resonant as this we miss not only Paulrsquos ldquohumanfeelingrdquo but also the meaning and force of his argument What then isthe result of our close attention to structure and rhythm At one level wemay only have rephrased a principle noticed by others in our locutionldquothe one who gives the growth gets the gloryrdquo But our interpretation ofthese verses within the political theology developed by Paul from thethanksgiving of 14ndash9 and onward through 35ndash45 goes further Thisreading is attractive for its rhetorical power coherence and functionwithin the extended metaphor If in deconstructing a colonial mode ofevaluation and honor Paul wanted to reconstruct an ecclesial visionof existence centered ultimately not on unity or even purity but on theglory of the gracious divine benefactor and his crucified son then hedisplayed his fine craft in 35ndash9 and especially in 37378 Glory is thevertex joining the political lines of thanksgiving and construction Paulso clearly evokes and adapts

From 35ndash9 we move briefly to 321bndash23 In Chrysostomrsquos refresh-ing crescendo and Weissrsquos fervent coda we find once again a form andcontent apposite to the extended metaphor and argument Beginning withπάντα γάρ Paul offers a further ground for the challenge to proper self-evaluation he has just issued and supported from the scriptures But theπάντα as we noted earlier hearkens back to the benefaction languageof the thanksgiving in 14ndash9 There Paul had offered thanks for Godrsquos

377 Cf Coleman (2011 346)378 One should read aloud and consider the effect of the climactic verse 9 with the triple

oxytonic θεοῦ 318ndash23 and 41ndash5 the sub-units especially applying the reorientation ofevaluation signaled by Paul in 35ndash9 also conclude with θεοῦ


overflowing gift centered in the Messiah and his benefits He had alsopromised that the community would lack nothing that God throughChrist would confirm them in blamelessness at the last day Now in321bndash23 Paul picks up those threads and connects them to thoseministering in the community The soaring staccato series (εἴτε 8x) of322ndash23 reveals the riches and hierarchy of Paulrsquos covenant economy itclimaxes in Christ and relativizes all members apostles or ministersThere is a double edge to this list On the one hand it cuts off boastingpretension at the knees On the other it pledges inexhaustible divineresources to the building project (note the frame of ὑμῶν ὑμῶν) only justunderway in Corinth In keeping with the promise of 18 321bndash23provides the rhetorical platform for the eschatological evaluation withwhich Paul ends the unit in 41ndash5In sum we are thoroughly repaid for our patient attention to the

rhythmic structures that emerge in Paulrsquos text They give us insight intothe apostlersquos skill emotional life and political theology Such featuresalso suggest to us something of the responsive experience of the earlyChristian assembly at Corinth We argued that 35ndash9 by its form andcontent leads us to consider the well-known formulas and practices ofacclamation in the Graeco-Roman world One such expression of adula-tion that was often connected to patrons of public building projects wasthe ldquoIncreaserdquo acclamation preserved most clearly in late antiqueinscriptions The language cadence and content of such an acclamationfinds strong resonances in Paulrsquos rhythmic text particularly as he stressesthat God who gives the growth deserves the glory Such acclaim beginsearly in the unit to undermine pretension and the temptation to flawedevaluation Then in 312bndash23 Paul inscribes a reconfigured politics ofmunificence in a soaring coda Within the reconstructed pattern it is thedivine patron who gives all abundantly to the community Apostlesministers and those with resources and influence in the assembly aregiven to serve its members and life and not vice versa Divine benefitsmediated particularly through Christ are not only democratized thepyramid of privilege is turned upside down With its rhythmic power321bndash23 unveils the new political economy that justifies the evaluativeshift toward which he drives in the entire unit

710 Conclusion

As in the previous chapter we have used the Corinthian constitution toanchor epigraphical and other evidence in Roman Corinth In this casethe politics of construction centered on the logic of evaluation revealed


to us a social pattern connected to public building It is this social patternthat Paul impressively adapted and applied in 1 Cor 35ndash45 We saw thatcovenant particularly in the form of Jeremiahrsquos architectonic commis-sion was integral to Paulrsquos adaptive strategy

In grasping Paulrsquos use of the social and economic pattern of con-struction we are better able to account for many insights and somedilemmas in the history of interpretation Along with Chrysostom andWeiss we saw the careful architecture of Paulrsquos rhetorical compositionin the unit He responds forcefully to one figure or group of criticswithout naming any names His language has in several instances anemotive and rhythmic power that punctuates his argument We sawtoo that Eger had pointed a century ago to a striking genre of inscrip-tions related to construction but that scholars had failed to pursue thesocial and economic world of public building as a context for inter-pretation Kuckrsquos study demonstrated the centrality of 35ndash45 withinthe rhetorical structure of 1 Cor 1ndash4 the odd combination of Jewish andGraeco-Roman imagery and the principal theme of properly wiseevaluation in the unit Our survey of scholarship led us to pose sixexegetical questions related to the overall scope structure and detailsof 35ndash45

When we turned to reexamine the neglected building inscriptionswe discovered more than linguistic overlap In the pattern related to theldquoeconomics of temple buildingrdquo so clearly visible in the Lebadeiainscription (IGVII 3073) we saw design specifications and legal stipula-tions guiding the building work well-defined conditions of payment andpenalty and clear lines of authority The entire process of public buildinginclined toward final approval by the commissioners With the help ofconstitutional categories related Corinthian inscriptions and otherRoman evidence related to architects and public building we were ableto ground the pattern inherent in the politics of construction in first-century Corinth A relief from Terracina epitomized for us the authoritystructure of patron ndash architect ndash laborers present in the colonial experi-ence of the building site The patron who often doubled as a colonialmagistrate (as in the case of Babbius Philinus at Corinth) was the onewho conducted the final evaluation of the structure declaring or refusingapproval His was also the glory

Next we probed the Jewish scriptural resources so formative forPaulrsquos theology and self-understanding We found that at three pointsin his Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 35ndash9 2 Cor 108 1310) Paulexpressed his delegated apostolic authority in language reminiscent ofJeremiahrsquos commission (Jer 110) We argued that Paul melded this


covenantal-architectonic persona with that of a Graeco-Roman archi-tect to respond to his critics in the assembly and to revise their concep-tions of divine wisdom and ministry The result in light of metaphorstudies by Koumlvecses and Jindo is a complex extended metaphor withthe potential to reconfigure the politics of construction and the logic ofevaluationHaving traced the form of this social pattern we engaged in a detailed

exegesis of Paulrsquos text through the lens of the conceptual categoriesit provided We found that the rhetorical architecture of 35ndash45 ineach of its five sub-units reflected and reconstructed features from thepattern of colonial public works construction Most interpreters haveseen 35ndash45 as a series of metaphors or images punctuated by flightsof emotive rhythmic language We demonstrated instead that theseimages and features are encompassed for Paul within the politics ofcovenantal construction When we perceive that the metaphorical unitcoincides with the rhetorical unit the coherence and force of the wholebecomes clearer The flow of Paulrsquos discourse mirrors critical aspects ofauthority (35ndash9 10ndash12) stipulations (312ndash15 17) and evaluation(313ndash15 18ndash21a 41ndash5) building to an eschatological climax (43ndash5)reminiscent of his opening thanksgiving (17ndash8) But where Paulrsquospolitics of thanksgiving held out a strong promise of affirmation andapproval to the community on the merits of its patron (17ndash9) hisreconstructed logic of evaluation (43ndash5) emphasizes the divine patronalscrutiny under which ministers will find themselves on the last day Byan appeal to the politics of construction Paul turned the evaluative tableson his criticsWe proceeded under the rubric of ldquoauthorityrdquo to examine the sig-

nificance of the ministerial language in 35ndash45 and to explore Paulrsquosrelationship to other ministers in the assembly We found that particu-larly within the pattern of construction Paulrsquos emphasis on ministryas the proper category for conceiving of authoritative service inthe community was a potent challenge to colonial conceptions ofldquoleadershiprdquo patronage and evaluation Paul claims for himself agreater authority than Apollos with the title and role of ldquowise architectrdquo(310) interpreted within the building paradigm He also mounts arhetorical offensive against ldquosomeonerdquo in the assembly who in thename of Apollos has resisted Paulrsquos message and ministry By bringingto bear a series of stipulation-like conditionals Paul calls this figure toeschatological account (312ndash15 17) for his damaging effect on themembers and growth of the assembly-temple (316ndash17) Our attentionto the conventions to which Paul appealed and the manner in which he


adapted them led us to offer a hypothesis concerning his critic Wesuggested that Crispus mentioned both by Luke in Acts 188 and Paulin 1 Cor 114 fits the socioeconomic profile refracted in Paulrsquos text Asone with financial means influence and experience at the intersectionof the Jewish and Graeco-Roman communities in Roman CorinthCrispus may have resisted Paul in the name of Apollos If a figuresuch as Crispus were the target of Paulrsquos apologetic response theministerial and evaluative message of Paulrsquos reconstruction may havehit its mark

Having realized that everything in the pattern of building inclinedinexorably toward the day of approval we were able better to appreciatePaulrsquos oscillating adaptations of apocalyptic judgment language and theRoman adprobatio operis His pastoral strategy emerges in the tensionbetween constitution and covenant Ministers Paul insists throughoutthe unit are evaluated on the basis of conformity to his message aboutChrist and the lasting quality of their upbuilding service This revisioningof the proper basis and mode of evaluation is central to the entireapologetic argument of 1 Cor 1ndash4

Finally we saw that the way in which the politics of thanksgivingwas often expressed with regard to public building was by popularacclamation The category of acclamation allowed us to comprehendthe nuances and experience behind the rhythmic features of 35ndash9 and321bndash23 From at least the first century the popular ldquoIncreaserdquo accla-mation was employed and by the fourth and fifth centuries it wascommonly inscribed at the completion and dedication of public worksprojects Neither the architect nor the laborers but the patron-benefactorwas the focus of honor We understood that the one who gave the growthreceived the glory The language of such acclamations resonates stronglywith Paulrsquos statement in 37c ὁ αὐξάνων θεός On that basis we offeredthe hypothesis that Paulrsquos ldquorhetoricrdquo derived from and was aimed at aless-exalted social spectrum than that of orators such as Apollos Itsfunction was to deflate those among the Apollos party who were impro-perly ldquopuffed uprdquo by redirecting the glory for the growth of the assemblyto its proper patron The inverse economy of patronage and publicbuilding expressed in 321bndash23 sits as a rhetorical capstone to Paulrsquosdistinctive political theology ndash all things including those ldquowiserdquo andldquopowerfulrdquo among you are at your service and you belong to Christand Christ is Godrsquos A distinctive politics of thanksgiving issues in areconfigured politics of construction the wise architect has etched forthe ages the commissioned inscription of gratitude and glory on theassembly-monument


Excursus 1 Corinthians 46 and the rhetoricof reconstruction

Given our detailed treatment of 1 Cor 35ndash45 in this chapter and theshape of our conclusions we may perhaps be forgiven for attempting togo beyond what has been written on the troublesome 46 In many waysthe history of scholarship on this verse resembles a demolition zonelittered with the debris of collapsed and tottering hypotheses This stateof affairs is the result of a difficult and interrelated series of exegeticalchoices facing the interpreter Among these are two particularly intract-able problems neither of which has found a solution that commandsconsensus The first is the meaning and function of μετεσχημάτισα theverb by which Paul apparently intended to unveil rather than shroud hisstrategy in the foregoing unit The second is the elliptical phrase τὸ μὴὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται on which numerous theories have been erected Forboth the number of ancient texts adduced in the name of comparison isdizzying most alleged comparanda however have been relegated to thegrowing mound of rubble in the history of interpretation on this stubbornverseStill these are problems requiring a solution And any proposal will be

persuasive not only if it accounts for the fine detail of lexicography andsyntax but also provides the keystone to the larger structure of Paulrsquosargument and the entire meaning of 46 We suggest that the interpreta-tion of the extended building metaphor in Chapter 7 leads us to such asolution Paulrsquos politics of (re)construction and his insistence on aneschatological-architectural logic of evaluation provide us with the keyto unlock the sense of μετεσχημάτισα the meaning of the jargon-like μὴὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται and the purpose expressed by the double ἵνα clausesBefore offering our own interpretation we must note that one benefit

stemming from the difficulties of this verse is a steady flow of careful andcreative scholarly treatments Some in recent decades have reviewedthe entire history of the debate and have laid out typologies of interpre-tive options379 These studies obviate the need to reexamine fully thehistory of scholarship Instead in what follows we as briefly as possiblework our way through the verse addressing four exegetical points inturn Then we conclude by offering a new hypothesis that accounts forthe total arrangement and effect of these exegetical building blockswithin Paulrsquos rhetoric of reconstruction Finally this hypothesis has

379 Welborn (1987) Fitzgerald (1988 122ndash8) Hall (1994) Vos (1995) Hanges (1998)Mihaila (2009 202ndash12)


implications for the classification and interpretation of 1 Cor 11ndash421as a whole

1 The Referent of ταῦτα

The interpretation of 1 Cor 46 is contested from the very first word Atissue is the referent of the neuter plural pronoun ταῦτα Some havereferred it to all that Paul wrote from 110 onward380 Others take it tocover Paulrsquos statements about ministry in particular those in 35ndash17381

But most refer it to the immediately preceding unit 35ndash45 usuallydescribed in terms of a series of figures382 As indicated in Chapter 7 weagree with this latter majority position but insist on seeing 35ndash45 as acomplex extended metaphor focused on the logic of evaluation Thisevaluative focus that runs as we have argued through each of the fivesubsections that make up the unit is we suggest precisely that whichPaul seeks to press on his auditors in 46 Having deconstructed a colonialmode of evaluation and then reconstructed an ecclesial one in its placehe now admits to his restructuring of ldquothese thingsrdquo They are Paulclaims a new vision of evaluation with regard to himself and ApollosThese things therefore serve his apologetic purpose in responding to thecontempt of some in the assembly That this is so is further confirmedby our treatment of the verb of which ταῦτα is the direct object

2 The Lexical Sense and Translation of μετεσχημάτισα εις

What does Paul claim to have done with ldquothese thingsrdquo For whatpurpose has he constructed the extended building metaphor of 35ndash45whose political theology unsettles the logic of status and evaluation forthose ministers in the assembly As Hooker rightly observed ldquoIfμετασχηματίζω is understood in its usual sense then it is the ταῦτα thatare changed and they are changed εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶνrdquo383 Thisldquousual senserdquo as interpreters have long known is ldquoto change the form ofsomethingrdquo384 Paul himself uses it (only) in this way elsewhere (2 Cor1113ndash15 Phil 321) Nevertheless many scholars finding this sense tobe too simple for their theories about the meaning of 46 have sought to

380 Fiore (1985 94ndash7) Wagner (1998 282)381 Ker (2000 92) Thiselton (2000 348)382 Kuck (1992 210ndash11) Fitzgerald (1988 120 n13) Vos (1995 154ndash72) Weiss

(1910 101) links 46 most strongly with 35ndash9383 Hooker (1963ndash4 131)384 Hall (1994)


stretch the boundaries of lexical evidence in many cases it has beenstretched beyond the breaking point Glosses have ranged from ldquoallude toin a rhetorical figurerdquo385 to ldquoexemplifyrdquo386 ldquoapply a figure of speechrdquo387

ldquogive figured expression tordquo388 and moreBut of course μετασχηματίζω here may not be translated in isolation

Paul appends to it the preposition εἰς (as also in 2 Cor 1113ndash14) Thosewho follow the line of interpretation known as ldquocovert allusionrdquo take thisεἰς in the sense of ldquotordquo (so ldquoI have transferred these things in a figure tomyself and Apollosrdquo)389 Those preferring ldquoexemplificationrdquo must takeεἰς as ldquobyrdquo or ldquoby reference tordquo (so ldquoI have exemplified by referenceto myself and Apollosrdquo)390 A similar rendering of εἰς as ldquoforrdquo or ldquowithreference tordquo is necessary for those who remain with the simplest senseof μετασχηματίζω (so ldquoI have changed the form of these things withreference to myself and Apollosrdquo)Despite its modern proponents (eg Fiore) the covert allusion inter-

pretation has been rightly criticized for being lexically and contextuallyimplausible We have no evidence for understanding μετασχηματίζωas anything resembling ldquotransfer in a rhetorical figurerdquo Nor if we takeldquothese thingsrdquo as referring to the entirety of 35ndash45 is there a reason tosee anything veiled about Paulrsquos statement in 46 He does not meanthat the extended building metaphor seems to apply to himself andApollos Rather he has designed it to apply to them by reconfiguring(ie ldquochanging the form ofrdquo) something familiar The application comesin the εἰς not in the verb the change is in the μετα- prefix to the verbAny translation such as ldquotransfer in a figurerdquo will not do on linguisticgrounds391 Any version of ldquocovert allusionrdquo fails because it reduces35ndash45 to mere instruction disregarding its apologetic function as aresponse to a real attack on Paulrsquos person and ministry392

There are related problems with ldquoexemplificationrdquo renderings This isnot to deny a paradigmatic function to Paulrsquos rhetoric here393 It is instead

385 Robertson and Plummer (1971 81) Fiore (1985) Fiore and others build on thesuspect lexicography that led LSJ to assign a separate otherwise unattested sense to theverb cf LSJ sv μετασχηματίζω II Hall (1994)

386 Vielhauer (1979 176) Vos (1995)387 Hooker (1963ndash4 131)388 Mitchell (2010 33)389 Fiore (1985 93ndash4)390 Welborn (1987 338 345)391 Cf Kuck (1992 211ndash12)392 Contra Fitzgerald (1988 128) Kuck (1992 201ndash14) Cf Weiss (1910 101ndash5)393 We should think in terms of architectural not rhetorical παραδείγματα


to insist on lexical rigor There are no convincing instances in whichμετασχηματίζωmeans ldquoexemplifyrdquo394 Certainly Paul moves directly inthe following context to an explicit exhortation that the Corinthiansshould imitate him (416) and follow his ldquoways in Christrdquo (417) Butproponents of the exemplification interpretation look ahead too quicklyto this subsequent mimetic-paraenetic context (47ndash17) reading it backinto their translations of 46 We must first however see 46 as arhetorical exclamation point concluding 35ndash45395 This tendency tointerpret 46 too little in light of the preceding context contrary to itsown claims is a problem that we see again in certain proposals about themeaning of ldquonot beyond the things writtenrdquo We cannot for these rea-sons be satisfied with the rendering ldquoI exemplifiedrdquo

What remains to us is the simplest widely attested sense ofμετεσχημάτισα ldquochange the form ofrdquo We suggest that in view ofPaulrsquos argument in 35ndash45 we ought not to be surprised with his useof the verb to punctuate his point which is after all a revision of theirconception of evaluation in lowly construction terms In support of thiswe may adduce examples ndash some of them new ndash that connect the verb tothe domain of architecture and building precisely the fabric comprisingταῦτα in Paulrsquos extended metaphor Others have already brought forwardliterary texts in which μετασχηματίζω is related to the architecturalreconstruction of an existing object Weiss pointed to a text in Lucian(Pro imaginibus 9) where the second-century AD rhetorician recounteda tale concerning Alexander the Great396 An ἀρχιτέκτων approached thefamous young ruler with a proposal ldquoto reconstruct (μετασχηματιεῖν) theentirety of Mt Athos and to shape (μορφώσειν) it for him to becomean image of the kingrdquoClearly this is early evidence that μετασχηματίζωin its ordinary lexical sense could be used with a specific reconstructiveconnotation in architectural contexts Weiss dismissed this text fromserious consideration however because he did not grasp its relevanceto Paulrsquos rhetorical construction Paul does not of course refer to theremodeling of a physical object But as we have shown he has justdeveloped an elaborate metaphor that sets the context for just such a

394 Vos (1995) is guilty of semantic overload in his combination of Exemplifikation andRollenwechsel

395 This is not to say that 46 (and 7) does not also introduce the following unit But aswith any effective transition it sums up what comes before and only then moves onward(the forward motion comes with the doubled ἤδη of 48) Cf Weiss (1910 106)

396 Weiss (1910 101 n31) See PlutarchMor 426E where μετασχηματίζω (ldquoreshaperdquo)and ἀναπλάσσω (ldquoremodelrdquo) are in ldquosynonomous parallelismrdquo with reference to stellarbodies


use of the verb Do we have any other evidence for translatingμετασχηματίζω as ldquoreconstructrdquoAlthough the verb does not occur in the inscriptions it does appear

in direct connection to the remodeling of buildings in late papyri397

Three texts preserve what was surely a formulaic use In SB 1411578(AD V) μετασχηματίζω appears in a legal document ceding the own-ership of a ldquofarmsteadrdquo (a modest structure [οἰκίδιον] on some property[ἔπαυλις])398 According to the contract the recipient has the rightldquoto administer to manage its affairs to improve to beautify to demolish(καθελε[ῖν]) to rebuild (ἀνοικοδομεῖν) to remodel (μ[ετασχ]ηματίζειν)rdquo399 Nearly identical clauses appear in PDubl 32 (AD 512)and PDubl 33 (AD 513) both contracts for the sale of a monastery400

What is remarkable is the collocation of terms (καθαιρῶ ἀνοικοδομῶμετασχηματίζω) in the typically redundant elaboration of legal rights inrelation to a buildingWe have already seen such terms throughout Paulrsquosevocative use of building language taken from both prophetic traditionand Graeco-Roman public building The fact that these appear only inlate papyri may well be an accident of preservation401 especially judgingby the similar usage by Lucian we saw earlier What is abundantly clearis that at least by the early Byzantine period μετασχηματίζω was usedin formulaic contracts to convey the meaning of ldquoremodelingrdquo or ldquoreno-vatingrdquo a physical structureIn summary we have evidence that the verb in keepingwith its ordinary

lexical sense (ldquoto change the form ofrdquo) was applied in non-elite

397 Arzt-Grabner et al (2006 171) gives only ldquoDas Verb μετασχηματίζω ist papyrolo-gisch erst in byzantinischer Zeit belegtrdquo Given the scarcity of the term in earlier documen-tary sources and the collocations consistently exhibited within these ldquolaterdquo papyri readerswould have been well served by a brief discussion or at least by citations

398 See the treatment of this text originally published as PGot 22 by Teodorsson (1976)In legal terms it is a donatio inter vivos a gift of property by a person still living

399 SB 14 115789ndash10 (=TM 35133) τοῦ ο[ἰ]κιδίου καὶ ἐπαύλεως καὶ ἐξουσίαν σε |ἔχειν διοικεῖ[ν] ἐπιτελεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ βελτιοῦν φιλοκαλιεῖν καθελε[ῖν] | ἀνοικοδομεῖνμ[ετασχ]ηματίζειν Cf Teodorsson (1976 248ndash9)

400 PDubl 3210 (=TM 41094) καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν διοικεῖν οἰκονομεῖν ἐπιτελεῖνπερὶ αὐτοῦ βελτιοῦν φιλοκαλεῖν καθελεῖν | ἀνοικοδομεῖν μετασχηματίζειν Identicaltext in PDubl 3311ndash12 (=TM 41095) Cf Teodorsson (1976 246)

401 Teodorsson (1976 245ndash6) places SB 1411578 within a genre of similar extant textsalmost all incomplete stretching fromAD 95 to AD 735 Cf TypicaMonastica 73 (Typiconmonasterii Deiparae Cecharitomenes seu Gratiae-Plenae) text and translation Gautier(1985) Xanthopoulos Historia ecclesiastica 144958 (PG 1461231ndash4) describes theultimately unfulfilled effort in AD 443 by Eudokia wife of Theodosius II to reconstructthe Jewish temple at Jerusalem in the form of a temple to the Theotokos (Ἔπειτα εἰς σχῆμαναοῦ τὴν ἐν τοῖς χαλκοπρατείοις τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγὴν μετασχηματίσασα)


non-rhetorical documentary contexts to speak of alterations permissiblein a (re)building context Our suggestion is that these legal-architecturalinstances of the verb make good sense of Paulrsquos usage in 1 Cor 46 forthree reasons First the use of μετασχηματίζω to describe a physicalremodeling sits comfortably with the semantic and social dynamics(ταῦτα) Paul has just appealed to in 35ndash45 The documents adducedearlier suggest such a meaning may have naturally come to mind forthose whose attention had been directed so insistently to the semi-technicallanguage of building characterizing that unit Second such a renderingallows us to maintain the usual meaning of μετασχηματίζω and to makesense of Paulrsquos application of ldquothese thingsrdquo to himself and Apollos withthe preposition εἰς Thus we should translate 46a in this way ldquoThesethings I have remodeled with reference tomyself and Apollos because of402

you rdquo Third if this is Paulrsquos meaning it amounts to a clever pun thatbegins forcefully to drive home his apologetic point As the divinelycommissioned architect he continues in 46 to respond to his detractorswho by now grasp clearly the structure of authority behind his claim that he(alone) is authorized to direct (at least at Corinth) the execution of designin the logic of the building metaphor For these reasons our translation of46a has more merit than other proposals It also guides us in consideringthe nettlesome phrase ldquonot beyond the things writtenrdquo in 46b

3 The Source Referent and Function of τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται

In 46b the first ἵνα-clause directs the auditor to the purpose of Paulrsquosrhetoric of reconstruction He has reconfigured the logic of evaluation ndash

with reference to himself and Apollos ndash to instruct his auditors in theproper mode of judgment regarding the two best-known ministers inthe assembly That this instruction is a sharp statement of defense inresponse to contemptuous criticism is also clear from its parallel align-ment with the second ἵνα-clause in 46c (see Section 4) How in the firstsuch clause does Paul accomplish this purpose It is with the use of aslogan that functions as a rebuke ldquoso that you may learn the [meaning of]lsquonot beyond the things writtenrsquordquo

Of all the elements comprising Paulrsquos building rhetoric the phrase τὸμὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται is surely the stone over which the most interpretershave stumbled and the one that has crushed the most hypotheses in the

402 Δία + accusative typically expresses cause or reason BDF sect222 Paul felt himselfdriven to this remodeling of social conventions by the Corinthians (or at least by thoseoutspoken and influential partisans of Apollos among them)


history of scholarship It will not do to write the text off as corrupt morethan ever before to do so is to ignore what is written403 Neither have anyof the proposals to date been able to accomplish all three things necessaryin such a way as to engender consensus that is (1) suggest a plausiblesource for the ldquosloganrdquo (2) identify the referent of ἃ γέγραπται and (3)account for the function of the phrase in Paulrsquos argument just hereUnsurprisingly in attempting to locate the source of Paulrsquos language

we see yet again traces of the JudaismHellenism fault line in NTscholarship404 The ldquomajorityrdquo hold that Paul refers in this phrase to theOT scriptures405 a sizable ldquominorityrdquo adopt the view that he appeals to atopos centered on writing instruction for young children406 Neither ofthese views however meets all three criteria Among the weaknesses towhich both are susceptible is a failure adequately to explain the connec-tion of the phrase ldquonot beyond the things writtenrdquo to the ldquothese thingsrdquothat refers to 35ndash45Those who have grappled seriously with the critical questions of

source syntax and function have suggested notable alternatives yetfor the most part these have fallen by the wayside Older interpretersproposed a rabbinic maxim407 Wallis attempted to refer ἃ γέγραπταιto ταῦτα (and thereby to Paulrsquos own teaching in the preceding unit) byre-punctuating the clause so that Paul says ldquoso that you may learn the[maxim] lsquoNot so far [You have] the things written [in black and

403 Usually cited in connection with the call to emend the text Baljon (1884 49ndash51)Strugnell (1974) But the seed appears to have been planted by F A Bornemann ldquoDememorabile glossematte quod locum in 1 Corinth 46 insedisse videturrdquo in BiblischeStudien von Geistlichen des Koumlnigreichs Sachsen (J G R Kaumluffer Dresden Arnold1843) 37ndash44 (non vidimus) See Krans (2006 1) The negligible variation in the textualtradition attests a secure text with readily explicable variants Kloha (2006 77ndash9)

404 See the review of scholarship inWelborn (1987) Thiselton (2000 351ndash6) provides atypology of approaches

405 Notably Hooker (1963ndash4) Lightfoot (1980 199) Wagner (1998) The seriousobjection to this view is that Paulrsquos usual formula in appealing to the scriptures is missinghere Further the constraints of syntax (ie that the τό introduces a quotation of whichγέγραπται is a part) do not permit us to refer ἃ γέγραπται to either the scriptures generally orto Paulrsquos citations in 131 andor 319ndash21 Wallis (1950) Welborn (1987 324ndash8)Fitzgerald (1988 123ndash4)

406 The view of Fitzgerald (1988 124ndash8) has been widely adopted though the compar-ison on which it depends is purely conceptual and not linguistic Fitzgeraldrsquos case iscompelling only if 46 is best interpreted with regard to what follows (414ndash21) ratherthan what precedes (35ndash45) But this is unlikely in view of both the ταῦτα and theconsonance of 46 with the extended building metaphor

407 Eg Robertson and Plummer (1971 81)


white]rsquordquo408 Welborn adduced examples ndash literary and epigraphical ndash ofarbitration between discordant parties to argue that Paul appealed to awell-known political formula facilitating reconciliation409 Hanges hasdeveloped a suggestion of Heinrici arguing that Paul refers to written(or inscribed) bylaws on the order of leges sacrae that were physicallypresent at Corinth410 While none of these assessments has proven to bethoroughly convincing411 they share in common a commitment to thefollowing412

1 the syntax demands that we see the τό as introducing aldquosayingrdquo413

2 this saying will have been intelligible at Corinth414

3 locating the source of the saying is critical forunderstanding its referent and function415

4 the saying has a strong political-legal resonance (especiallyWelborn and Hanges)

These insights and assumptions guide us in our search for the meaningof Paulrsquos saying We have been using the term ldquosayingrdquo or ldquosloganrdquo todescribe the phrase μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται because it is introduced by τόand as Wallis observed because it is too long properly to be considereda ldquomaximrdquo or ldquoproverbrdquo416 Despite the rhetorical and functional resem-blances provided by the proposals that Welborn and Hanges haveoffered neither was able to locate a precise match to Paulrsquos phrasing417

408 Wallis (1950 cols 507ndash8)409 Welborn (1987b 333ndash46)410 Hanges (1998 284 and n37)411 Mitchell (2010 33) briefly signals a new hypothesis drawing on the juristic topos of a

good judge keeping to the literal sense She adds that this ldquodoes not immediately allow us todetermine the referent in this case And this is not because there are not lots of written wordsin the context but because there are too manyrdquoUltimately she reverts to the unlikely viewthat ldquothe things writtenrdquo refers to the citation of Jer 922ndash3 in 1 Cor 131

412 Some of these are also shared by those who take the ldquomajorityrdquo (OT) and ldquominorityrdquo(pedagogue and writing) views rejected earlier

413 Weiss (1910 102)414 This does not necessarily imply as many interpreters have assumed that Paul is

repeating or re-working something vocalized by his critics415 Contra Wagner (1998 287) who asserts that (but does not explain how) one may

ascertain the meaning of the phrase apart from an understanding of its origin (andevidently apart from a consideration of the meaning of μετασχηματίζω)

416 Wallis (1950 col 507)417 Especially with the searchable databases now available to the scholar it appears we

should be ready to admit that there is no exact match in extant published literaryepigraphical or papyrological sources


The ubiquity of variants on ldquowhat is writtenrdquo in (especially) political andlegal inscriptions418 dilutes the force of these semantic resemblances andrequires the interpreter to test the ldquofitrdquo of the social dynamics derivingfrom one of the many sub-genres of such texts To date conventionsassociated with the political rhetoric of conciliation (Welborn) andthe legal codes of Greek cultic associations (Hanges) have been testedWhat remains untested is the very sub-genre to which Paul has just beenappealing the politics of public buildingWe need only recall at this point the close linguistic relationship

between Paulrsquos text in 35ndash45 with building contracts such as the onefrom Lebadeia (IG VII 3073) It comes as no surprise that in suchconstruction texts too we find ldquonear matchesrdquo to Paulrsquos saying in46419 In IG VII 3073 builders are charged repeatedly to perform thework ldquoexactly as it has been written aboverdquo420 Anyone ldquonot doingthe things written in the specificationsrdquo is ldquofinedrdquo or ldquodriven out of thejobrdquo421 If there is disagreement between contractors ldquoabout any of thethings writtenrdquo422 the commissioning authority adjudicates Variants ofthe phrase καθὼς γέγραπται appear more than a dozen times in the singleLebadeia building contract As in other cases the formulas involvingγέγραπται direct attention to the stipulations and authority structureinscribed in the text But only in the case of the building inscriptions isthe force of those stipulations focused so strongly on the logic of evalua-tion with its sequellae of penalty or praise Therefore given this precisefocus on evaluation and its consequences and given that ταῦτα directsus back toward the extended building metaphor in 35ndash45 we considerit prudent to explore the meaning of τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται within thedynamic field generated by the politics of construction As it happens insuch an interpretation we are able to give an account for the sourcereferent and function of the sayingThe source of Paulrsquos phrase is the social experience of those on the

building site We contend that the phrase μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται couldeasily have been found on the lips of an architect or building contractordirecting subordinate laborers on the job As we argued earlier evidencesuggests that contractual stipulations including exact dimensions

418 Hanges (1998 293)419 See Section 72 Hanges (1998 284 n37) points to others who have suggested a

contractual-technical source for the language of the saying420 Eg IG VII 307374 145 151421 IG VII 307315ndash21422 IG VII 307341ndash4


specific quantities and precise penalties were either inscribed or postedat the work site These may have served a role of guaranteeing confor-mity to design and quality workmanship as far as the architect whom wepresume was ldquofunctionally literaterdquowas concerned They may also haveplayed a part in the legal network of accountability that allowed forpublic ldquotransparencyrdquo during inspection and payment Certainly theyhad a commemorative function as well joining the vast effort andexpense involved in public building to the named commissioners orpatron(s) But what of the less literate subcontractors and laborers423

How were they guided on the job They were aware of such writtenstipulations but we have difficulty conceiving of them consulting awhitened board or inscribed slab in the course of their daily workSurely they were otherwise dependent not only on the tacit knowledgeof experience but also on the direct commands of those in authority overthem It is not at all difficult to imagine an architect seeing a stonecutterworking a stone with his chisel crying out ldquoNot beyondwhat is writtenrdquoIt would have been a cry whose force was simultaneously to guide workin conformity with design and to remind all within earshot of the socialand economic consequences of damaging stones or failing to meetdemands of quality424 By its very nature our hypothetical saying willhave been ephemeral ndash the kind of clipped work site banter or jargonfamiliar to anyone who has worked in or walked past a constructionzone it would not have survived in our sources So too the tone of sucha cry may have varied from playful to angry rebuke depending on thecircumstances in which it was uttered

If the politics of building allows such a hypothesis regarding thesource of Paulrsquos phrase it also directs us to a referent namely Paulrsquosgospel On the lips of our imagined architect the words refer to thecontract stipulations those stipulations as we have seen were mediatedto the workers in the figure and authority of the architect himself as theone authorized by the commissioning patron For Paul the wise architectcommissioned by his Lord these words would then have been a cryreminding the community of the revealed form and authority of hisgospel That is ldquothe things writtenrdquo refers not to 35ndash45 as a unit butto that place in which the architect most emphatically signaled his

423 For ldquofunctional literaciesrdquo (including ldquocommercial literacyrdquo) among laborers seeWoolf (2009 46ndash68)

424 Along with most interpreters I understand ὑπέρ + the accusative here in the sense ofldquobeyondrdquo + an abstraction This is confirmed and clarified by recent linguistic researchLuraghi (2003 218ndash24) Bortone (2010 117 189 299)


authority 310ndash15425 There Paul claims that no other minister (not evenApollos and certainly not his adherent who is so critical of Paul) maybuild except on the foundation he has laid which is Jesus Christ Andthose who build must take great care in how they labor so that thesuperstructure rises securely from that foundation They are liable tothe on-site inspections of the architect and of course to the final judg-ment of their work on the day of approvalWith the building source and gospel referent of Paulrsquos saying in

view we may appreciate its rhetorical force in 46 In writing (so that itmight be read and heard) τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται Paul places anexclamation point on his apologetic tour de force in 35ndash45 In con-tinuity with the reconstructed politics of building and reconfigured logicof evaluation he has presented Paul pauses to drive home the authorityof his gospel and ministry As an architect to his work crew Paul remindsthe Corinthian assembly of these things resorting to the pattern ofthe building metaphor once more He does so by appealing not to thescriptures nor to a timeless maxim or elite proverb but to the banter ofthe work site To those ldquoaboverdquo such a socioeconomic world of experi-ence it would not have raised Paul in the scales of their rhetoricalestimation But if the saying hit home it could well have puncturedpretensions and challenged the criticisms issuing from the ldquoApollospartyrdquo Which is to say it would have done precisely what the secondἵνα-clause suggests the saying was intended to do

4 The Syntax of the Double ἵνα-clauses

Following on from the pattern of building and evaluation reconstructedby Paul in 1 Cor 35ndash45 we should translate 46andashb in this way ldquoThesethings I have remodeled with reference to myself and Apollos becauseof you in order that you may learn by us the (saying) lsquoNot beyond thethings writtenrsquordquo It remains to coordinate this understanding with thefinal ἵνα-clause in 46c Some have taken the double ἵνα-clauses asconsecutive with the second dependent on the first426 But the majorityhave rightly taken the two in parallel Grammatically both are dependenton μετεσχημάτισα expressing the purpose of Paulrsquos reconfigurationFurthermore as Weiss observed we should take τὸ μή and ἵνα μή as

425 This reading avoids the criticism that Paul would have employed a form ofπρογράφω had he wanted to refer to (all of) what he had written Cf Welborn (1987b323ndash4)

426 Hooker (1963ndash4 128)


the double object of μάθητε and therefore as voumlllig parallel427 In thiscase we are justified in taking the second as epexegetical of the first Wemay now present our full paraphrase of 46 in which this parallelism ofsense becomes evident

And these things brothers I have remodeled with regard tomyself and Apollos because of your criticisms of me and yourwrong evaluation of ministry I have done so in order that youmay learn the force of the saying (as on the work site) ldquoNotbeyond the things writtenrdquo That is I have reconfigured thepolitics of construction in order that you may learn not to bepuffed up each one on behalf of the one (ie Apollos) againstthe other (ie Paul)428

Conclusion

We may conclude by summarizing our interpretation of the difficult1 Cor 46 Our assembling of the many exegetical building blocks hasbeen guided throughout by an attention to the form and force of theextended construction metaphor in 35ndash45 There Paul first begandeconstructing the social pattern entailed by the politics of buildingcontracts He then reconstructed a new pattern in its place with a power-ful emphasis on the logic of apostolic-eschatological evaluation In lightof this pattern and flow of argument we have gained a clearer view of themeaning of 46 and its constituent elements

We argued that in 46a Paul claims to have reconstructed these thingswith reference to himself and Apollos This interpretation has the virtueof attending to the literal sense of the verb μετεσχημάτισα and of glossingit in accordance with a papyrologically attested formula concerningbuilding rights We contended that by ldquothese thingsrdquo Paul means thathe has reconfigured all of what preceded in 35ndash45 and further that thisdirects our interpretation primarily toward the preceding unit and onlysecondarily toward what follows Our pattern also helped us in theidentification of a plausible source referent and function for the notor-ious phrase ldquonot beyond the things writtenrdquoWe saw that on the lips of anarchitect-supervisor such a phrase could be an authoritative utterancedirecting laborers to the evaluative structure of contractual stipulations

427 Weiss (1910 103)428 Weiss (1910 104) correctly notes that the point of 46c lies in the contrast between

ὑπέρ and κατά


On Paulrsquos lips it directs the critic particularly to his divinely commis-sioned gospel and the work it does in building up the members of theassembly Such a meaning for the phrase τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται there-fore fits comfortably in the rhetoric of reconstruction he has labored tocompose We saw that this hypothesis has the additional advantage oftaking seriously the constraints of syntax and the function of the purposeclauses Those clauses offer the coordinate purpose of Paulrsquos rhetoricalreconfiguration ndash they defend Paulrsquos apostolic authority his gospel andhis ministry from critics who by elevating Apollos have disdained PaulEspecially in the parallel μή-phrases supplying the object of ldquolearnrdquo Pauldrives home his point he evaluates those in the assembly who preferringApollo for reasons of ldquoworldlyrdquo wisdom have wrongly evaluated himHis assessment as apostle-architect measured by that which his criticsmust learn is stern They must look to the divinely structured politics ofconstruction centered for them on Paul and his ministry (ldquoNot beyondthe things writtenrdquo) if they are to avoid divine censure for their improperevaluation (ldquopuffed up each on behalf of the one against the otherrdquo)Finally we must note that our interpretation strongly supports an

apologetic rather than a paraenetic reading of Paulrsquos text This is truenot only of 35ndash46 but of 1ndash4 as a whole While there are mimetic-paraenetic elements especially from 414 onward the force of the largerargument centered as it is on the reconstructed pattern of judgmentand wisdom is a strong defense Paul presses against his detractors Bymeans of a rhetoric of reconstruction the wise architect asserts theauthority of his cruciform gospel and ministry We have indicationsfrom his further correspondence that his rhetoric because it was under-stood was not universally well received Little did Paul realize hismanner of assertion would provide the foundation for so many intricateand structurally flawed interpretations


CONCLUSION COMPARISONOF CONSTITUTIONS

Sometime in the late fourth century AD an unknown figure sat down tomake a constitutional comparison Probably for apologetic reasons hewanted to compare the law of Moses with the burgeoning body of lawdeveloped by the Roman jurists The result was the Collatio LegumMosaicarum et Romanarum a running comparison under sixteen heads(eg ldquoOf False Testimonyrdquo and ldquoOf Cattle Raidersrdquo) Of the finalproduct a scholar from an earlier age confessed ldquoI commenced with[studying the work] because the title held out the prospect of an interest-ing comparison between two great systems Closer inspection showedthat this promise was illusoryrdquo1

This study too has undertaken a constitutional comparison but of amore local and modest kind The results have been illuminating ratherthan illusory largely because of the careful construction of our compara-tive framework and its patient application We have used ldquoconstitutionrdquoand ldquocovenantrdquo as shorthand for two socio-political patterns that intersectin 1 Corinthians The primary basis for our comparison has been theCorinthian constitution based on the template of contemporary Spanishcharters and the Pauline text itself Our aim has been to use the former toset off the distinctiveness of the latter especially in two rhetorical units ndash1 Cor 14ndash9 and 1 Cor 35ndash45 ndash where evident semantic and socialconventions invite such a comparison

In his own constitutional comparison between Josephus and PaulBarclay rightly linked such an endeavor with our understanding of Paulrsquosstrategy in Corinth He contended that ldquoif we could identify examples ofsuch lsquoconstitutionalrsquo analysis that are broad enough to apply to societiesless extensive and less complex than states they might suggest fruitfulquestions for the analysis of Paulrsquos community-formationrdquo2 Constitutedcolony and covenanted community have provided just such an analytical

1 Hyamson (1913 pref) Cf Frakes (2011)2 Barclay ldquoMatching Theory and Practicerdquo 141

302

frame for 1 Corinthians 11ndash46 Our comparison has facilitated the under-standing of a competing politics of thanksgiving and construction amongthe members of the early Corinthian assembly It has also taught us aboutPaulrsquos strategy of ministry in the ekklēsia and about his adaptation ndash drivenby his messianic political theology ndash of cultural forms To emphasize thoseconclusions we briefly review the argument of the studyIn Part One we undertook a series of methodologically oriented steps

to build a persuasive comparative framework Since constitution andcovenant entail a comparative politics we began in Chapter 1 with asurvey of ancient and contemporary political approaches to interpretingPaul and his epistles We saw that a broad stream of ldquoPaul and politicsrdquointerpretations from the second century to the present has been produc-tively applied to 1 Corinthians and other Pauline texts We outlined atypology of methods and aims that allowed us to build an eclecticapproach From the philosophers we borrowed the notion of politicaltheology Critics of empire alerted us to the possibility of conflictbetween Paul and ldquoempirerdquo Feminist approaches suggested creativeand cautious ways to combine literary documentary and archaeologicalevidence in our investigation Finally social historians gave us politeiaas an apposite first-century term for describing the comparative sitewhere constitution and covenant interact in 1 Corinthians We concludedby surveying the handful of historical and exegetical studies that haveappealed to Corinthrsquos constitution noting the pressing need for a sys-tematic application of the Julio-Claudian colonial charter templateIn Chapters 2 and 3 we began to fill that lacuna First we justified the

use of legal sources for social history and exegesis John Crookrsquos reflec-tions urged us toward the documentary evidence and to look for theplaces where the ldquolawrdquo effectively illuminated ldquoliferdquo In Chapter 3 weattempted to link Crookrsquos method to the needs of Pauline scholars byusing the Spanish lex Ursonensis and lex Irnitana to model theCorinthian constitution We demonstrated the validity of restoring theconstitution to early Roman Corinth suggested plausible sites of displayand illustrated its relevance to first-century politeia with a case studyOur work in Chapter 3 developed an intuition in recent Corinthianscholarship and laid the groundwork for further research on bothRoman Corinth and the Corinthian correspondenceOur focus in Chapter 4 turned from constitution to covenant as we

reviewed the evidence for a synagogue community in Corinth and high-lighted covenantal traces in 1 Corinthians We saw that the combinedevidence of Paulrsquos letter and Acts attests a vigorous Jewish presenceboth in the colony and the earliest assembly Then we reexamined the


history of the Corinthian synagogue inscription and found that previousdate ranges were too narrow and unreliably based on letter-formsWithout further architectural investigation we suggested the need tohold to a broad date range of AD IndashVI Even apart from the synagogueinscription we concluded that covenant discourse especially related toDeuteronomy is among the signs that mark 1 Corinthians as covenantalin its outlook

In Chapter 5 we laid out reasons for our hermeneutical stance regard-ing differential comparative method and communication We offered acase study related to 1 Cor 16 8 that demonstrated a more promisingmethod for moving beyond words to registers and discourse Thesesemantic conventions led us to the social conventions that characterizedlife in the politeia We also rejected the idea of a radical communicativerift between Paul and the Corinthians offering instead reasons to holdauthor and audience together with the text at the center of our interpreta-tion Finally we sketched a portrait of Corinth Paul and the assembly asfigures to test against our exegesis

Purposes of Politeiai

The first five relatively short methodological chapters prepared us forthe extended exegesis of Part Two In two lengthy chapters we appliedthe constitutional framework and evidence to reveal political categoriesand social patterns evident in 1 Corinthians By attending to clusters ofpoliteia language and lingering over neglected epigraphical evidence wewere able to probe the authority structure and telos of colony andassembly The political theology emerging from Paulrsquos text was seen tobe formed with reference to that of the colony but it was decidedlyecclesial and worked strongly against the larger social patterns in manyrespects The texts we examined provide evidence of a coherent strategythat seems particularly suited for Roman Corinth

In Chapter 6 we utilized the constitutional categories to interpret Paulrsquosopening thanksgiving in 1 Cor 14ndash9 within the politics of thanksgivingWe began to see the distinctive shape of Paulrsquos political theology focusedon gratitude to God for his formation and benefaction of the community(14ndash5) These benefits flowing from the merits of their patron JesusChrist were confirmed by Paulrsquos testimony among them (16) Whereasthe logic of the testimonial in colonial politeia re-inscribed elite virtue andprivilege the privileges of the politeia Paul describes are democratizedthrough the crucified Messiah (cf 130 316ndash17 611) The divine

304 Conclusion comparison of constitutions

promise on the order of constitutional treaty or covenant oath (19)grounds these privileges and the confident expectation of blameless stand-ing on the last day (18) But Paulrsquos pattern of munificence closely mirrorsthat of the larger colony in its language of patronage and benefaction Thedistinctiveness of the politics he presses for remains underdeveloped inthose opening verses We are left wondering what kinds of people partakeof these divine privileges what shape their obligations to one another willassume and on what kind of structure Paulrsquos testimonial to Christ will beinscribedSome of those questions found answers in Chapter 7 In turning to 35ndash

45 we saw Paul make the link between gratitude and glory in such a waythat the structure of authority the character of ministry and distinctivesocial obligations began to take shape The extended building metaphorbrings to bear on the assembly ndash and especially on Paulrsquos critic(s) fromthe Apollos party ndash a differential politics of construction The founda-tional promise and testimonial to Christrsquos merits (14ndash9) become anarchitectural foundation in Paulrsquos gospel (310) Gratitude to the divinepatron is directed in the shape of acclaim toward the one who under-writes the growing structure of the community and its members PaulrsquosJeremiah-like authority as a delegated architect grants him rank but notstatus above his critics He attempts to undercut pride by an insistent useof ministerial terminology for the labor of building up the communityFinally the whole of his construction challenges and reconfigures theconception of wise judgment and evaluation Ministers especially maynot presume on their privileges but should look to the final day ofapproval and the glory of their patronAlthough we have limited our investigation to these two texts we see

already the collision of two overlapping politeiai ndash colonial and eccle-sial Yet it is only experienced as a collision by those within theassembly it is driven by opposing political theologies To claim thisis not necessarily to agree with Taubesrsquos language of a Paulineldquodeclaration of war on Caesarrdquo That seems far too strident for 1 Cor1ndash4 There are however two opposed sovereigns and many humblerfigures competing for glory in colony and assembly Likewise thereare divergent structures of authority obligation and status Theseoppositions are present because of Paulrsquos theology and communicativestrategy That is to say a specifically Corinthian exigence and settingcalls them forth not an abstract or calculated hostility at the vauntedimperial level of ldquoChrist and Caesarrdquo ndash at least not in these openingchapters


Paulrsquos Political-Pastoral Strategy

The subtitle of our study is ldquoPaulrsquos Political Strategyrdquo We have alreadyhinted at how this helps us appreciate Paulrsquos pastoral strategy in1 Corinthians Paul does not engage with Roman law or colonial politicsat the level or in the manner of a jurist making systematic distinctionsand offering learned opinions Instead he attends to colonial structuresfor the politeia they animate Matters of privileges and status ndash that ismatters of politics and not ethics ndash concern Paul in 1 Cor 1ndash4 because heis focusing on the ecclesial framework shaping the form of life in theChrist-assembly Paul is defending his ministry responding to falseclaims of wisdom correlated to colonial status and redirecting the com-munity toward the merits and glory of its founding patron Ethics willfollow in 1 Cor 5 and beyond indeed ethical concerns are alreadysignaled strongly in 316ndash17 But in these early chapters Paul is primar-ily reinforcing the political (ecclesial) foundation he laid earlier

In attempting to reconstruct and fortify the assembly Paul has adap-tively appealed to social patterns involving colonial rights status obli-gation and glory He urges ndash by direct appeal by metaphor and bycensure ndash the members of the assembly to reorient themselves further inunity toward one another But he also directs them in purity and (espe-cially) in acclamation toward God and his Messiah It is fitting to recallat the conclusion of our study the full titles of both the colony ofRoman Corinth and of Paulrsquos assembly for they epitomize memorablythe constitutional contrast that has emerged Colonia Laus IuliaCorinthiensis means literally Colony of the Corinthians for the Praise ofthe Julian Gens By stark contrast the titles assigned by Paul in our textencapsulate the purpose of the politeia he has proclaimed those in theassembly are the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ the κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ and the νάος θεοῦ In the very names of these two asymmetricallyconstituted communities one concealed and burgeoning within the otherwe find an orientation toward the beneficence and the glory of two verydifferent lordly houses For the architect-agent divinely commissioned toconstruct a holy civic memorial-temple to God and his crucifiedMessiahthis distinction led to the crescendo of 1 Cor 323 ldquoand you are Christrsquosand Christ is Godrsquosrdquo

In conclusion our restoration of the constitution to Corinth creates theconditions for a variety of future investigations Some may use thecharter evidence more or less directly to gain further clarity on Paulrsquospoliticsethics of exclusion in 1 Cor 5 or his politicsethics of litigation in1 Cor 6 Many other topics in 1 and 2 Corinthians might be fruitfully


examined in light of the constitution social relations and the compositionof the assembly colonial and ecclesial ritual embassy and financialaccountability are among those that readily emerge We hope otherswill improve the comparative method we have constituted and willbuild on the textual foundation we have laid


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aasgaard R (2004)My Beloved Brothers and Sisters Christian Siblingship inPaul London T amp T Clark

Adam J P (2005) Roman Building Materials and Techniques LondonRoutledge

Adams E (2000) Constructing the World A Study in Paulrsquos CosmologicalLanguage Edinburgh T amp T Clark

Adams E (2009) ldquoFirst-Century Models for Paulrsquos Churches SelectedScholarly Developments since Meeksrdquo in After the First Urban Christiansed D G Horrell and T D Still 60ndash78 London New York T amp T Clark

Adams E and D G Horrell (2004) Christianity at Corinth The Quest for thePauline Church Louisville Westminster John Knox

Agamben G (2005) The Time That Remains A Commentary on the Letter to theRomans Stanford Stanford University Press

Agamben G (2011) The Kingdom and the Glory For a Theological Genealogyof Economy and Government Stanford Stanford University Press

Aitken J K (2007) The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient HebrewLouvain Peeters

Aland K G Mink A Benduhn-Mertz and H Bachmann (1991) Text undTextwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments II Berlin deGruyter

Alcock S E (1993) Graecia capta The Landscapes of Roman GreeceCambridge Cambridge University Press

Aldrete G S (1999) Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome BaltimoreJohns Hopkins University Press

Allo E-B (1934) Saint Paul premiegravere Eacutepicirctre aux Corinthiens Paris GabaldaAmandry M (1988) Le monnayage des duovirs corinthiens Paris de BoccardAnderson J C (1997) Roman Architecture and Society Baltimore JohnsHopkins University Press

Ando C (2000) Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman EmpireBerkeley University of California Press

Ando C (2007) ldquoExporting Roman Religionrdquo in Companion to RomanReligion ed J Ruumlpke 429ndash45 Oxford Blackwell

Arzt P (1994) ldquoThe lsquoEpistolary Introductory Thanksgivingrsquo in the Papyri and inPaulrdquo NovT 36 29ndash46

Arzt-Grabner P et al (2006) 1 Korinther Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp RuprechtBadiou A (1997) St Paul The Foundation of Universalism Stanford StanfordUniversity Press

309

Baldwin B (1981) ldquoAcclamations in the Historia Augustardquo Athenaeum 59138ndash49

Baljon J M S (1884) De tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen deCorinthieumlrs en de Galatieumlrs als voorwerp van de conjecturaalkritiekbeschouwd Utrecht J Van Boekhoven

Barclay J M (1987) ldquoMirror-Reading a Polemical Letter Galatians as a TestCaserdquo JSNT 31 73ndash93

Barclay J M (1992) ldquoThessalonica and Corinth Social Contrasts in PaulineChristianityrdquo JSNT 47 49ndash74

Barclay J M (1995) ldquoMatching Theory and Practice Josephusrsquos ConstitutionalIdeal and Paulrsquos Strategy in Corinthrdquo in Paul Beyond the JudaismHellenismDivide ed T Engberg-Pedersen Louisville Westminster John Knox Repr inPauline Churches and Diaspora Jews pp 81ndash106 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck2011

Barclay J M G (1996) Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora From Alexanderto Trajan (323 BCEndash117 CE) Edinburgh T amp T Clark

Barclay J (2010) ldquoReview of Neil Elliott Arrogance of Nationsrdquo Journal ofReligion 90 85ndash7

Barclay J M G (2011) Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck

Barja de Quiroga PM L (1997) ldquoEstructura compositiva de la lsquoLexUrsonensisrsquordquoin La Lex Ursonensis Estudio y edicioacuten criacutetica 47ndash61 Salamanca EdicionesUniversidad de Salamanca

Barker D (2011) ldquoThe Dating of New Testament Papyrirdquo NTS 57 571ndash82Barnett P (2003) ldquoPaul Apologist to the Corinthiansrdquo in Paul and the

Corinthians Studies on a Community in Conflict Essays in Honour ofMargaret Thrall ed T J Burke and J K Elliott 313ndash26 Leiden Brill

Barr J (1969) The Semantics of Biblical Language London Oxford UniversityPress

Barrett C K (1971) A Commentary on the First Epistle to the CorinthiansLondon A amp C Black

Barrett C K (1998) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of theApostles In Two Volumes Edinburgh T amp T Clark

Baur F C (1831) ldquoDie Christus Partei in der korinthischen GemeinderdquoTuumlbinger Zeitschrift fuumlr Theologie (1831) 61ndash206

Baur F C (1839) ldquoReview of Schenkel De ecclesia Corinthia primaeva factio-nibus turbatardquo in Jahrbuumlcher fuumlr wissenschaftliche Kritik cols 701ndash19

Beale G K (2004) The Temple and the Churchrsquos Mission A Biblical Theologyof the Dwelling Place of God Downers Grove IVP

Beck A (1930) Roumlmisches Recht bei Tertullian und Cyprian eine Studie zurfruumlhen Kirchenrechtsgeschichte Halle Niemeyer

Bees N A (1978) Corpus der griechisch christlichen Inschriften von HellasInschriften von Peloponnes Chicago Ares

Bengel J A (1860) Gnomon of the New Testament Edinburgh T amp T ClarkBerger K (1984) ldquoHellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testamentrdquo in Aufstieg

und Niedergang der Roumlmischen Welt II252 1326ndash63Betz H D (2008) ldquoSelbsttauschung und Selbsterkenntnis bei Paulus Zur

Interpretation von 1Kor 3 18ndash23rdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr Theologie und Kirche 10515ndash35

310 Bibliography

Bidez J (1960) Lrsquoempereur Julien Oeuvres completes 1 2 Lettres et frag-ments Paris Belles Lettres

Bispham E (2006) ldquoColoniam deducere HowRomanWas RomanColonizationduring the Middle Republicrdquo in Greek and Roman Colonization OriginsIdeologies and Interactions ed G P Bradley and J-P Wilson 73ndash160Swansea Classical Press of Wales

Bitner B J (2013a) ldquoExclusion and Ethics Contrasting Covenant Communitiesin 1QS 51ndash725 and 1 Cor 51ndash611rdquo in Keter Shem Tov Collected Essays onthe Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown ed S Tzoref and I Young259ndash302 Piscataway NJ Gorgias

Bitner B J (2013b) ldquoReview of Amphilochios Papathomas Juristische Begriffeim ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus Eine semantisch-lexikalische Untersuchungauf der Basis der zeitgenoumlssischen griechischen Papyrirdquo NovT 55 193ndash9

Bitner B J (2014a) ldquoPraefecti Fabrum in the Inscriptions of Roman Corinthrdquoin Ancient Documents and Their Contexts ed J Bodel and N Dimitrova174ndash89 Leiden Brill

Bitner B J (2014b) ldquoAugustan Procedure and Legal Documents in RDGE 70rdquoGRBS 54 193ndash9

Bjerkelund C J (1967) Parakalocirc Form Funktion und Sinn der parakalocirc-Saumltzein den paulinischen Briefen Oslo Universitetsforlaget

Blanton T R (2007) Constructing a New Covenant Discursive Strategies inthe Damascus Document and Second Corinthians Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Blumenfeld B (2001) The Political Paul Justice Democracy and Kingship in aHellenistic Framework Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press

Boobyer G H (1929) ldquolsquoThanksgivingrsquo and the lsquoGlory of Godrsquo in Paulrdquo Borna-Leipzig R Noske

Bortone P (2010) Greek Prepositions From Antiquity to the Present OxfordOxford University Press

Botha P J (1993) ldquoThe Verbal Art of the Pauline Letters RhetoricPerformance and Presencerdquo in Rhetoric in the New Testament Essays fromthe 1992 Heidelberg Conference ed S E Porter and T H Olbricht 409ndash28Sheffield JSOT Press

Bourguet D (1987) Des meacutetaphores de Jeacutereacutemie Paris J GabaldaBowman A K (1971) Town Councils in Roman Egypt Toronto HakkertBrague R (2007) The Law of God The Philosophical History of an IdeaChicago University of Chicago Press

Brink L (2006) ldquoA Generalrsquos Exhortation to His Troops Paulrsquos MilitaryRhetoric in 2 Cor 101ndash11rdquo Biblische Zeitschrift 49 (2005) 191ndash201 50(2006) 74ndash89

Buckler W H (1923) Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia in AnatolianStudies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay ed W H Buckler and WM Calder 27ndash50 Manchester Manchester University Press

Bultmann R (1985) The Second Letter to the Corinthians Minneapolis AugsburgBundgaard J (1946) ldquoThe Building Contract from Lebadeia Observations onthe Inscription IG VII 3073rdquo Classica et Mediaevalia Revue Danoise dephilologie et drsquohistoire 8 1ndash43

Buumlnker M (1984) Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1 KorintherbriefGoumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht

Bibliography 311

Burford A (1969) The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros A Social andEconomic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary During the Fourthand Early Third Centuries BC Toronto University of Toronto Press

Burford A (1972) Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society Ithaca NY CornellUniversity Press

Caballos Rufino A and F Fernaacutendez Goacutemez (2002) ldquoNuevos testimoniosandaluces de la legislacioacuten municipal flaviardquo ZPE 141 261ndash80

Caballos Rufino A (2004) ldquoMAS REP 199085 otro fragmento de la Lexcoloniae Genetiuae Iuliaerdquo ZPE 147 211ndash16

Caballos Rufino A (2006) El nuevo bronce de Osuna y la poliacutetica colonizadoraromana Sevilla Universidad de Sevilla

Cairns J W and P J du Plessis (2007) Beyond Dogmatics Law and Society inthe Roman World Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press

Calvin J (1948) Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to theCorinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Cameron R and M P Miller (2011) Redescribing Paul and the CorinthiansAtlanta Society of Biblical Literature

Campbell B (2000) The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors IntroductionText Translation and Commentary London Society for the Promotion ofRoman Studies

Campbell J (1932) ldquoΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testamentrdquo JBL51 352ndash80

Canavan R (2012) Clothing the Body of Christ at Colossae A VisualConstruction of Identity Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Cartledge P and A Spawforth (1989)Hellenistic and Roman Sparta A Tale ofTwo Cities London Routledge

Chow J K (1992) Patronage and Power A Study of Social Networks inCorinth Sheffield JSOT

Christiansen E J (1995) The Covenant in Judaism and Paul A Study of RitualBoundaries as Identity Markers Leiden Brill

Ciampa R E and B S Rosner (2006) ldquoThe Structure and Argument of 1Corinthians A BiblicalJewish Approachrdquo NTS 52 205ndash18

Ciampa R E and B S Rosner (2007) ldquo1 Corinthiansrdquo in Commentary on theNew Testament Use of the Old Testament ed G K Beale and D A Carson695ndash752 Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Ciampa R E and B S Rosner (2010) The First Letter to the CorinthiansGrand Rapids Eerdmans

Clarke A D (1993) Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth A Socio-historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1ndash6 Leiden Brill

Clarke A D (2000) Serve the Community of the Church Christians as Leadersand Ministers Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Clinton K (2003) ldquoMaroneia and Rome Two Decrees of Maroneia fromSamothracerdquo Chiron 33 379ndash417

Clinton K (2004) ldquoTwo Decrees of Maroneia from Samothrace FurtherThoughtsrdquo Chiron 34 145ndash8

Coarelli F (1996) ldquoLa costruzione del porto di Terracina in un rilievo storicotardo-repubblicanordquo in Revixit ars Arte e ideologia a Roma Dai modelliellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana 434ndash54 Quasar Roma

312 Bibliography

Coleman K M (2011) ldquoPublic Entertainmentsrdquo in The Oxford Handbook ofSocial Relations in the RomanWorld ed M Peachin 345ndash50 Oxford OxfordUniversity Press

Colet J (1985) John Coletrsquos Commentary on First Corinthians BinghamtonNY Medieval amp Renaissance Texts amp Studies

Collins R F (2008) The Power of Images in Paul Collegeville MN LiturgicalPress

Collins R F (2010) ldquoA Significant Decade The Trajectory of the HellenisticEpistolary Thanksgivingrdquo in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form edS E Porter and S A Adams 129ndash58 Leiden Brill

Columella L J M (1941)On Agriculture Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Colwell E C (1969) Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the NewTestament Leiden Brill

Comfort P W (1990) Early Manuscripts amp Modern Translations of the NewTestament Wheaton IL Tyndale House Publishers

Concannon CW (2013) ldquoThe Archaeology of the Pauline Missionrdquo in AllThings to All Cultures Paul among Jews Greeks and Romans edM Harding and A Nobbs 57ndash83 Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Concannon CW (2014) When You Were Gentiles Specters of Ethnicity inRoman Corinth and Paulrsquos Corinthian Correspondence New Haven YaleUniversity Press

Conzelmann H (1975) 1 Corinthians A Commentary on the First Epistle to theCorinthians Philadelphia Fortress Press

Cooley A (2009) Res gestae divi Augusti Text Translation and CommentaryCambridge Cambridge University Press

Corbier M (1987) ldquoLrsquoeacutecriture dans lrsquoespace public romain dans LrsquoUrbsrdquo inLrsquourbs espace urbain et histoire (Ier siegravecle av J-C ndash IIIme siegravecle ap JC)27ndash60 Rome Eacutecole Franccedilaise de Rome

Corbier M (2006) Donner agrave voir donner agrave lire memoire et communicationdans la Rome ancienne Paris CNRS Eacuteditions

Corssen P (1887) Epistularum paulinarum codices graece et latine scriptosaugiensem boernerianum claromontanum examinavit inter se comparavit adcommunem originem revocavit Kiliensis Henricus Fiencke

Cottier M CM (2008) The Customs Law of Asia Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Cotton HM (2003) ldquolsquoDiplomaticsrsquo or External Aspects of the Legal Documentsfrom the JudaeanDesert Prolegomenardquo inRabbinic Law in Its Roman andNearEastern Context ed C Hezser 49ndash61 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Coulton J J (1977) Ancient Greek Architects at Work Problems of Structureand Design Ithaca NY Cornell University Press

Coulton J (1983) ldquoGreek Architects and the Transmission of Designrdquo inArchitecture et socieacuteteacute de lrsquoarchaiumlsme grec agrave la fin de la Reacutepublique Romaineed P Gros 453ndash70 Paris CNRS

Crawford M (1995) ldquoRoman Towns and Their Charters Legislation andExperiencerdquo in Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberiafrom the Copper Age to the Second Century AD ed B Cunliffe and S Keay426ndash9 Oxford Oxford University Press

Bibliography 313

Crawford M (1998) ldquoHow to Create a Municipiumrdquo in Modus OperandiEssays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman ed M M Austin J Harries andC Smith 31ndash46 London Institute of Classical Studies School of AdvancedStudy University of London

Crawford M H (2002) ldquoDiscovery Autopsy and Progress Diocletianrsquos JigsawPuzzlesrdquo in Classics in Progress Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome edT P Wiseman 145ndash63 Oxford Oxford University Press

Crawford M H (2008) ldquoThe Text of the Lex Irnitanardquo JRS 98 182Crook J A (1967) Law and Life of Rome London Thames amp HudsonCrook J (1996) ldquoLegal History and General Historyrdquo Bulletin of the Institute of

Classical Studies 41 31ndash6Crook Z A (2004) Reconceptualising Conversion Patronage Loyalty and

Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean Berlin de GruyterDrsquoHautcourt A (2001) ldquoCorinthe financement drsquoune colonisation et drsquoune

reconstructionrdquo in Constructions publiques et programmes eacutedilitaires enGregravece entre le IIe siegravecle av J-C et le Ier siegravecle ap J-C 427ndash38 Athensde Boccard

drsquoOrs A (1986) La ley Flavia municipal (texto y commentario) RomePontifical University

DrsquoOrs X (1997) ldquoObservaciones formales sobre la composicioacuten de la LeyUrsonenserdquo in La Lex Ursonensis Estudio y edicioacuten criacutetica 63ndash93Salamanca Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca

Dahl N A (1967) ldquoPaul and the Church at Corinth according to 1 Corinthians 110ndash421rdquo in Christian History and Interpretation Studies Presented to JohnKnox ed W R Farmer C F D Moule and R R Niebuhr 313ndash36Cambridge Cambridge University Press

David J M (2006) ldquoLes fondateurs et les citeacutesrdquo in Gli statuti municipali edL C Colognesi and E Gabba 723ndash41 Pavia IUSS

De Vos C S (1999) Church and Community Conflicts The Relationships of theThessalonian Corinthian and Philippian Churches with Their Wider CivicCommunities Atlanta Scholars Press

de Waele F (1927) ldquoUit de Geschiedenis van Korinthos in de Dagen vanPaulusrdquo Studia Catholica 4 145ndash69

de Waele F J M (1961) Corinthe et saint Paul Paris Albert GuillotDe Zulueta F (1966) The Roman Law of Sale Oxford Clarendon PressDeissmann A (1908) Licht vom Osten Das neue Testament und die neuent-

deckten Texte der hellenistisch-roumlmischen Welt Tuumlbingen Mohr SiebeckDeissmann A (1911) Paulus Eine kultur-und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze

Tuumlbingen MohrDeissmann A (1912) St Paul A Study in Social and Religious History

London Hodder and StoughtonDeissmann A (1923) Licht vomOsten Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten

Texte der hellenistisch-roumlmischen Welt Rev ed Tuumlbingen JCB MohrDeissmann A (1927) Light from the Ancient East The New Testament

Illustrated by Recently Discoverd Texts of the Graeco-Roman WorldLondon Hodder and Stoughton

Deissmann A (1977) Bibelstudien Beitraumlge zumeist aus den Papyri undInschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache des Schrifttums und der Religiondes hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums Hildesheim Olms

314 Bibliography

Deissmann A (1979) Bible Studies Contributions Chiefly from Papyri andInscriptions to the History of the Language the Literature and the Religion ofHellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity Winona Lake Alpha

Derrett J D M (1991) ldquoJudgement and 1 Corinthians 6rdquo NTS 37 22ndash36Dinkler E (1962) Die Taufterminologie in 2 Kor i 21 f in Neotestamentica etPatristica Eine Freundesgabe Herrn Prof Dr O Cullmann zu seinem 60Gebuumlrtstag uumlberreicht 173ndash91 Leiden Brill

Dinkler E (1967) Signum crucis Aufsaumltze zum Neuen Testament und zurchristlichen Archaumlologie Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Dodd C H (1953) ldquoEnnomos Christourdquo in Studia Paulina in Honorem Johannisde Zwaan ed J Sevenster and W C van Unnik 96ndash110 Haarlem ErvemF Bohn

Donderer M (1996) Die Architekten der spaumlten roumlmischen Republik und derKaiserzeit Epigraphische Zeugnisse Erlangen Universitaumltsbibliothek Erlangen

Donfried K P (1997) ldquoThe Imperial Cults of Thessalonica and Political Conflict in1 Thessaloniansrdquo in Paul and Empire Religion and Power in Roman ImperialSociety ed R A Horsley 215ndash23 Harrisburg PA Trinity Press International

du Plessis P (2004) ldquoThe Protection of the Contractor in PublicWorks Contracts inthe Roman Republic and Early Empirerdquo Journal of Legal History 25 287ndash314

du Plessis P J (2012) Letting and Hiring in Roman Legal Thought 27 BCEndash284CE Leiden Brill

Dutch R S (2005) The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians Education andCommunity Conflict in Graeco-Roman Context London T amp T Clark

Eck W A Caballos Rufino and F Fernaacutendez Goacutemez (1996) Das Senatusconsultum de Cn Pisone patre Muumlnchen CH Beck

Edsall B A (2013) ldquoPaulrsquos Rhetoric of Knowledgerdquo NovT 55 252ndash71Eger O (1918) ldquoRechtswoumlrter und Rechtsbilder in den paulinischen BriefenrdquoZNW 18 84ndash108

Eger O (1919) Rechtsgeschichtliches zum Neuen Testament Basel F ReinhardtEhrman B D (2003) The Apostolic Fathers Cambridge MA HarvardUniversity Press

Eilers C (2002) Roman Patrons of Greek Cities Oxford Oxford University PressEilers C (2009) ldquoInscribed Documents Un-Inscribed Documentsrdquo inSelbstdarstellung und Kommunikation Die Veroumlffentlichung staatlicherUrkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der Roumlmischen Welt InternationalesKolloquium an der Kommission fuumlr alte Geschichte und Epigraphik inMuumlnchen (1 Bis 3 Juli 2006) ed R Haensch 305ndash12 Muumlnchen Beck

Elliott N (2006) Liberating Paul The Justice of God and the Politics of theApostle Minneapolis Fortress

Elliott N (2008) The Arrogance of Nations Reading Romans in the Shadow ofEmpire Minneapolis Fortress

Ellis E E (1970) ldquoPaul and His Co-Workersrdquo NTS 17 437ndash52Engberg-Pedersen T (2001) Paul beyond the JudaismHellenism DivideLouisville Westminster John Knox Press

Engels DW (1990) Roman Corinth An Alternative Model for the ClassicalCity Chicago University of Chicago

Erasmus D (1990) Erasmusrsquo Annotations on the New Testament Acts RomansI and II Corinthians Facsimile of the Final Latin Text with All EarlierVariants Leiden Brill

Bibliography 315

Exler F X J (1923) The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter A Study in GreekEpistolography Washington DC Catholic University of America

Fee G D (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians Grand Rapids EerdmansFernaacutendez Goacutemez F (1991) ldquoNuevos fragmentos de leyes municipales y otros

bronces epigraacuteficos de la Beacutetica en el Museo Arqueoloacutegico de Sevillardquo ZPE86 121ndash36

Fernandez Gomez F and M del Amo y de la Hera (1990) La Lex irnitana y sucontexto arqueoloacutegico Sevilla Museo Arqueoloacutegico de MarchenaAsociacioacuten de Amigos de los Museos de Marchena

Fiore B (1985) ldquoCovert Allusion in 1 Corinthians 1ndash4rdquo CBQ 47 85ndash102Fitzgerald J T (1988) Cracks in an Earthen Vessel An Examination of the

Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence Atlanta ScholarsPress

Fitzgerald J T and LM White (2003) ldquoQuod est comparandum The Problemof Parallelsrdquo in Early Christianity and Classical Culture Comparative Studiesin Honor of Abraham J Malherbe ed J T Fitzgerald T H Olbricht andLM White 13ndash39 Leiden Brill

Folcando E (1996) ldquoLa lsquolex municipii Compasanirsquordquo Quaderni di Storia 43303ndash8

Forbes C (1995) Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and ItsHellenistic Environment Tuumlbingen JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck)

Frakes R M (2011) Compiling the Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarumin Late Antiquity Oxford Oxford University Press

Frederiksen M (1965) ldquoThe Republican Municipal Laws Errors and DraftsrdquoJRS 55 185ndash98

Fredriksen P (2009) ldquoHistorical Integrity Interpretive Freedom ThePhilosopherrsquos Paul and the Problem of Anachronismrdquo in St Paul among thePhilosophers ed J D Caputo and L M Alcoff 61ndash73 Bloomington IndianaUniversity Press

Frey J B (1975) Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions Jewish Inscriptions from theThird Century BC to the Seventh Century AD New York Ktav

Frier BW (1996) ldquoEarly Classical Private Lawrdquo in The Augustan Empire 46BCndashAD 69 ed A K Bowman E Champlin and A Lintott Vol 10 of TheCambridge Ancient History 959ndash78 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Friesen S J (2005) ldquoProspects for a Demography of the Pauline MissionCorinth among the Churchesrdquo in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth edD N Schowalter and S J Friesen 351ndash70 Cambridge MA HarvardUniversity Press

Friesen S J (2014) Corinth in Contrast Studies in Inequality Leiden BrillFriesen S J D N Schowalter and J C Walters (2010) Corinth in Context

Comparative Studies on Religion and Society Leiden BrillFurnish V P (1984) II Corinthians Garden City NY DoubledayFurnish V P (1999) The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians

Cambridge Cambridge University PressGadamer H-G (1984) Truth and Method New York CrossroadGaldia M (2009) Legal Linguistics Frankfurt am Main Peter LangGalsterer H (1988) ldquoMunicipium Flavium Irnitanum A Latin Town in Spainrdquo

Journal of Roman Studies 78 78ndash90

316 Bibliography

Gargola D J (1995) Lands Laws and Gods Magistrates and Ceremony in theRegulation of Public Lands in Republican Rome Chapel Hill University ofNorth Carolina

Garland D E (2003) 1 Corinthians Grand Rapids Baker AcademicGarnsey P and R P Saller (1987) The Roman Empire Economy Society andCulture Berkeley University of California Press

Gaumlrtner B E (1965) The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the NewTestament A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the QumranTexts and the New Testament Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Gautier P (1985) ldquoLe typikon de la Theacuteotokos Keacutecharitocircmeacutenegraverdquo Revue deseacutetudes byzantines 43 5ndash165

Gebhardt U C J (2009) Sermo iuris Rechtssprache und Recht in den augus-teischen Dichtung Leiden Brill

Georgi D (1987) ldquoGott auf den Kopf stellen Uumlberlegungen zu Tendenz undKontext des Theokratiegedankens in paulinischer Praxis und Theologierdquo inReligionstheorie und Politische Theologie Bd 3 ed J Taubes 148ndash205Muumlnchen W Fink

Georgi D (1991) Theocracy in Paulrsquos Praxis and Theology MinneapolisFortress

Gereacuteby G (2008) ldquoPolitical Theology versus Theological Politics ErikPeterson and Carl Schmittrdquo New German Critique 35 7ndash33

Gerhardt M J (2008) The Power of Precedent Oxford Oxford University PressGill DW (1994) ldquoAchaiardquo in The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman SettingVol 2 ed DW J Gill and C Gempf 433ndash53 Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Gillihan Y M (2011) ldquoCivic Ideology Organization and Law in the RuleScrolls A Comparative Study of the Covenantersrsquo Sect and ContemporaryVoluntary Associations in Political Contextrdquo Leiden Brill

Gladd B L (2009) Revealing the Mysterion The Use of Mystery in Daniel andSecond Temple Judaismwith Its Bearing on First Corinthians Berlin deGruyter

Glinister F and C Woods (2007) Verrius Festus amp Paul LexicographyScholarship and Society London Institute of Classical Studies School ofAdvanced Study University of London

Godet F L (1971) The First Epistle to the Corinthians Grand Rapids ZondervanGoffaux B (2001) ldquoMunicipal Intervention in the Public Construction of Townsand Cities in Roman Hispaniaerdquo Habis 32 257ndash70

Gonzaacutelez J with M Crawford (1986) ldquoThe lex Irnitana A New Copy of theFlavian Municipal Lawrdquo JRS 76 147ndash243

Goodman M (1996) ldquoJudaeardquo in The Augustan Empire 43 BCndashAD 69 edA K Bowman E Champlin and AW Lintott Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Goodrich J (2012) Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians NewYork Cambridge University Press

Goodspeed E J (1950) ldquoGaius Titius Justusrdquo JBL 69 382ndash3Goulder M D (1991) ldquoΣΟΦIA in 1 Corinthiansrdquo NTS 37 516ndash34Grant R M (1963) ldquoScripture and Tradition in St Ignatius of Antiochrdquo CBQ25 322ndash35

Grant R M (2001) Paul in the Roman World The Conflict at CorinthLouisville Westminster John Knox

Bibliography 317

Gros P (1983) ldquoStatut social et rocircle culturel des architects (peacuteriode helleacutenistiqueet augusteacuteene)rdquo in Architecture et socieacuteteacute de lrsquoarchaiumlsme grec agrave la fin de lareacutepublique romaine ed P Gros 425ndash50 Paris CNRS

Grotius H (1829) Hugonis Grotii Annotationes in Novum TestamentumVolumen VII Groningae Zuidema

Gupta N K (2010)Worship That Makes Sense to Paul A New Approach to theTheology and Ethics of Paulrsquos Cultic Metaphors Berlin de Gruyter

Haenchen E (1971) The Acts of the Apostles A Commentary OxfordBlackwell

Hainz J (1982) Koinonia ldquoKircherdquo als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus RegensburgPustet

Hall D R (1994) ldquoA Disguise for the Wise ΜΕΤΑΣΧΗΜΑΤΙΣΜΟΣ in 1Corinthians 46rdquo NTS 40 143ndash9

Hanges J C (1998) ldquo1 Corinthians 46 and the Possibility of Written Bylaws inthe Corinthian Churchrdquo JBL 117 275ndash98

Hardin J K (2008) Galatians and the Imperial Cult A Critical Analysis of theFirst-Century Social Context of Paulrsquos Letter Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Harries J K Lomas and T Cornell (2003) ldquoFavor Populi Pagans Christiansand Public Entertainment in Late Antique Italyrdquo in ldquoBread and CircusesrdquoEuergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy ed K Lomas andT Cornell 125ndash41 London Routledge

Harrison J R (2003) Paulrsquos Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman ContextTuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Harrison J R (2011) Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica andRome A Study in the Conflict of Ideology Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Head P M (2009) ldquoNamed Letter-Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus PapyrirdquoJSNT 31 279ndash99

Heil J P (2005) The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians AtlantaSociety of Biblical Literature

Heinrici C F G (1880) Das erste Sendschreiben das Apostel Paulus an dieKorinther Berlin Hertz

Hellmann M-C (1999) Choix drsquoinscriptions architecturales grecques LyonMaison de lrsquoOrient Meacutediterraneacuteen

Hemer C J (1989) The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic HistoryTuumlbingen Mohr

Hengel M (1979) Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity London SCMPress

Hengstl J (2010) ldquoZum Erfahrungsprofil des Apostels Paulus aus rechtshistor-ischer Sichtrdquo in Light from the East Papyrologische Kommentare Zum NeuenTestament ed P Arzt-Grabner and C M Kreinecker 71ndash89 WiesbadenHarrassowitz

Heacutering J (1973) The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians LondonEpworth

Hock R F (1980) The Social Context of Paulrsquos Ministry Tentmaking andApostleship Minneapolis Fortress

Hogeterp A L A (2006) Paul and Godrsquos Temple A Historical Interpretationof Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence Leuven Peeters

Hooker M D (1963ndash4) ldquoBeyond the Things Which Are Writtenrdquo NTS 10127ndash32

318 Bibliography

Horrell D G (1996) The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence Interestsand Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement Edinburgh T amp T Clark

Horsley G H R (1983) New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity AReview of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1978 North RydeNSW Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University

Horsley R A (1997a) ldquo1 Corinthians A Case Study of Paulrsquos Assembly asAlternative Societyrdquo in Paul and Empire Religion and Power in RomanImperial Society ed R A Horsley 242ndash52 Harrisburg Trinity PressInternational

Horsley R A (1997b) Paul and Empire Religion and Power in RomanImperial Society Harrisburg Trinity Press International

Horsley R A (2000) Paul and Politics Ekklesia Israel ImperiumInterpretation Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl Harrisburg TrinityPress International

Horsley R A (2004) Paul and the Roman Imperial Order Harrisburg TrinityPress International

Hudson R A (1980) Sociolinguistics Cambridge Cambridge University PressHultgren S (2007) From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of theCommunity Literary Historical and Theological Studies in the Dead SeaScrolls Leiden Brill

Humfress C (2007) Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity OxfordOxford University Press

Hurd J C (1965) The Origin of I Corinthians New York Seabury PressHutton W (2005) Describing Greece Landscape and Literature in thePeriegesis of Pausanias Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Hyamson M (1913) Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum collatio withIntroduction Facsimile and Transcription of the Berlin Codex TranslationNotes and Appendices London H Frowde Oxford University Press

Jacobs A S (2006) ldquoRoman Christians and Jewish Lawrdquo in Religion and Lawin Classical and Christian Rome ed C Ando and J Ruumlpke 85ndash99 StuttgartFranz Steiner

Jakab E (2009) Risikomanagement beim Weinkauf Periculum und Praxis imImperium Romanum Muumlnchen Beck

Jenkins C (1908) ldquoOrigen on I Corinthiansrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 9231ndash47

Jewett R (1978) ldquoThe Redaction of I Corinthians and the Trajectory of thePauline Schoolrdquo Journal of the American Academy of Religion Supplement46 389ndash444

Jewett R (2007) Romans A Commentary Minneapolis FortressJindo J Y (2010) Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered A Cognitive Approach toPoetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1ndash24 Winona Lake IN Eisenbrauns

Johnson A C (1959) Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian PatersonPageant Books

Johnson-DeBaufre M (2010) ldquoGazing upon the Invisible ArchaeologyHistoriography and the Elusive Women of 1 Thessaloniansrdquo in FromRoman to Early Christian Thessalonike ed L Nasrallah C Bakirtzis andS J Friesen 73ndash103 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Johnston D (1999) Roman Law in Context New York Cambridge UniversityPress

Bibliography 319

Jones A H M (1967) The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian OxfordClarendon Press

Jones MW (2000) Principles of Roman Architecture New Haven YaleUniversity Press

Jongkind D (2007) Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus Piscataway NJ GorgiasPress

Judge E A (1960) The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the FirstCentury Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of SocialObligation London Tyndale Press

Judge E A (1980) ldquoThe Social Identity of the First Christians A Question ofMethod in Religious Historyrdquo Journal of Religious History 11 201ndash12

Judge E A (2005) ldquoThe Roman Base of Paulrsquos Missionrdquo TynBul 56 103ndash17Judge E A (2008) ldquoOn This Rock I Will Build My ekklēsia Counter-cultic

Springs of Multiculturalismrdquo in The First Christians in the Roman WorldAugustan and New Testament Essays ed J R Harrison 619ndash68 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck

Juster J (1914) Les Juifs dans lrsquoEmpire romain leur condition juridiqueeacuteconomique et sociale Paris P Geuthner

Kahl B (2010) Galatians Re-Imagined Reading with the Eyes of theVanquished Minneapolis Fortress

Kaimio J (1979) The Romans and the Greek Language Helsinki SocietasScientiarum Fennica

Kantireacutea M (2007) Les dieux et les dieux augustes le culte impeacuterial en Gregravecesous les Julio-claudiens et les Flaviens eacutetudes eacutepigraphiques et archeacuteologiquesAthenes Kentron Hellēnikēs kai Rōmaiumlkēs Archaiotētos Ethnikon HidrymaEreunōn

Kaumlsemann E (1955) ldquoSaumltze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testamentrdquo NTS 1248ndash60

Kearsley R A (1999) ldquoWomen in Public Life in the Roman East IuniaTheodora Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe Benefactress of Paulrdquo TynBul 50189ndash211

Keegan P (2010) ldquoBlogging Rome Graffiti as Speech-Act and CulturalDiscourserdquo in Ancient Graffiti in Context ed J A Baird and C Taylor165ndash90 London Routledge

Keil B (1913) ldquoEin Λoacuteγος συστατικoacuteςrdquo Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft derWissenschaften zu Goumlttingen Philologisch-historische Klasse 1ndash41

Kent J H (1966) Corinth Results of Excavations Vol 8 Part 3 CambridgeMA Harvard University Press

Kenyon F G (1936) The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri Descriptions andTexts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible SupplementPauline Epistles London Walker

Keppie L J F (1983) Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47ndash14 BCLondon British School at Rome

Ker D P (2000) ldquoPaul and Apollos ndash Colleagues or Rivalsrdquo JSNT 77 75ndash97Kieszligling E (1921) ldquoZur lex Ursonensisrdquo Klio 17 258ndash60Kim C-H (1972) Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of

Recommendation Missoula Society of Biblical LiteratureKim O-P (2010) ldquoPaul and Politics Ekklesia Household and Empire in 1

Corinthians 1ndash7rdquo PhD diss Drew University

320 Bibliography

Kim Y S (2008) Christrsquos Body in Corinth The Politics of a MetaphorMinneapolis Fortress

Kirk A N (2012) ldquoBuilding with the Corinthians Human Persons as theBuilding Materials of 1 Corinthians 312 and the lsquoWorkrsquoof 313ndash15rdquo NTS58 549ndash70

Kitzberger I R (1986)Bau der Gemeinde Das paulinischeWortfeld oikodomē(ep)oikodome Wuumlrzburg Echter

Klauck H-J (2003a) ldquoCompilation of Letters in Cicerorsquos Correspondencerdquo inEarly Christianity and Classical Culture Comparative Studies in Honor ofAbraham J Malherbe ed J T Fitzgerald T H Olbricht and L M White131ndash55 Leiden Brill

Klauck H-J (2003b) Religion und Gesellschaft im fruumlhen ChristentumNeutestamentliche Studien Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Klippenberg H G (1992) ldquoComparing Ancient Religions A Discussion ofJ Z Smithrsquos lsquoDrudgery Divinersquordquo Numen 39 220ndash5

Kloha J J (2006) ldquoA Textual Commentary on Paulrsquos First Epistle to theCorinthiansrdquo PhD diss University of Leeds

Koester H (1997) ldquoImperial Ideology and Paulrsquos Eschatology in 1Thessaloniansrdquo in Paul and Empire Religion and Power in Roman ImperialSociety ed R A Horsley 158ndash66 Harrisburg Trinity Press International

Kokkinia C (2003) ldquoLetters of Roman Authorities on Local Dignitaries TheCase of Vedius Antoninusrdquo ZPE 142 197ndash213

Konradt M (2003) Gericht und Gemeinde Eine Studie zur Bedeutung undFunktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologieund Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor Berlin de Gruyter

Konsmo E (2010) The Pauline Metaphors of the Holy Spirit The IntangibleSpiritrsquos Tangible Presence in the Life of the Christian New York Peter Lang

Koperski V (2002) ldquolsquoMystery of Godrsquo or lsquoTestimony of Godrsquo in 1 Cor 2 1Textual and Exegetical Considerationsrdquo in New Testament Textual Criticismand Exegesis Festschrift J Delobel ed A Denaux 305ndash15 Leuven LeuvenUniversity Press

Koskenniemi H (1956) Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischenBriefes bis 400 n Chr Helsinki Finnish Academy

Koumlvecses Z (2005) Metaphor in Culture Universality and VariationCambridge Cambridge University Press

Krans J (2006) Beyond What Is Written Erasmus and Beza as ConjecturalCritics of the New Testament Leiden Brill

Kroeker P T (2011) ldquoRecent Continental Philosophersrdquo in The BlackwellCompanion to Paul ed S Westerholm 440ndash54 Oxford Wiley-Blackwell

Kruse T (2006) ldquoThe Magistrate and the Ocean Acclamations and RitualisedCommunication in Town Gatherings in Roman Egyptrdquo in Ritual andCommunication in the Graeco-Roman World ed E Stavrianopoulou 297ndash315 Athens Centre international drsquoeacutetude de la religion grecque antique

Kuck DW (1992) Judgment and Community Conflict Paulrsquos Use ofApocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3 5ndash45 Leiden Brill

Kurzon D (1994) ldquoLinguistics and Legal Discourse An IntroductionrdquoInternational Journal for the Semiotics of Law 7 5ndash12

Kurzon D (1997) ldquolsquoLegal Languagersquo Varieties Genres Registers DiscoursesrdquoInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 119ndash39

Bibliography 321

Laird M L (2010) ldquoThe Emperor in a Roman Town The Base of theAugustales in the Forum at Corinthrdquo in Corinth in Context ComparativeStudies on Religion and Society ed S J Friesen D N Schowalter andJ C Walters 67ndash116 Leiden Brill

Lakoff G and M Johnson (1980)Metaphors We Live by Chicago Universityof Chicago Press

Lamberti F (1993) Tabulae Irnitanae municipalitagrave e Ius romanorum NapoliJovene

Lampe P and J P Sampley (eds) (2010) Paul and Rhetoric London T ampT Clark

Lanci J R (1997) A New Temple for Corinth Rhetorical and ArchaelogicalApproaches to Pauline Imagery New York Peter Lang

Lane W L (1982) ldquoCovenant The Key to Paulrsquos Conflict with CorinthrdquoTynBul 33 3ndash29

Lee J A L (2003) AHistory of New Testament Lexicography NewYork PeterLang

Leutzsch M (1994)Die Bewaumlhrung der Wahrheit Der dritte Johannesbrief alsDokument unchristlichen Alltags Trier Wissenschaflicher Verlag Trier

Levick B (1967) Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor Oxford ClarendonPress

Levine L I (2005) The Ancient Synagogue The First Thousand Years NewHaven Yale University Press

Lewis N (1999) ldquoImperial Largess in the Papyrirdquo Journal of JuristicPapyrology 29 45ndash50

Liebenam W (1967) Staumldteverwaltung im roumlmischen Kaiserreiche RomaLrsquoerma di Bretschneider

Lifshitz B (1967)Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives reacutepertoiredes deacutedicaces grecques relatives agrave la construction et agrave la reacutefection des synago-gues Paris J Gabalda

Lightfoot J B (1980) Notes on Epistles of St Paul IndashII Thessalonians ICorinthians 1ndash7 Romans 1ndash7 Ephesians 1 1ndash14 Grand Rapids Baker BookHouse

Lincicum D (2010) Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with DeuteronomyTuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Lincicum D (2012) ldquoFC Baurrsquos Place in the Study of Jewish Christianityrdquo inThe Rediscovery of Jewish Christianity From Toland to Baur ed F S Jones137ndash66 Atlanta Society of Biblical Literature

Lindemann A (2000) Der Erste Korintherbrief Tuumlbingen Mohr SiebeckLintott AW (1993) Imperium Romanum Politics and Administration London

RoutledgeLitfin A D (1994) St Paulrsquos Theology of Proclamation 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 and

Greco-Roman Rhetoric Cambridge Cambridge University PressLloris F B (2006) ldquoAn Irrigation Decree from Roman Spain lsquoThe Lex Rivi

Hiberiensisrsquordquo Journal of Roman Studies 96 147ndash97Lloyd G E R (2007) Cognitive Variations Reflections on the Unity and

Diversity of the Human Mind Oxford Clarendon PressLopez D C (2008) Apostle to the Conquered Reimagining Paulrsquos Mission

Minneapolis Fortress

322 Bibliography

Luumldemann G (1989) Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts ACommentary Minneapolis Fortress

Luraghi S (2003) On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases The Expressionof Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek Amsterdam Benjamins

MacCormack G (1998) ldquoSourcesrdquo in A Companion to Justinianrsquos Institutesed E Metzger 1ndash17 Ithaca NY Cornell University Press

MacDonald M Y (2004) ldquoThe Shifting Centre Ideology and the Interpretationof 1 Corinthiansrdquo in The Quest for the Pauline Church ed E Adams andD G Horrell 273ndash94 Louisville Westminster John Knox Press

MacRae GW (1982) ldquoA Note on 1 Cor 1 4ndash9rdquo in Eretz Israel HarryM Orlinsky Volume 171ndash5 Jerusalem Israel Exploration Society

Maier J (1960) ldquoZumBegriff חדי in den Texten von Qumranrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr diealttestamentliche Wissenschaft 31 161ndash2

Malcolm M R (2013) Paul and the Rhetoric of Reversal in 1 Corinthians TheImpact of Paulrsquos Gospel on His Macro-Rhetoric Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Malherbe A J (1977) Social Aspects of Early Christianity Baton RougeLouisiana State University Press

Malherbe A J (1983) ldquoAntisthenes and Odysseus and Paul at Warrdquo HarvardTheological Review 76 143ndash73

Mallon J (1982)De lrsquoeacutecriture recueil drsquoeacutetudes publieacutees de 1937 agrave 1981 ParisEditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique

Marchal J A (2008) The Politics of Heaven Women Gender and Empire inthe Study of Paul Minneapolis Fortress

Markus R A (1970) Saeculum History and Society in the Theology ofSt Augustine Cambridge University Press

Marshall P (1987) Enmity in Corinth Social Conventions in Paulrsquos Relationswith the Corinthians Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck

Martin D B (1999) The Corinthian Body New Haven Yale UniversityPress

Martin D B (2009a) ldquoThe Promise of Teleology the Constraints ofEpistemology and the Universal Vision of Paulrdquo in St Paul among thePhilosophers ed J Caputo and L Alcott 91ndash108 Bloomington IndianaUniversity Press

Martin D B (2009b) ldquoPatterns of Belief and Patterns of Life Correlations inthe First Urban Christians and Sincerdquo in After the First Urban Christians edD G Horrell and T D Still 116ndash33 London T amp T Clark

Martin S (1986) ldquoA Reconsideration of probatio operisrdquo Zeitschrift derSavigny-Stiftung fuumlr Rechtsgeschichte (romanistische Abteilung) 103 321ndash37

Martin S D (1989) The Roman Jurists and the Organization of PrivateBuilding in the Late Republic and Early Empire Bruxelles Latomus

Martin S D (2001) ldquoImperitia The Responsibility of Skilled Workers inClassical Roman Lawrdquo LHR 4 423ndash37

Mason H J (1974) Greek Terms for Roman Institutions A Lexicon andAnalysis Toronto Hakkert

Mattusch C C (1977) ldquoCorinthian Metalworking The Forum Areardquo Hesperia46 380ndash9

McKechnie P (2002) Thinking Like a Lawyer Essays on Legal History andGeneral History for John Crook on His Eightieth Birthday Leiden Brill

Bibliography 323

McKelvey R J (1969) The New Temple The Church in the New TestamentLondon Oxford University Press

Meeks W A (1983) The First Urban Christians The Social World of theApostle Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Meggitt J J (1998) Paul Poverty and Survival Edinburgh T amp T ClarkMellor R (1975) Thea Rhōmē The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek

World Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp RuprechtMetso S (2008) ldquoShifts in Covenantal Discourse in Second Temple Judaismrdquo

in Scripture in Transition Essays on Septuagint Hebrew Bible and Dead SeaScrolls ed R Sollamo A Voitila and J Jokiranta 497ndash512 Leiden Brill

Metzger B M (1994) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament ACompanion Volume to the United Bible Societiesrsquo Greek New TestamentFourth rev ed Stuttgart Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft

Metzger E (1997) A New Outline of the Roman Civil Trial Oxford ClarendonPress

Metzger E (2004) ldquoRoman Judges Case Law and Principles of ProcedurerdquoLHR 22 243ndash75

Meyer E A (2004) Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World Tabulae inRoman Belief and Practice Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Meyer E A (2011) ldquoEpigraphy and Communicationrdquo in The Oxford Handbookof Social Relations in the Roman World ed M Peachin 191ndash226 OxfordOxford University Press

Meyer H AW (1884)Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to theCorinthians New York Funk amp Wagnalls

Mihaila C (2009) The PaulndashApollos Relationship and Paulrsquos Stance towardGreco-Roman Rhetoric London T amp T Clark

Millar F (1977) The Emperor in the Roman World London DuckworthMiller A C (2008) ldquoEkklesia 1 Corinthians in the Context of Ancient

Democratic Discourserdquo PhD diss Harvard UniversityMillis BW (2010) ldquoThe Social and Ethnic Origins of the Colonists in Early

Roman Corinthrdquo in Corinth in Context Comparative Studies on Religion andSociety ed S J Friesen D N Schowalter and J C Walters 13ndash35 LeidenBrill

Millis BW (2014) ldquoThe Local Magistrates and Elite of Roman Corinthrdquo inCorinth in Contrast Studies in Inequality ed S J Friesen S A James andD N Schowalter 38ndash53 Leiden Brill

Mitchell A C (1993) ldquoRich and Poor in the Courts of Corinth Litigiousnessand Status in 1 Corinthians 61ndash11rdquo NTS 39 562ndash86

Mitchell MM (1991) Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation An ExegeticalInvestigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians TuumlbingenJ C B Mohr

Mitchell M M (2002) The Heavenly Trumpet John Chrysostom and the Art ofPauline Interpretation Louisville Westminster John Knox Press

Mitchell MM (2010) Paul the Corinthians and the Birth of ChristianHermeneutics Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Momigliano A (1987) ldquoBiblical Studies and Classical Studiesrdquo in On PagansJews and Christians 3ndash8 Hanover Wesleyan University Press

Mommsen T (1965) Gesammelte Schriften Berlin Weidmann

324 Bibliography

Morrison M J (1989) ldquoExcursions into the Nature of Legal Languagerdquo in Lawand Language ed F Schauer 3ndash68 Aldershot Dartmouth

Mourgues J-L (1987) ldquoThe So-Called Letter of Domitian at the End of the LexIrnitanardquo JRS 77 78ndash87

Munck J (1959)Paul and the Salvation ofMankind Richmond JohnKnox PressMurphy-OrsquoConnor J (2002) St Paulrsquos Corinth Text and ArchaeologyCollegeville MN Liturgical Press

Newsom C A (2007) The Self as Symbolic Space Construction Identity andCommunity at Qumran Atlanta Society of Biblical Literature

Oakes P (2001) Philippians From People to Letter Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Oakes P (2009) Reading Romans in Pompeii Paulrsquos Letter at Ground LevelMinneapolis Fortress

Obbink D and T V E Evans (2010) The Language of the Papyri OxfordOxford University Press

Oehler J (1909) ldquoEpigraphische Beitraumlge zur Geschichte des Judentumsrdquo inMonatsschrift fuumlr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 53 292ndash302443ndash52 525ndash38

OrsquoBrien P T (1977) Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul LeidenBrill

Ogereau J M (2012) ldquoThe Jerusalem Collection as Κοινωνία Paulrsquos GlobalPolitics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarityrdquo NTS 58 360ndash78

Oslashkland J (2004) Women in Their Place Edinburgh T amp T ClarkOliver J H (1971) ldquoEpaminondas of Acraephiardquo GRBS 12 221ndash37Oliver J H (1989) Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors fromInscriptions and Papyri Philadelphia American Philosophical Society

Olyan S M (1998) ldquolsquoTo Uproot and to Pull Down to Build and to Plantrsquo Jer110 and Its Earliest Interpretersrdquo in Hesed Ve-Emet Studies in Honor ofErnest S Frerichs ed J Magness and S Gitin 63ndash72 Atlanta Scholars Press

Oster R E (1992) ldquoUse Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidencein Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians (1Cor 7 1ndash5 8 10 11 2ndash16 1214ndash26)rdquo ZNW 83 52ndash73

Palinkas J and J A Herbst (2011) ldquoA Roman Road Southeast of the Forum atCorinth Technology and Urban Developmentrdquo Hesperia 80 287ndash336

Pallas D I S Charitonidis and J Veacutenencie (1959) ldquoInscriptions trouveacuteesagrave Solocircmos pregraves de Corintherdquo Bulletin de correspondence helleacutenique 83496ndash508

Pao DW (2002) Thanksgiving An Investigation of a Pauline Theme LeicesterApollos

Papathomas A (2009) Juristische Begriffe im ersten Korintherbrief des PaulusEine semantisch-lexikalische Untersuchung auf der Basis der zeitgenoumlssischengriechischen Papyri Wien Holzhausen

Parker R (1991) ldquoPotamon of Mytilene and His Familyrdquo ZPE 85 115ndash29Pearse J L D (1975) ldquoThe Organisation of Roman Building during the LateRepublic and Early Empirerdquo PhD diss Cambridge University

Pervo R I (2009) Acts A Commentary Minneapolis FortressPeterson E (1926) Heis theos Epigraphische formgeschichtliche und reli-gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht

Bibliography 325

Pettegrew D (2007) ldquoThe Busy Countryside of Late Roman CorinthInterpreting Ceramic Data Produced by Regional Archaeological SurveysrdquoHesperia 76 743ndash8

Phillips E J (1973) ldquoThe Roman Law on the Demolition of BuildingsrdquoLatomus 32 86ndash95

Pilhofer P (1995) Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas Tuumlbingen MohrPilhofer P (2000) Philippi Band II Tuumlbingen Mohr SiebeckPowell B (1903) ldquoGreek Inscriptions from Corinthrdquo AJA 7 26ndash71Price S R F (1984) Rituals and Power The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia

Minor Cambridge Cambridge University PressPringsheim F (1950) The Greek Law of Sale Weimar H Boumlhlaus NachfolgerRajak T (1984) ldquoWas There a Roman Charter for the Jewsrdquo JRS 74 107ndash23Rajak T (1985) ldquoJewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule A New

Approachrdquo in Approaches to Ancient Judaism Vol 5 Studies in Judaismand Its Graeco-Roman Context ed W S Green 19ndash35 Missoula ScholarsPress

Rajak T and D Noy (1993) ldquoArchisynagogoi Office Title and Social Status inthe Greco-Jewish Synagoguerdquo JRS 83 75ndash93

Reed J T (1996) ldquoAre Paulrsquos Thanksgivings lsquoEpistolaryrsquordquo JSNT 61 87ndash99Reynolds J M Beard and C Rouecheacute (1986) ldquoRoman Inscriptions 1981ndash5rdquo

JRS 76 124ndash46Richardson P (1998) Anti-Judaism in Early ChristianityVol 1Waterloo ON

Wilfrid Laurier University PressRives J B (1995) Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to

Constantine Oxford Clarendon PressRives J (2009) ldquoDiplomacy and Identity among Jews and Christiansrdquo in

Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World ed C Eilers 99ndash126 LeidenBrill

Robert L (1937) ldquoUn corpus des inscriptions juivesrdquo Hellenica 3 90ndash108Robert L (1960) ldquoEacutepitaphes et acclamations byzantines agrave Corintherdquo Hellenica

11ndash1221ndash52Robert L (1981) ldquoUne eacutepigramme satirique drsquoAutomeacutedon et Athegravenes au deacutebut

de lrsquoEmpire (Anth Pal XIndash319)rdquo Revue des eacutetudes grecques 94 338ndash61Robertson A and A Plummer (1971) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians Edinburgh T amp T ClarkRobinson J M (1964) ldquoDie Hodajot-Formel in Gebet und Hymnus des

Fruumlhchristentumsrdquo in Apophoreta Festschrift fuumlr Ernst Haenchen Beiheftezur Zeitschrift fuumlr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 30 194ndash235 BerlinToumlpelmann

Rodriguez de Berlanga M (1853) Estudios sobre los dos bronces encontradosen Malaga aacute fines de octubre de 1851 Maacutelaga Impr del avisador Malaguentildeo

Roetzel C J (1972) Judgement in the Community A Study of the Relationshipbetween Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul Leiden Brill

Romano D G (2003) ldquoCity Planning Centuriation and Land Division inRoman Corinth Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis amp Colonia Iulia FlaviaAugusta Corinthiensisrdquo in Corinth the Centenary 1896ndash1996 Volume XXed C K Williams and N Bookidis 279ndash301 Princeton American School ofClassical Studies at Athens

326 Bibliography

Romano D G (2005) ldquoUrban and Rural Planning in Roman Corinthrdquo in UrbanReligion in Roman Corinth Interdisciplinary Approaches ed D N Schowalterand S J Friesen 25ndash59 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Rosner B S (1991) ldquoMoses Appointing Judges An Antecedent to 1 Cor 61ndash6rdquo ZNW 82 275ndash78

Rosner B S (1994) Paul Scripture and Ethics A Study of 1 Corinthians 5ndash7Leiden New York Brill

Rosner B S (2007) ldquoDeuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthiansrdquo in Deuteronomy inthe New Testament ed M J J Menken and S Moyise 118ndash35 London T ampT Clark

Rothaus R M (2000) Corinth the First City of Greece An Urban History ofLate Antique Cult and Religion Leiden Brill

Rouecheacute C (1984) ldquoAcclamations in the Later Roman Empire New Evidencefrom Aphrodisiasrdquo JRS 74 181ndash99

Rouecheacute C (1989) ldquoFloreat Pergerdquo in Images of Authority Papers Presented toJoyce Reynolds on the Occasion of Her 70th Birthday ed MM Mackenzieand C Rouecheacute 206ndash28 Cambridge Cambridge Philological Society

Rouecheacute C J M Reynolds and K T Erim (1989) Aphrodisias in LateAntiquity Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Rowe G (2002) Princes and Political Cultures The New Tiberian SenatorialDecrees Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press

Royse J R (2008) Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament PapyriLeiden Brill

Rupprecht H-A (1982) ldquoβεβαίωσις und Nichtangriffs-klausel Zur Funktion zwe-ier Urkundsklauseln in den griechischen Papyri bis Diocletianrdquo in Symposion1977 Vortraumlge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte edJ Modzrejewski 235ndash45 Koumlln Boumlhlau

Saller R P (1982) Personal Patronage under the Early Empire CambridgeCambridge University Press

Salmon E T (1969) Roman Colonization under the Republic LondonThames amp Hudson

Sampley J P (1980) Pauline Partnership in Christ Christian Community andCommitment in Light of Roman Law Philadelphia Fortress

Saacutenchez-Ostiz Gutieacuterrez Aacute (1999) Tabula Siarensis edicioacuten traduccioacuten ycomentario Pamplona Ediciones Universidad de Navarra

Sanders G and I Whitbread (1990) ldquoCentral Places and Major Roads in thePeloponneserdquo ABSA 85 333ndash61

Sanders G D (2005) ldquoUrban Corinth An Introductionrdquo in Urban Religionin Roman Corinth Interdisciplinary Approaches ed D N Schowalter andS J Friesen 11ndash24 Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Sanders J T (1962) ldquoThe Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving toBody in the Letters of the Pauline Corpusrdquo JBL 81 348ndash62

Sandmel S (1962) ldquoParallelomaniardquo JBL 81 1ndash13Schenk W (1969) ldquoDer 1 Korintherbrief als Briefsammlungrdquo ZNW 60219ndash43

Schmeller T (1995) Hierarchie und Egalitaumlt Eine sozialgeschichtlicheUntersuchung paulinischer Gemeinden und griechisch-roumlmischer VereineStuttgart Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk

Bibliography 327

Schmidt C (2007) ldquoReview Essay of Jacob Taubesrsquo The Political Theology ofPaulrdquo Hebraic Political Studies 2 232ndash41

Schowalter D N and S J Friesen (2005) Urban Religion in Roman CorinthInterdisciplinary Approaches Cambridge MA Harvard Theological StudiesHarvard Divinity School

Schrage W (1991) Der erste Brief an die Korinther Zuumlrich BenzigerSchubert P (1939) Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings Berlin A

ToumlpelmannSchuumlssler Fiorenza E (1987) ldquoRhetorical Situation and Historical

Reconstruction in 1 Corinthiansrdquo NTS 33 386ndash403Schuumlssler Fiorenza E (1988) ldquoThe Ethics of Biblical Interpretation

Decentering Biblical Scholarshiprdquo JBL 107 3ndash17Schuumlssler Fiorenza E (2000) ldquoPaul and the Politics of Interpretationrdquo inPaul and

Politics Ekklesia Israel Imperium Interpretation Essays in Honor of KristerStendahl ed R A Horsley 140ndash57 Harrisburg Trinity Press International

Schuumltz J H (1975) Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority LondonCambridge University Press

Scotton P D (1997) ldquoThe Julian Basilica at Corinth An ArchitecturalInvestigationrdquo PhD diss University of Pennsylvania

Scranton R L (1951) Corinth 13 Cambridge MA Harvard University PressScranton R L (1957) Corinth Results of Excavations Vol 16 Cambridge

MA Harvard University PressSeesemann H (1933) Der Begriff Koinōnia im Neuen Testament Giessen A

ToumlpelmannSemino E (2008) Metaphor in Discourse Cambridge Cambridge University

PressShanor J (1988) ldquoPaul as Master Builder Construction Terms in First

Corinthiansrdquo NTS 34 461ndash71Sherk R K (1969) Roman Documents from the Greek East senatus consulta

and epistulae to the age of Augustus Baltimore Johns Hopkins no 70Sherk R K (1988) The Roman Empire Augustus to Hadrian Cambridge

Cambridge University PressSherwin-White A N (1973) The Roman Citizenship Oxford Clarendon PressSmit J F M (2002) ldquo lsquoWhat Is Apollos What Is Paulrsquo In Search for the

Coherence of First Corinthians 110ndash421rdquo NovT 44 231ndash51Smith J Z (1990)Drudgery Divine On the Comparison of Early Christianities

and the Religions of Late Antiquity Chicago University of Chicago PressSmith J Z (2011) ldquoRe Corinthiansrdquo in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians

ed R Cameron and M P Miller 17ndash34 Atlanta Society of Biblical LiteratureSpawforth A (1974) ldquoThe Appaleni of Corinthrdquo GRBS 15 297ndash99Spawforth A (1992) ldquoRoman Corinth and the Ancient Urban Economyrdquo The

Classical Review 42 119ndash20Spawforth A (2012) Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution

Cambridge Cambridge University PressSpawforth A J (1994) ldquoCorinth Argos and the Imperial Cult PseudondashJulian

Letters 198rdquo Hesperia 63 211ndash32Spawforth A J S (1996) ldquoRoman Corinth The Formation of a Colonial Eliterdquo in

Roman Onomastics in the Greek East Social and Political Aspects edA D Rizakis 167ndash82 Athens Research Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity

328 Bibliography

Spawforth A (2012) Greece and the Augustan Cultural RevolutionCambridge Cambridge University Press

Spitzl T (1984) Lex Municipii Malacitani Muumlnchen C H BeckStaab K (1933) Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche MuumlnsterAschendorff

Stansbury H (1990) ldquoCorinthian Honor Corinthian Conflict A Social Historyof Early Roman Corinth and Its Pauline Communityrdquo PhD diss University ofCalifornia Irvine

Still T D and D G Horrell (2010) After the First Urban Christians TheSocial-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years LaterLondon Continuum

Stillwell R R L Scranton and S E Freeman (1941) Corinth Volume I PartII Architecture Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Straub W (1937) Die Bildersprache des Apostels Paulus Tuumlbingen MohrStrugnell J (1974) ldquoA Plea for Conjectural Emendation in the New Testamentwith a Coda on 1 Cor 4 6rdquo CBQ 36 543ndash58

Sturgeon M C (2004) Corinth Results of Excavations Vol 9 Part 3Sculpture The Assemblage from the Theater Princeton The AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at Athens

Stylow A U (1997) ldquoApuntes sobre la arqueologiacutea de la Lex Ursonensisrdquo in LaLex Ursonensis Estudio y edicioacuten criacutetica 35ndash45 Salamanca EdicionesUniversidad de Salamanca

Susini G (1973) The Roman Stonecutter An Introduction to Latin EpigraphyTotowa NJ Rowman and Littlefield

Swift E H (1921) ldquoA Group of Roman Imperial Portraits at Corinthrdquo AJA 25142ndash59 337ndash63

Taubenschlag R (1953) ldquoDie kaiserlichen Privilegien im Rechte der Papyrirdquo inOpera Minora II 45ndash68 Warszawa Panstwowe Wydawn Naukowe

Taubenschlag R (1972) The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of thePapyri 332 BCndash640 AD Milano Cisalpino-Goliardica

Taubes J A A (2004) The Political Theology of Paul Stanford StanfordUniversity Press

Taverniers M (2002)Metaphor and Metaphorology A Selective Genealogy ofPhilosophical and Linguistic Conceptions of Metaphor from Aristotle to the1990s Gent Academia

Taylor R M (2003) Roman Builders A Study in Architectural ProcessCambridge Cambridge University Press

Tellbe M (2009) Christ-Believers in Ephesus A Textual Analysis of EarlyChristian Identity Formation in a Local Perspective Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck

Teodorsson S (1976) ldquoZwei Goumlteborger Papyrirdquo ZPE 21 245ndash50Theissen G (1982) The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity Essays onCorinth Philadelphia Fortress

Theissen G (1987) Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology Edinburgh T ampT Clark

Thiselton A C (1992) New Horizons in Hermeneutics Grand RapidsZondervan Pub House

Thiselton A C (2000) The First Epistle to the Corinthians A Commentary onthe Greek Text Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Bibliography 329

Thrall M E (1994) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the SecondEpistle to the Corinthians Edinburgh T amp T Clark

Thulin C (1971) Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum Stuttgart TeubnerTomlin R (2002) ldquoThe Flavian Municipal Law One or Two More Copiesrdquo

ZPE 141 281ndash4Torelli M (1999) ldquoLe tribugrave della colonia romana di Corinto sulle tracce die

tresviri deducundaerdquo Ostraka 8 551ndash3Torelli M (2001) ldquoPausania a Corinto Un intelletuale Greco del secondo

Secolo e la Propaganda imperiale romanardquo in Eacutediter traduire commenterPausanias en lrsquoan 2000 Actes du colloque de Neuchacirctel et de Fribourg (18ndash22septembre 1998) ed D Knoepfler andM Pieacuterart 135ndash84 Gevegraveve Universiteacutede Neuchacirctel

Tov E A (2002) The Texts from the Judaean Desert Indices and an Introductionto the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series Oxford Clarendon Press

Trebilco P (2011) ldquoWhy Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησίαrdquoNTS 57 440ndash60

Troiani L (1994) ldquoThe πολιτεία of Israel in the Graeco-Roman Agerdquo inJosephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period Essays in Memoryof Morton Smith ed F Parente and J Sievers 11ndash22 Leiden Brill

Tso M (2008) ldquoThe Giving of the Torah at Sinairdquo in The Significance of SinaiTraditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity edG J Brooke H Najman and L T Stuckenbruck 117ndash27 Leiden Brill

Turner L A (1994) ldquoThe History Monuments and Topography of AncientLebadeia in Boeotia Greecerdquo PhD diss University of Pennsylvania

Tzifopoulos I Z (1991) ldquoPausanias as a steloskopas An epigraphical commen-tary of Pausaniasrsquo lsquoEliakonrsquo A andrdquo PhD diss Ohio State University

Urdahl L B (1968) ldquoJews in Attica 1rdquo Symbolae osloenses 43 39ndash56Vahrenhorst M (2008) Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen Tuumlbingen

Mohr SiebeckVan Kooten G H (2012) ldquoἘκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ The lsquoChurch of Godrsquo and the

Civic Assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire AResponse to Paul Trebilco and Richard A Horsleyrdquo NTS 58 522ndash48

van Oort J (1991) Jerusalem and Babylon A Study into Augustinersquos City of Godand the Sources of His Doctrine of the Two Cities Leiden Brill

Van Unnik W C (1953) ldquoReiseplaumlne und Amen-Sagen Zusammenhang undGedankenfolge in 2 Korinther 1 15ndash24rdquo in Sparsa Collecta The CollectedEssays of W C van Unnik I 144ndash59 Leiden Brill repr 1973

Van Unnik W (1973) ldquoLa conception paulinienne de la Nouvelle Alliancerdquo inSparsa Collecta The Collected Essays of W C van Unnik I 175ndash7 LeidenBrill 1953 repr 1973

Vielhauer P (1979) Oikodome Aufsaumltze zum Neuen Testament MuumlnchenC Kaiser

Vittinghoff F (1952) Roumlmische Kolonisation und Buumlrgerrechtspolitik unterCaesar und Augustus Mainz Akademie der Wissenschaften und derLiteratur Steiner

von der Osten-Sacken P (1977) ldquoGottes Treue bis zur Parusie FormgeschichtlicheBeobachtungen zu 1 Kor 1 7b-9 1rdquo ZNW 68 176ndash99

Vos J S (1995) ldquoDer μετασχηματισμός in 1Kor 4 6rdquo ZNW 86 15ndash72

330 Bibliography

Waaler E (2008) The Shema and the First Commandment in First CorinthiansAn Intertextual Approach to Paulrsquos Re-Reading of Deuteronomy TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck

Wagner J R (1998) ldquolsquoNot beyond the Things Which Are Writtenrsquo A Call toBoast only in the Lord (1 Cor 46)rdquo NTS 44 279ndash87

Walbank M (2010) ldquoImage and Cult The Coinage of Roman Corinthrdquoin Corinth in Context Comparative Studies on Religion and Society edS J Friesen D N Schowalter and J C Walters 151ndash97 Leiden Brill

Walbank M E H (1989) ldquoPausanias Octavia and Temple E at Corinthrdquo ABSA84 361ndash94

Walbank M E H (1997) ldquoThe Foundation and Planning of Early RomanCorinthrdquo JRA 10 95ndash130

Wallace-Hadrill A (1989) Patronage in Ancient Society London RoutledgeWallace-Hadrill A (2008)Romersquos Cultural Revolution Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Wallace-Hadrill A (2011) ldquoThe Monumental Centre of Herculaneum InSearch of the Identities of the Public Buildingsrdquo JRA 24 120ndash60

Wallis P (1950) ldquoEin neuer Auslegungsversuch der Stelle 1 Kor 46rdquoTheologische Literaturzeitung 8 cols 506ndash8

Walters J C (2010) ldquoPaul and the Politics of Meals in Roman Corinthrdquo inCorinth in Context Comparative Studies on Religion and Society edS J Friesen D N Schowalter and J C Walters 343ndash64 Leiden Brill

Ward G (2012) ldquoTheology and Postmodernism Is It All Overrdquo Journal of theAmerican Academy of Religion 80 466ndash84

Watson D F (1989) ldquo1 Corinthians 1023ndash111 in the Light of Greco-RomanRhetoric The Role of Rhetorical Questionsrdquo JBL 108 301ndash18

Weinberg S S (1960) Corinth Results of Excavations Vol 1 Part 5Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Weiss J (1897) ldquoBeitraumlge zur paulinischen Rhetorikrdquo in Theologische StudienHerrnWirkl Oberkonsistorialrath Professor D BernhardWeiss zu seinem 70Geburtstage dargebracht 165ndash247 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht

Weiss J (1910) Der erste Korintherbrief Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck und RuprechtWelborn L L (1987a) ldquoOn the Discord in Corinth 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 andAncient Politicsrdquo JBL 106 85ndash111 Repr in Politics and Rhetoric in theCorinthian Epistles Macon GA Mercer University Press 1997 1ndash42

Welborn L L (1987b) ldquoAConciliatory Principle in 1 Cor 46rdquo NovT 29 320ndash46Welborn L L (1997) Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles MaconGA Mercer University Press

Welborn L L (2003) ldquolsquoTake up the Epistle of the Blessed Paul the ApostlersquoThe Contrasting Fates of Paulrsquos Letters to Corinth in the Patristic Periodrdquo inReading Communities Reading Scripture Essays in Honor of Daniel Patte edG A Phillips 345ndash59 Harrisburg Trinity Press International

Welborn L L (2004) ldquoThe Preface to 1 Clement The Rhetorical Situation and theTraditional Daterdquo in Encounters with Hellenism Studies on the First Letter ofClement ed C Breytenbach and L L Welborn 197ndash216 Leiden Brill

Welborn L L (2005) Paul the Fool of Christ A Study of 1 Corinthians 1ndash4 inthe Comic-Philosophic Tradition London T amp T Clark International

Welborn L (2009) ldquolsquoExtraction from the Mortal Sitersquo Badiou on theResurrection in Paulrdquo NTS 55 295ndash314

Bibliography 331

Welborn L L (2010) ldquoBy the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses PaulrsquosInvocation of a Deuteronomic Statuterdquo NovT 52 207ndash20

Welborn L L (2011) An End to Enmity Paul and the lsquoWrongdoerrsquo of SecondCorinthians Berlin de Gruyter

Welborn L L (2013a) ldquoThe Corinthian Correspondencerdquo in All Things to AllCultures Paul among Jews Greeks and Romans ed M Harding andA Nobbs 205ndash42 Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Welborn L L (2013b) ldquoJacob Taubes ndash Paulinist Messianistrdquo in Paul in theGrip of Continental Philosophy ed P Frick 69ndash90 Minneapolis Fortress

White J B (1984) When Words Lose Their Meaning Constitutions andReconstitutions of Language Character and Community Chicago Universityof Chicago Press

White J L (1984) ldquoNew Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework ofAncient Epistolographyrdquo in ANRW II ed W Haase 1730ndash56 Berlin deGruyter

White J L (1986) Light from Ancient Letters Philadelphia FortressWiemer H (2004) ldquoAkklamationen im spaumltroumlmischen Reich Zur Typologie

und Funktion eines Kommunikationsritualsrdquo Archiv fuumlr Kulturgeschichte 8655ndash73

Wilisch E (1908) ldquoZehn Jahre amerikanischer Ausgrabung in Korinthrdquo NeueJahrbuumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum 21 414ndash39

Willet R (2012) ldquoWhirlwind of Numbers Demographic Experiments forRoman Corinthrdquo Ancient Society 42 127ndash58

Willi A (2010) ldquoRegister Variationrdquo in A Companion to the Ancient GreekLanguage ed E J Bakker 297ndash310 Chichester Wiley-Blackwell

Williams C (1989) ldquoA Re-Evaluation of Temple E and the West End of theForum of Corinthrdquo in The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire edS Walker and A Cameron 156ndash62 London Institute of Classical Studies

Williams C K and O H Zervos (1990) ldquoExcavations at Corinth 1989 TheTemenos of Temple Erdquo Hesperia 59 325ndash69

Williams C K (1993) ldquoRoman Corinth as a Commercial Centerrdquo in TheCorinthia in the Roman Period ed T E Gregory 31ndash46 Ann ArborJournal of Roman Archaeology

Williams D J (1999) Paulrsquos Metaphors Their Context and CharacterPeabody Hendrickson Publishers

Williamson C (1987) ldquoMonuments of Bronze Roman Legal Documents onBronze Tabletsrdquo Classical Antiquity 6 160ndash83

Windisch H (1924) Der zweite Korintherbrief Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck ampRuprecht

Winter BW (1991) ldquoCivil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Churchrdquo NTS37 559ndash72

Winter BW (1994) Seek theWelfare of the City Christians as Benefactors andCitizens Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Winter BW (1997) Philo and Paul among the Sophists CambridgeCambridge University Press

Winter B W (2001) After Paul Left Corinth The Influence of Secular Ethicsand Social Change Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Winter BW (2003) RomanWives RomanWidows The Appearance of ldquoNewrdquoWomen and the Pauline Communities Grand Rapids Eerdmans

332 Bibliography

Wiseman J (1979) ldquoCorinth and Rome I 228 BCndashAD 267rdquo ANRW II171438ndash548

Wolff H J (1951) Roman Law an Historical Introduction Norman Universityof Oklahoma Press

Woolf G (2009) ldquoLiteracy or Literacies in Romerdquo in Ancient Literacies TheCulture of Reading in Rome and Greece ed W A Johnson and H N Parker46ndash68 Oxford Oxford University Press

Woolf G (2011) ldquoCatastrophe and Aftermathrdquo in Roman Colonies in the FirstCentury of Their Foundation ed R J Sweetman 150ndash9 Oxford Oxbow

Woumlrrle M (2004) ldquoMaroneia im Umbruch Von der hellenistischen zur kaiser-zeitlichen Polisrdquo Chiron 34 149ndash67

Wuellner W (1986) ldquoPaul as Pastor The Function of Rhetorical Questions inFirst Corinthiansrdquo in LrsquoApocirctre Paul personnaliteacute style et conception duministegravere ed A Vanhoye 49ndash77 Leuven Peeters

Zanker P (1988) The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus Ann ArborUniversity of Michigan Press

Zeller D (2010) Der erste Brief an die Korinther Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck ampRuprecht

Zuiderhoek A (2008) ldquoOn the Political Sociology of the Imperial Greek CityrdquoGRBS 48 417ndash45

Zuiderhoek A (2009) The Politics of Munificence in the Roman EmpireCitizens Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Zulueta F de (1946) The Institutes of Gaius Oxford Clarendon PressZuntz G (1953) The Text of the Epistles A Disquisition upon the CorpusPaulinum London Published for the British Academy by Oxford UniversityPress

Bibliography 333

INDEX LOCORUM

BibleGenesis2130 1803144ndash45 180

Exodus253ndash7 2062516 180314ndash5 2063532ndash3 206

Deuteronomy61ndash4 9164 84 89ndash9079 172135(6) 90177 89ndash901712 901913 901915 2 84 89ndash901919 90219 902121 902221 24 902222 90247 90254 89ndash9027ndash32 893126 1803217 89ndash903221 89ndash901 and 2 Corinthians invoking 88ndash91

Joshua 2227 180Ruth 47 1801 Kings1717ndash24 2471915ndash17 247

2 Kings315ndash20 24768ndash23 247

1 Chronicles2214ndash16 206292 206

Ezra 311ndash15 276Psalms 785 180Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 107Isaiah33 264553ndash4 180

Jeremiah1ndash24 24718 245110 9 251ndash258 286922ndash23 2961213ndash17 247246 2473128 40b 2474210 247

Ezekiel 3636 247Zechariah 69ndash15 276Acts67 2821220ndash24 2821315ff 871611ndash15 10318 87181ndash19 86182ndash3 86182ndash3 24ndash26 264183 213184 86 93184ndash5 100186ndash7 86187 86 87 268188 86 269 288189ndash10 2451817 871818 871824 27ndash28 881824ndash26 881824ndash28 2651828 8818124ndash191 871920 282

335

Acts (cont)1923ndash41 2621928ndash34 282on Jewish community in Corinth 86ndash88

Romans18 142113 14263 101616 10171 101838ndash39 2561111ndash26 211112 101155ndash6 187158 1851515 253163ndash5 861623 87 239

1 Corinthians1ndash4 107 127 131 212 274 286 288

305 3061ndash6 5 14211 8711ndash3 16 211ndash4 19911ndash42 26011ndash46 3ndash6 45 89 106 122 125 30311ndash421 29011ndash611 101 11111ndash9 13712 2 148 173 27614 147 186 187 253 25614 6 7 8 9 13814ndash5 188 30414ndash9 5 6 8 105 120 121 137 196

199 209 212 259 284 302 304305

15 181 25615 6 18316 5 8 138 140 142 145 146 156

179 183 185 188 196 275 284304

16 8 110 116 120 138ndash146 148176ndash179 184

17 147 186 25617ndash8 184 186 189 211 257 275 28717ndash9 28718 138 147 186 187 188 285 30519 5 105 138 140 147 148 170 175

184 187 188 189 305110 137 256 290110ndash421 206110ndash611 262110ff 139 147 148

111 267 271112 202 262 283114 87 269 288114ndash16 270115 270116 270117 210 270117ndash25 178 245118 147 270118ndash216 200118ndash25 88 210 260ndash261120 264124 179126ndash29 179126ndash30 185130 184 185 304131 185 256 295 2962 18121 8 145 179 180ndash182 189ndash19621ndash2 221ndash4 182 21021ndash5 178 245 260ndash26122ndash4 18224 145 182 19524ff 18225 26126ndash8 25526ndash16 195 255 259 27227 195 19628 178 2773 132 247 249 2623ndash4 20731ndash4 27331ndash45 20034 264 276 28334ndash5 20034ndash9 17 21ndash23 20335 200 208 245 252 257 262 264

277 282 28335 6 22 26435ndash45 6 8 101 102 121 125 126

128 129 131 189ndash197 246 288302ndash305

35ndash9 126 201 202 205 211 243248ndash251 253 257 264 265275ndash285 286 287 288

35ndash9 10ndash17 21035ndash9 21ndash23 199 211 21235ndash11 24535ndash17 223 246 251 29035b 26135b 8 20135c 26536 250 282

336 Index locorum

36 10 236ndash7 257 27736ndash8 243 258 26436ndash9 26436ndash17 20936c 7c 9 20137 253 277 282ndash28437ndash9 26437c 197 28838 207 25338ndash9 261 28238b 253 26539 209 249 253 28439 16ndash17 25839ndash10 25039ndash17 204ndash205 209 21239c-17 209310 198 201 210 250 253 255 258

263ndash264 287 305310ndash11 201 210 243 266310ndash12 254 258 260ndash261 264 287310ndash15 202 205 211 219 253ndash255

265 266 299310ndash16 183310ndash17 208 209 264310ndash23 26531013 16ndash17 203310b 265310b-c 266310c 261 265311 209 254311 21ndash23 179312 198 206 250 254 256 264312ndash15 265 266 271 287312ndash17 274313 111 204 245 254 272313ndash15 254 258 287313ndash15 17 250314 207 254 272315 220 254 272316 101 249 255316ndash17 2 102 202 205 247 255 258

259 261 266 267 287 304 306317 203 211 220 255 260ndash261 265

266 271 273 287317c 255318 201 255 266318ndash21a 287318ndash23 211 255ndash257 264 271 284319ndash20 255 267319ndash21 295321 201 256321ndash3 203321b 256

321b-23 201 202 212 256 264 271275ndash285 288

322 263 264322ndash23 285323 256 30641 245 25741 3ndash5 20941 16ndash17 21041ndash2 20941ndash5 201 202 205 209 211 245 250

254 257ndash260 267 271 273ndash275284 285 287

42 26143 25743ndash4 204 24543ndash5 258 28743b 27444 21144ndash5 27744a 20244b-5 20245 201 257 258 27446 9 126 198 204 205 208 209 219

252 262 264 265 289ndash30146a 290 29446b 294 29946c 294 299 30047 29247ndash17 29248 292412 260414 124414ndash21 264416 292417 124 292420 25 89 201 267 270 30651ndash3 18751ndash13 2 101 27352 26753ndash5 245 27256 101 102 260ndash26156 7 10259 10059ndash11 129513 89ndash906 268 30661ndash8 5 27061ndash9 261ndash11 89 10162 101 10263 101 10266ndash8 260ndash26169 101

Index locorum 337

1 Corinthians (cont)69 11 269ndash10 102611 184 185 304615 16 19 101619 2 260740b 2728 10 24681 26781 10 246 249 26081ndash6 9081ndash111 27082 25584ndash6 84 89ndash9087ndash12 260ndash2619 24591 13ndash14 26091ndash2 291ndash27 21393 20299 89ndash90913 24 101 102919ndash23 88921 105101ndash22 2 3 84 1871013 1871020 89ndash901020ndash22 90 1001022 89ndash901023 246 249 2601032 881116 2671117ndash31 51117ndash34 21120ndash22 260ndash2611123ndash26 2 1001125 84 105125ndash6 2601312 25514 246143ndash5 12 17 26 246 249 2601416ndash17 1781424ndash25 21437 2671437ndash8 2721440 283151ndash11 2 260ndash2611524 1861533 260ndash2611558 260161ndash4 2163 272169 861610 15ndash16 260

1612 2641615ndash18 2701616 2701619 2641622 2451623 268covenantal cruxes in rhetorical flow of

101ndash103Deuteronomy invoked by 88ndash91on Jewish community in Corinth

86ndash88legal language in 110ndash111literary unity of 124particular application of constitution-

covenant framework to 103ndash1042 Corinthians11ndash2 18ndash22 215 142112 18022 181217ndash36 2 24533 6 8 17ndash18 18336 2 84 105415 187416 22051 246511ndash21 2517 2518ndash21 245616 281ndash24 291ndash15 2102 7 11 245103ndash6 244108 243 245 246 251 2861013ndash14 2641014 243115 245117ndash15 2131113ndash14 2911113ndash15 290126 2451219 2 245131 2 84 89ndash90 100131ndash10 2 245133 245133 5 6 7 245133ndash4 21310 2 243 245 246 251 286Deuteronomy invoked by 88ndash91

Galatians29 253218 24649 256

338 Index locorum

63 26764 265

Ephesians14 14237 253

Philippians17 14234 267320 34 103321 290

Colossians16 7 14216 8 144110ff 144

1 Thessalonians15 142213 142511 246

2 Thessalonians13 142110 180213 142

1 Timothy26 180

2 Timothy18 180212 140

Classical SourcesAppian Pun 136 1 53Aulus Gellius Noct att16138ndash9 52 721910 231

Cassius Dio (See Dio Cassius)Cato Agr 14 234CiceroAgr 17 255ndash6 227Phil

126 66239100 2

Quint fratr 1026 234Sest 106 278Verr 2151130ndash50 231

Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum302

Columella Rust 513 233Dio Cassius43503 1 5362205 279

Dio Chrysostomconstruction metaphor in 259Troj [Or 11] 121ndash2 181

Diodorus Siculus 32271 1Dionysius Halicarnassus 322 167 181

Gaius Inst17 1518ndash12 50

Gellius (See Aulus Gellius)Hyginus 1 64Inst Iust 128 15Lucian Pro imaginibus 9 292 293Martial Ep556 234756 234

Pausanias127 181212 1 53231 1description of walk through Corinth 79

Plato Leges 12943c 167 181Pliny the Elder NH 3499 63Pliny the YoungerEp

10394 23110114 65

Pan 75 279 281PlutarchCaesar 575 1 53Mar 415 140Mor

426E 292498E-F 213 229

Pomp 214 140Ti C Gracch 63ndash4 231

Polybius 617 231Pomponius Dig 12248ndash50 15Ps-Julian Letters 198 16122ndash28 (408b) 16145ndash52 (409a) 16262ndash71 (409cndashd) 1 16174ndash7 (409d) 16184ndash99 (410bndashd) 16189 (410b) 161

Strabo8623 1on Jewish community in Corinth 86Josephus citing 85

SuetoniusAug 56ndash7 279Cal 6 279Claudius 25 86Iul 442 1Nero

20 279463 279

Tacitus Ann360ndash3 62 1861415 279

Index locorum 339

Vitruvius De architectura1110 197516 197689 197 234

InscriptionsAE 1915113 238AE 192286 241AE 1973220 241AE 1978731 238AE 1982263 241AE 1982764 241AE 1984389 241AE 198753 241AE 1990211 (Paestum inscription

honoring Aquilius Nestorius)164ndash165

Agrippa (M Vipsianus) inscriptionhonoring 158ndash159 170

Albinus (of Aphrodisias) acclamations of280

Aphrodisias amp Rome 21 174CIG 4521 243CIIP II 9 269CIL IX 9803 (benefaction of C Umbrius

Eudrastus of Carthage) 65FIRA III153 234IG V 2 6 217IG VII 2711 2712 (Epaminondas of

Acraephia Boeotia inscribedtestimonials) 161

IG VII 2711 2712 (testimonials ofEpaminondas of Acraephia) 161275

IG VII 3073 (Lebadeia inscription) 212216ndash218 266 286 297

5 2195ndash6 2226 10 56 58 61 2229 55 58ndash9 22213 48 54 60 78 81 22214ndash15 21ndash3 178ndash80 21815ndash16 18ndash19 21815ndash21 221 29728ndash9 22331 34 57 22333ndash9 22041ndash44 220 29750ndash53 22356 22261 22264 72 85120 123 150 159

185 22374 218 297

74 82 113ndash14 144ndash5 151 21882 21887ndash89 219100ndash101 223142ndash5 218144ndash5 218145 297150ndash1 14 353 219151 297173ndash9 221

IGR IV 29321 184Iunia Theodora epistolary testimonials

honoring 162ndash163 179 275Kent 41 96Kent 155 238Kent 232 268Kent 306 164 241Kent 345 239ndash241Kent 361 281lex Flavia municipalis 55ndash56 68ndash71Ch 26 163Ch 52 163Ch 53 163Ch 59 163 230Ch 61 157Ch 63 81Ch 64 81Ch 82 81Ch G 164Ch J 81on public works contracts 225

lex Irnitana 55ndash56 303Ch 19 230 268Ch 26 230Ch 62 227Ch 63 226Ch 66 228Ch 67 230Ch 68 230Ch 69 230Ch 83 230Ch 95 63 78Ch 97 156Ch J 229display and function of 61ndash65physical features of 56ndash61structure and content of 68ndash71

lex municipii Compsani 56lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae 163lex parieti faciundo Puteolana

234ndash236lex portorii Asiae 56lex rivi Hiberiensis 56 64lex Tarentina 56 63

340 Index locorum

lex Ursonensis 53ndash55 303Ch 15 159 163Ch 16 159 163Ch 62 266Ch 63 266Ch 66 159Ch 69 81 225 227 230Ch 75 81 228Ch 77 81 230 268Ch 79 81 156ndash158Ch 80 81 230Ch 81 163 230Ch 92 164Ch 93 266Ch 98 81 229Ch 99 81Ch 100 81Ch 101 163Ch 128 230 268Ch 130 157Ch 131 157display and function of 61ndash65Kent 345 and 241physical features of 56ndash61on public works contracts 225reconstruction of 59structure and content of 66ndash68

OGIS 456 (Augustan inscription honoringPotamon of Mytilene) 143 148152ndash156 167 173 188

PSchoslashyen 25 (treaty between Rome andLycian koinon) 172 173 174ndash175

11ndash11 73ndash8 17361ndash2 18361ndash4 172

Res Gestae 323 175SB 1411578 293SEG 11115 (acclamation of emperor

Theodosius by stoneworkers) 280SEG 33671 184senatus consultum de Cn Pisone Patre

56 60SIG3 801D = FD III 4286 (Gallio

inscription) 173Spartiaticus (C Julius) inscription honoring

154 159ndash161 170Tabula Heracleensis 56 63 81Tabula Siarensis 56 60

Jewish SourcesJosephusAntiquities of the Jews (AJ Ant)

1121 165384 213 165

445 16514110ndash18 8514185ndash267 16816160ndash1 16916160ndash5 16916160ndash78 16816161 16916162ndash3 169 18316164ndash5 1691982 282

Jewish Wars (BJ) 3540 86constitutional comparison between Paul

and 302covenantal issues not raised by 84on Jewish community in Corinth 86on Jewish politeia 165ndash166

168ndash169Strabo cited by 85

Philo of AlexandriaFlacc 49ndash50 167Legat

32ndash22 168133 167281ndash2 85311 168311ndash20 168

covenantal issues not raised by 84on Jewish community in Corinth

85ndash86on Jewish politeia 165 166ndash168 169

Qumran texts1QS (Community Rule) 247

84ndash10 247117ndash8 247

2QJer 2474QJera 247CD (Damascus Document) 247

CD-A 319 (=4Q269 2) 247Jubilees 247

ManuscriptsP46 191ndash194 195Codex ϰ 191ndash194

Medieval and Early ModernSourcesCalvin Jean Commentary on the Epistles

of Paul the Apostle to theCorinthians 141 145 146 147 148178 182 202

Colet John Commentary on FirstCorinthians 139 140 145 260

Erasmus Desiderius Annotations on theNew Testament 146 147

Index locorum 341

Grotius Hugo Annotationes in NovumTestamentum Volumen VII 10 12238 146 147

Luther Martin Bibel (die Predigt vonChristus) 145 146 148

Xanthopoulos Historia ecclesiastica144958 293

PapyriiPDubl 32 293PDubl 33 293PLond 1912 (Claudian reply to dual

embassy from Alexandria) 166176ndash178 179 183 186

1ndash11 17714ndash51 17733 177529 177100ndash8 177

POxy I 41 (acclamation of Dioskoros)278 279

POxy II 264 117ndash120POxy XXV 2435 279

Patristic SourcesAmbrosiaster CSEL 8126ndash8 140Augustine

de Civ D eg 1917 226 16Pauline portrait by 132

1 Clement 17ndash1827ndash8 1747 106471 3 17471ndash2 137473 137476 3 17 137

491 17544 18

Jerome 15 16Ep 772 (CSEL 5538) 15Ep 773 (CSEL 5539) 15

John ChrysostomAdv Jud passim 16Hom 1 Cor

NPNF11274 16PG 6117 140 145 181PG 6117ndash22 139 178PG 6170ndash4 200PG 6170ndash94 200PG 6171 201PG 6172 201PG 6175ndash80 200PG 6178ndash9 201PG 6178ndash80 267PG 6178ndash80 88 267PG 6179ndash80 83 201PG 6181ndash6 200PG 6187ndash94 200PG 6188 201

Hom 2 Cor PG 51271 139Hom Matt 34 NPNF1 1065 17on 1 Cor 14ndash9 139 141ndash142 144

147 156on 1 Cor 35ndash45 199 200 202 211

284 286on Paul and politics 16ndash17Pauline portrait by 132

Origen 140 147 198TheodoretPG 82229 145 146PG 82229ndash32 139PG 82232 147

342 Index locorum

SUBJECT INDEX

acclamationdefinition of 278in Graeco-Roman world generally

278ndash282modern call-and-response preaching

and 283monumental Graeco-Roman construction

practice and 215 280ndash281rhythmic sections in construction

metaphor (1 Cor 35ndash9 21bndash23) and275ndash285

accountability See authority and account-ability in construction

administrative legal and cultic aspects ofPauline politics 40ndash41

adprobatio operis 215 235 236 239 254257 274 276 288

aediles 230 239 268agrimensores 61 63 64Agrippa (M Vipsianus) inscription

honoring 158ndash159 170Albinus (of Aphrodisias) acclamations

of 280Alexandria Jewish community in 166

176ndash178 186alternative civic ideology 36ndash38

45 106ἀνακρίνω (in 1 Cor 43ndash4) See evaluative

judgment and approvalantanaklasis 203 255 273Apollos and adherents of Apollosconstruction metaphor and 207 208

210ndash211 252 262ndash265 268ndash270 271276 287 305

covenant in Corinth and 87 88reconstruction rhetoric and 290 291

294 299ndash300thanksgiving passage and 199

approval See evaluative judgment andapproval

Aquila 86 87 88 100 264

Aquilius Nestorius Paestum inscriptionhonoring 164ndash165

archisynagōgoi 87architectsin Graeco-Roman cities 231ndash234Paulrsquos self-designation as ldquowise architectrdquo

201 247 253 258 263ndash264in Terracina sculptural relief 232ndash233

Argos 1 161aural-oral aspects of letter carrying and

reading in antiquity 124ndash126authority and accountability in constructionldquoApollosrsquos partyrdquo and 199 207 208

210ndash211 262ndash271construction metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45)

260ndash271God eschatological accountability to 273at Graeco-Roman worksites 214indefinite pronouns Paulrsquos use of 265

271Jeremiah 110 and Jewish politics of

covenant construction 9 251in Lebadeia contract 221ndash222τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται and reconstruction

rhetoric (in 1 Cor 46) 299Paulrsquos authority to define approvable

ministry 259 264 273

Babbius monument (forum Corinth) andCn Babbius Philinus 158 232236ndash239 286

βεβαιόω wordplay (in 1 Cor 16 8)116ndash120 138 140 144 146ndash148 172176 179 184

bronze tablets of colonial constitutions SeeSpanish civic charters

building metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45) Seeconstruction metaphor

Carthage 1 53 54 73 82Cephas 208 211 263

343

Chian use of Roman law against Romanopponents 13

Chloersquos people 271Christian community at Corinth See

ecclesial assembly at Corinthcognitive-linguistic metaphor theory

127ndash129 209 247communicative relationship of Paul

with Corinthians 8 106ndash107122ndash129 304

ancient letter carrying and readingpractices and 124ndash126

metaphor and culture 126ndash129 198miscommunication postulates of

122ndash124politeia language communicative

purpose of 111ndash113comparative methodology 8 106ndash122

communicative purpose of politeialanguage and 114ndash115

constitutions comparison of 302ndash307legal language in 1 Corinthians and

110ndash113in NT studies 108ndash110parallelism 108philological focus of 108politeia language as focus of 111ndash113words registers and genres of politeia

comparing 115ndash121comparative politics approach to Paul

33ndash39conceptual images of apostle colony and

assembly 8 106ndash107 129ndash133ecclesial assembly 132ndash133Paul 131ndash132Roman Corinth 130ndash131

constitution and covenant in 1 Corinthians1ndash9

communicative assumptions of 8106ndash107 122ndash129 304 (See alsocommunicative relationship of Paulwith Corinthians)

comparative methodology of 8 106ndash122(See also comparative methodology)

conceptual images of apostle colony andassembly 8 106ndash107 129ndash133

constitution in Corinth 7 52ndash83 303 (Seealso Corinthian constition Spanishcivic charters)

construction metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45)and 8 197ndash301 305 (See also con-struction metaphor)

covenant in Corinth 7 84ndash105 303ndash304(See also covenant in Corinth)

ethical norms and political structuresinteractions between 104

as hermeneutical apparatus for Paulrsquoscommunicative strategy 105

interface between 2 84ndash85 107interface between politeiai of 3ndash6JudaismHellenism divide in Pauline

scholarship and 4 84language of politeia as interface between

111ndash113in law and life 7 44ndash51 303 (See also

law and life interface between)methodology and structure of study 6ndash9particular application of constitution-

covenant framework to 1 Corinthians103ndash104

Pauline constituted-covenanted communityin Corinth (See ecclesial assembly atCorinth Paul and politics)

politeia 304ndash305 (See also politeia)reconstruction rhetoric (in 1 Cor 46)

289ndash301 (See also reconstructionrhetoric)

Roman colonial constitutions and laws1ndash2

social patterns of early Christian lifeoverlapping 104

textual interpretation compared to legalargument 13ndash14

thanksgiving (in 1 Cor 11ndash46) 8137ndash196 304ndash305 (See alsothanksgiving)

construction metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45) 8197ndash301 305 See also acclamationarchitects authority and accountabil-ity design specifications and penaltiesevaluative judgment and approvalministerial language of constructionmetaphor reconstruction rhetoricreward or payment language

ldquoApollosrsquos partyrdquo and 199 207 208210ndash211 262ndash271

civic charters on public constructioncontracts and 224ndash231

cognitive-linguistic metaphor theory127ndash129 209 247

competition for building commissions 213conceptual coherence of 252Corinth politics of construction in

224ndash242culture and metaphor 126ndash129 198eschatological climax of (in 41ndash5) 202

211 245 257ndash260 275extent and structure of 208ndash209 252ndash260

344 Subject index

Graeco-Roman building contractspolitics of construction in 204ndash205212ndash215

Graeco-Roman temple building and206ndash207 216ndash224

history of scholarship on 200ndash208Jewish politics of covenant construction

and Paulrsquos use of Jeremiah 9 251ndash253276 286

Jewish temple-building and 206ndash207law of contract and legal disputes

construction in 236οἰκοδομέω Paulrsquos use of 9 251patronage and public construction

connection between 236ndash239Paul as skilled craftsman and 213φθείρειφθερεῖ wordplay 199 255 266as rhetorical topos 198rhythmic sections of 203 211ndash212

275ndash285socio-economic diversity of Corinthian

ecclesial assembly and 258ndash260sources and functions of imagery

209ndash210 252ndash260thanksgiving (in 1 Cor 14ndash9) and 199

206ndash209 212 253 259 274 275 284305

Corinth See also Corinthian constitutioncovenant in Corinth ecclesial assemblyat Corinth Julian Basilica CorinthTemple E architectural complexCorinth

Babbius monument (forum) and CnBabbius Philinus 158 232 236ndash239286

Hebrew inscription at 99Lechaion Road Basilica 75Panayia Field road 79ndash81patronage and politics of thanksgiving in

156ndash165politics of construction in 224ndash242portrait of 130ndash131rostra podium forum 79South Basilica 75Southeast Building 79synagogue inscription in 91ndash99

Corinthian constitution 7 52ndash83 303covenant significance of concept of 45display and function of 61ndash65establishment of 2 53excavations at Corinth 53likely locations for 74ndash79map 54physical features of 56ndash61

politeia and 79ndash81public construction contracts and

224ndash231scholarship on Pauline politics and 41ndash42sources for 53ndash56 (See also Spanish civic

charters)structure and content 65ndash72urban streetscape and 79ndash81

1 Corinthians See constitution and cove-nantin 1 Corinthians

covenant in Corinth 7 84ndash105 303 304Deuteronomic covenant 88ndash91ecclesial assembly as new covenant

community 100ndash103interface with constitution 2 84ndash85 107Jewish community 85ndash88rhetorical flow of 1 Corinthians

covenantal cruxes in 101ndash103synagogue inscription 91ndash99

covenant in 1 Corinthians See constitutionand covenant in 1 Corinthians

Crispus 86 87 269ndash271 288crosscrucifixion in 1 Corinthians 178 210cultic administrative and legal aspects of

Pauline politics 40ndash41culture and metaphor 126ndash129 198

Delphi 173design specifications and penalties (leges

locationis) in constructionGraeco-Roman building contracts

generally 218ndash221in Lebadeia contract 218ndash221

divine Spirit in 1 Corinthians 17 84 146179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276

δοκιμάζω (in 1 Cor 313) See evaluativejudgment and approval

double ἵνα clauses (in 1 Cor 46) 289 294299ndash300

ecclesial assembly at Corinthas constituted-covenanted community 2

84ndash85covenant in Corinth and 100ndash103mixed Jews and Gentiles in 132 258portrait of 132ndash133socio-economic diversity of 132ndash133

258ndash260 262ndash263empire-critical approaches to Paul and

politics 19 22ndash24 28 31Epaminondas of Acraephia Boeotia

inscribed testimonials of 161Erastus 239 268 269

Subject index 345

eschatological approval of God 273eschatological climax of construction

metaphor (in 1 Cor 41ndash5) 202 211245 257ndash260 275


Eudokia (wife of Theodosius II) attemptedreconstruction of Jerusalem temple asTheotokos temple by 293

Eudrastus (C Umbrius) benefactionof 65

evaluative judgment and approval(δοκιμάζω ἀνακρίνω) in construction


Babbius monument and Cn BabbiusPhilinus 236ndash239 286

in construction metaphor(in 1 Cor 35ndash45) 211 245271ndash275

eschatological climax of constructionmetaphor (in 1 Cor 41ndash5) 202 211245 257ndash260 275

God eschatological approval of 273in Graeco-Roman construction contracts

215historical scholarship on 1 Corinthians

and 204 209Kent 345 239ndash241in law of contract and legal disputes 236in Lebadeia contract 222ndash224τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται and

reconstruction rhetoric(in 1 Cor 46) 299

misguided evaluation of ministry in35ndash9 253

Paulrsquos authority to define approvableministry and 259 264 273

exegesis and portraiture coupling of 107

feminist approaches to Paul and politics 2024ndash26 30ndash31

form criticism 141forma coloniae or map of colonial territory

63ndash64Fronto (M Cornelius) 231

Gaius (emperor) 166ndash168 172Gaius (in 1 Corinthians and Romans) 87

268 269genres registers and words of politeia

language 115ndash121Gentiles and Jews in Corinthian ecclesial

assembly 132 258

Gracchan scheme of transmarinecolonization 52

gromatici veteres 63

Harvard school 4Hebrew inscription at Corinth 99HellenismJudaism divide in Pauline

scholarship 4 84 108 199 205 254295

Herod Agrippa 168ndash171history-of-religion approaches to Paul and

politics 19Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 17 84 146

179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276

indefinite pronouns Paulrsquos use of 265ndash271Irni See lex Irnitana in index of sourcesIunia Theodora epistolary testimonials

honoring 162ndash163 179 275

Jews and Judaismattempted reconstruction of Jerusalem

temple as Theotokos temple 293Corinth Jewish community in 85ndash88covenant construction Paulrsquos use of

Jeremiah and politics of 9 251ndash253276 286

ecclesial assembly in Corinth Jews andGentiles in 132 258

Hebrew inscription at Corinth 99ldquoJewishrdquo cooking pot found at Corinth 99Pauline scholarship JudaismHellenism

divide in 4 84 108 199 205 254 295politeia Jewish 165ndash170 171synagogue inscription in Corinth 91ndash99temple-building Jewish 206ndash207thanksgiving (in 1 Cor 14ndash9) and 149

165ndash170 171judgment and evaluation See evaluative

judgment and approvalJulian Basilica Corinthconnection to Temple E complex 77display of constitution at 75ndash77 82summary of structure 75

Julius Caesar colonial policies of 1 52

καθώς clause 142 152 181ndash183κοινωνία 35 138 140 147ndash148 171

173ndash175

law and life interface between 744ndash51 303

challenges to theory of 47ndash49

346 Subject index

comparative methodology and legallanguage in 1 Corinthians 110ndash113

conditions for building on 49ndash51connectivist view of 46ndash47construction in law of contract and legal

disputes 236cultic administrative and legal aspects

ofPauline politics 40ndash41politeia as 45 79ndash81prescriptive versus descriptive

understanding of law 48textual interpretation compared to legal

argument 13ndash14Lebadeia inscription See IG VII 3073 in

index of sourcesLechaion Road Basilica Corinth 75letters ancient practices in carrying and

reading 124ndash126literary unity of 1 Corinthians 124Lycia Caesarean treaty of Rome with 56

Malaca and lex Flavia municipalis (lexMalacitana) 55ndash56 60 62 69 71

τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ(in 1 Cor 16) 138 140 145ndash146 179

183 188(textual variant in 1 Cor 21) 189ndash196

martyriai (testimonials)Graeco-Roman practice of 151ndash152for Iunia Theodora in Corinth 162ndash163

179 275τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται (in 1 Cor 46) 289

294ndash299metaphor and culture 126ndash129 198metaphor construction as See construction

metaphormetaphor theory cognitive-linguistic

127ndash129 209μετεσχημάτισα (in 1 Cor 46) 289

290ndash294mezuzot 90 100ministerial language of construction

metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45) 210architectrsquos work compared to ministry (in

310ndash15) 253ndash255authority Paulrsquos construction and

assertion of 260ndash271historical scholarship on 201ndash202 209misguided evaluation of ministry (in

35ndash9) 253Paulrsquos authority to defined approvable

ministry 259 264socioeconomics of ecclesial assembly in

Corinth and 259

μισθός See reward or payment languageτὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ (in 1 Cor 21)

189ndash196

oath or promise guaranteeing privileges in 1Cor 14ndash9 186ndash187

oikonomia 35oral-aural aspects of letter carrying and

reading in antiquity 124ndash126ὅς 138 147 187οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι 101ndash103

Panayia Field road Corinth 79ndash81ταῦτα referent of (in 1 Cor 46) 290parablepsis 192 195 196pastoral strategy and politics 306ndash307patristic understandings of Paul and politics

15ndash18 33patronage systemministerial allegiances in Corinth and 262public construction and 236ndash239thanksgiving for civic privilege and

150ndash152 165 175ndash186Paul and politics 7 13ndash43 303administrative legal and cultic aspects

of 40ndash41alternative civic ideology concept of

36ndash38applying Paul to contemporary politics

28ndash30comparative politics as pattern of inquiry

for 33ndash39constituted-covenanted community

concept of 2 84ndash85 107Corinthian constitution and 41ndash42empire-critical approaches to 19 22 24

28 31feminist approaches to 20 24ndash26 30 31history-of-religion approaches to 19interpretive aims of studies of 28ndash33Jewishness of Paul importance of

considering 33 39JudaismHellenism divide in Pauline

scholarship 4 84 108 199 205254 295

letters as political discourse 22 4284 106

methodological approaches to 19ndash28pastoral strategy and 306ndash307patristic understandings of 15ndash18 33philosophical approaches to 19

20ndash22 28politeia within discourse of 34ndash36portrait of Paul 131ndash132

Subject index 347

Paul and politics (cont)resisting Paulrsquos politics 30ndash31rhetorical approach to 36 38as skilled craftsman 213social-historical approaches to 20

26ndash28 31textual interpretation compared to legal

argument 13ndash14understanding Paulrsquos politics 31

Pauline community at Corinth See ecclesialassembly at Corinth

Paulrsquos communicative relationship withCorinthians See communicative rela-tionship of Paul with Corinthians

philological focus of NT comparativemethodology 108

philosophical approaches to Paul andpolitics 19 20ndash22 28

φθείρειφθερεῖ wordplay (in 1 Cor 317)199 255 266

πιστός ὁ θεός 138 147 171politeia 304ndash305

communicative purpose of language of114ndash115

comparing words registers and genresof 115ndash121

constitution and covenant interfacebetween politeiai of 3ndash6 249

Corinth constitution and 79ndash81defined 5as first-century discourse 34 38 106Jewish 165ndash170 171language of as interface between

constitution and covenant 111ndash113law and life as interface between 45

79ndash81metaphor and culture 126ndash129 198modern scholarship on 34ndash36pastoral strategy and politics 306ndash307power and 170ndash175Roman power defined in relationship

to 150thanksgiving passage of 1 Cor 41ndash9 as

politeia discourse 137ndash138political discourse Paulrsquos letters as 22 42

84 106political theology

defined 5history-of-religion approach compared

19socio-economic diversity of Corinthian

ecclesial assembly and 132ndash133theological or ecclesial politics versus 38

Pompei 49

portraiture and exegesis coupling of 107Potamon of Mytilene Augustan inscription

honoring 143 148 152ndash156 167173 188

power and politeia relationship between170ndash175

Prisca 87 100 264Priscilla 86 88promise or oath guaranteeing privileges in 1

Cor 14ndash9 186ndash187Puteoli 49

Qumran communityalternative civic ideology concept of

36ndash38Jeremiah 110 and 246 247

reconstruction rhetoric (in 1 Cor 46)289ndash301

double ἵνα clauses 289 294 299ndash300history of scholarship on 289 294ndash297τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται 289 294ndash299μετεσχημάτισα meaning and function of

289 290ndash294referent of ταῦτα 290

registers words and genres of politeialanguage 115ndash121

Religionsgeschichtliche Schule 27 108reward or payment language (μισθός) in

constructionin Graeco-Roman building contracts 215historical scholarship on 1 Corinthians

and 204 207in Lebadeia contract 222ndash224

rhetorical approach to Paul and politics36ndash38

rostra podium forum Corinth 79

Salpensa and lex Flavia municipalis 55ndash5660

shabbat interactions of Paul with Corinthiansynagogue 100

Shema 91 100social pattern and contextCorinthian ecclesial assembly socio-

economic diversity of 132ndash133258ndash260 262ndash263

in NT comparative methodology108ndash110

overlapping nature of in early Christianlife 104 133

Paul and politics social-historicalapproaches to 20 26ndash28 31

Sosthenes 86 87

348 Subject index

South Basilica Corinth 75Southeast Building Corinth 79Spanish civic charters 53ndash56 303 See also

lex entries in index of sourcesdisplay and function of 61ndash65forma coloniae or map of colonial

territory and 63ndash64lex colonia Genetivae Iuliae of Urs 53ndash55lex Flavia municipalis 55ndash56 68ndash71physical features of 56ndash61on public construction contracts 224ndash231relevance to Corinthian constitution

45 107structure and content 65ndash72validity of application to Corinth

Constitution 72ndash74Spartiaticus (C Julius) inscription

honoring 154 159ndash161 170Spirit divine in 1 Corinthians 17 84 146

179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276

Stephanas 270synagogue inscription in Corinth 91ndash99

tablets of colonial constitutions See Spanishcivic charters

tefillin (phylacteries) 90 100Temple E architectural complex Corinthas Capitolium 78connection to Julian Basilica 77display of constitution at 77ndash79 82summary of structure 77

temple Jewishattempted reconstruction of Jerusalem

temple as Theotokos temple 293construction metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45)

and Jewish temple-building 206ndash207temples Graeco-Roman construction of

206ndash207 216ndash224Terracina sculptural relief from 232ndash233testimonials (martyriai)Graeco-Roman practice of 151ndash152for Iunia Theodora in Corinth 162ndash163

179 275thanksgiving (in 1 Cor 14ndash9) 8 137ndash196

304ndash305βεβαιόω wordplay in 116 120 138 140

144ndash146 148 172 176ndash179 184

civic gratitude expressions of 149ndash150construction metaphor (in 1 Cor 35ndash45)

and 199 206ndash209 212 253 259 274275 284 305

Corinth and 156ndash165Graeco-Roman system of benefaction

and 138 148ndash165history of scholarship on 139ndash145Jewish community and 149

165ndash170 171καθώς clause 142 152 181ndash183κοινωνία 35 138 140 147ndash148 171

173ndash175μαρτύριον and textual variant in 1 Cor

21 189ndash196τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ 138 140

145ndash146 179 183 188mediation of communal privileges by

patron 175ndash186nature of mediated privileges 185ndash186OGIS 456 (Augustan inscription honoring

Potamon of Mytilene) compared 143148 152ndash156

ὅς 138 147 187patronage system and civic privilege

150ndash152 165 175ndash186physical monuments and memorials 152πιστός ὁ θεός 138 147 171politeia defined in relationship to Roman

power 150as politeia discourse 137ndash138power and politeia relationship between

170ndash175promise or oath guaranteeing privileges

186ndash187public attribution 151testimonials (martyriai) Graeco-Roman

practice of 151ndash152Timothy 124 129Titius Justus 86 87 268

Urso 1 42 54 73 82 See also lexUrsonensis in index of ancient sources

Vetus (L Antistius) 13

words registers and genres of politeialanguage 115ndash121

Subject index 349

MODERN AUTHOR INDEX

Adams E 104Agamben Giorgio 21ndash22 29Aitken J K 114Aldrete G S 283Ando Clifford 52 73Ascough R S 25

Badiou Alain 21 29Barclay J M G 3 29 103 166 302Baur F C 199 202Beale G K 205Bees N A 95Blumenfeld B 35ndash36 38Botha P J 125Burford A 216ndash217 219

Cameron R 110Ciampa R E 210Clarke A D 5 40 41Colwell E C 192Crawford M 61 224Crook J A 46ndash51 106 303

Deissmann Adolf 94 112 116ndash119 176204 212

Derrett J D M 40Dickerman S O 97Donfried K P 25du Plessis P 235

Eger Otto 204ndash205 212 213 216217 220

Elliott Neil 22 23 29

Fee G D 144Fiore B 291Fitzgerald J T 295Fredriksen P 29

Gaertringen Baron Hiller von 94Georgi Dieter 22

Gerhardt M J 13Gillihan Y Y 36ndash38Gonzaacutelez J 71Goodrich J 5Goodspeed E J 268Gros Pierre 197

Haenchen E 87Hainz J 175Hanges J C 296Heinrici C F G 296Horsley Richard 22ndash23Huumlbner E 57 60

Iverson Paul 239ndash241

Jewett R 25Jindo J K 247ndash249Johnson M 126Johnson-DeBaufre Melanie 25ndash26Jones M W 232Jongkind D 193 195Judge E A 31 34ndash35 36 38 104 133

Kent J H 96Kieszligling Emil 57Kittel Gerhard 112Kloha J 190 194ndash196Koester Helmut 25Kornemann E 52Koumlvecses Zoltaacuten 127ndash129 209 248249 252

Kuck D W 205ndash208 209 254 273274 286

Kurzon D 112

Lakoff G 126Lanci J R 41 205 224Lessing Johann Gottfried 48Leutzsch M 151Levine L I 91

350

Lincicum D 89ndash91 100Lindemann A 145Lopez Davina 22ndash23Luumldemann G 87

MacDonald M Y 30MacRae G W 145Mallon Jean 57ndash61Martin D B 29Meeks Wayne 26Meritt Benjamin 95 96Meyer E A 51Miller M P 110Mitchell A C 16 40 107 108Mitchell Margaret 131 137 198 296Momigliano Arnaldo 109 121Murphy-OrsquoConnor Jerome 95

Nongbri B 193

OrsquoBrien P T 143 188Olyan S M 246Oster R E 98

Papathomas A 111 116 117Powell Benjamin 93ndash95

Reynolds Joyce 55Richardson P 88Robert Louis 278 280Robinson J M 143 240Rosner B S 89 210Rouecheacute C 283Rowe G 153 188Royse J R 196Ruggiero E de 278

Saller R P 156Sanders Guy 75 77 143Schmeller T 41Schmidt J E C 199 202Schmitt Carl 20Schrage W 190

Schubert Paul 141ndash144 148 149 152153ndash156 162 170 188

Schuumlssler Fiorenza Elizabeth 24ndash25Scotton Paul 77Shanor J 213 216ndash217 220 224Smith J Z 108 122Spawforth Antony 130Stansbury H 158Strathmann H 180Sturgeon M C 97Stylow A U 58ndash61 227Susini Giancarlo 74 152

Taubes Jacob 20 24 305Thistleton A C 190Torelli M 158Troiani L 165

Urdahl L B 95

van Unnik W C 143Vielhauer P 246 250von der Osten-Sacken P 143 171

Wallbank Mary 77 78Wallis P 295Walters J C 5 41 42Ward G 29Weber Max 49Weiss Johannes 141 145 185 186202ndash204 211 250 254 256 265 273276 282 284 286 292

Welborn L L 29 39ndash40 262 296West A B 239Wettstein J 108Willi A 121Williams C K II 77Winter B W 5 40 41 42Woolf Greg 73

Žižek Slavoj 29Zuiderhoek A 153ndash154 188Zuntz G 190 193 196

Modern author index 351

Cover

Half-title page

Series page

Title page

Copyright page

Contents

Figures

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Introduction Constituting the13Argument

Part I13Constitution and covenant in Corinth

113Paul and Politics

1113Noster Paulus ancient perspectives on the political Paul

1213Recent scholarship and the politics of Pauline interpretation

1313Paul and politeia the pattern of inquiry

1413Approaches to Paul and politics in Corinth

213Law and Life

2113Lawrsquos Leben

2213Crookrsquos challenge

2313Crookrsquos challengers

2413Crookrsquos conditions

313The Corinthian Constitution


3213Physical features of extant civic constitutions

3313Display and function of constitutions

3413Structure and content of constitutions

3513The validity of applying the constitutions to Corinth

3613Plausible contexts for display in Corinth

3713Constitution and the Corinthian politeia

3813Conclusion

413Traces of Covenant in Corinth

41 The Jewish community in first-century13Corinth

4213The synagogue inscription in Corinth

4313New covenant community in Corinth

4413Conclusion

5 Constituting Corinth Paul13and the Assembly

5113Rendering 1 Corinthians

5213Comparative method

5313Communication and metaphor

5413Corinthian portraiture Corinth Paul and the assembly

5513Conclusion

Part II13Constitution and covenant in 1 Corinthians 11ndash46

6 1 Corinthians 14ndash9 and the Politics of13Thanksgiving

6113History of scholarship on 1 Corinthians 14ndash9

62 The politics of thanksgiving in Graeco-Roman13and Jewish settings

6313Politeia and the constitution of community

64 The mediation of communal privileges in first-century13communities

65 Promise and the confirmation of privileges13in community

6613Conclusion


7131 Corinthians 35ndash45 and the Politics of Construction


7213The politics of construction

7313The politics of construction and Greek temple building

7413The politics of construction in Roman Corinth

7513Jeremiah and the Pauline politics of covenantal construction

7613Architecture in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

7713Authority in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

7813Approval in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

7913Acclamation in 1 Corinthians 35ndash45

71013Conclusion

Excursus 1 Corinthians 46 and the rhetoric of13reconstruction

Conclusion comparison of13constitutions

Bibliography

Index Locorum

Subject index

Modern Author Index


MONOGRAPH SERIES

General Editor Paul Trebilco

163

PAUL rsquoS POLITICAL STRATEGY IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1ndash4


MONOGRAPH SERIES



























Volume 163













ISBN 978-1-107-08848-1 Hardback


CONTENTS








vii










viii Contents

FIGURES


ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS






xi



xii Acknowledgments

ABBREVIATIONS








xiii














1961
































Constituted Colony





1












Argument and Aims

























Methodology





Scope and Structure














PART I


1

PAUL AND POLITICS




1 Cf Bitner (2014b)

13














































Heinrici (1880)




















































































1221 Applying Paul











1222 Resisting Paul























80 Metso (2008)81 Cotton (2003)









































































121 Walters (2010 343)122 Winter (2001)




2

LAW AND LIFE


21 Lawrsquos Leben



44





Law and life 45
















Law and life 47















Law and life 49








21 Crook (1996 34)22 Meyer (2004 3)

Law and life 51

3



Ando (2007 432)






52












Urso

CarthageCorinth












































B (R) C D (S T) E (F)

424140393837363534333231302928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321















36 Stylow (1997 45)






































Tablet Chaptersa







Ch 20 elections










Table 1 (cont)

Tablet Chaptersa


















Table 1 (cont)

Tablet Chaptersa












Tablet Chapters












Table 2 (cont)

Tablet Chapters











Table 2 (cont)

Tablet Chapters










































0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40































97 Torelli (2001)

















38 Conclusion









4





84





411 Philo
















14 Acts 188




































(2013a)











48 Eg Adams (2000 10)



















































































44 Conclusion





















5






106




























































source Politeia




















































Translation38











the contract






























526 Summary























see Grant (1963)






































534 Summary








541 Roman Corinth






























544 Summary







55 Conclusion



PART II


6










137


























































































































mative feature











































98 Millis (2014)








































































































625 Summary






























































meetings























































66 Conclusion
















227 Mitchell (1991 107ndash11 195 217)





























































7




1 Cor 37c




197
















































































63 Kuck (1992 170 n97)





















































































minor modifications





























(ll 33ndash9)















(ll 130ndash3)


























139 Crawford (1995 421)










(JRS 1986)
























































Rust 513


































p(robavit)











p(robavit)















Iversen B




Iversen C






743 Summary





















Jer 110 (LXX) 2 Cor 108 2 Cor 1310



















































Summary





































































(2010 5)278 Colet (1985 112ndash13)















(2011 208ndash30)



















304 Ker (2000 91ndash3)305 Weiss (1910 78)



















brotherrdquo





















329 Dahl (1967 324ndash5)












333 Kuck (1992 170ndash86)










335 Weiss (1910 100) Fee (1987 156)336 Kuck (1992 155)








126ndash44)











the one whowaters









345 Clarke (1993 119)

























































710 Conclusion













































































































Conclusion














302























BIBLIOGRAPHY

















309























310 Bibliography


















Bibliography 311























312 Bibliography




















Bibliography 313




















314 Bibliography



















Bibliography 315




















316 Bibliography



















Bibliography 317























318 Bibliography



















Bibliography 319






















320 Bibliography





















Bibliography 321























322 Bibliography























Bibliography 323























324 Bibliography




















Bibliography 325




















326 Bibliography





















Bibliography 327
























328 Bibliography





















Bibliography 329






















330 Bibliography




















Bibliography 331























332 Bibliography












Bibliography 333

INDEX LOCORUM










335





199 209 212 259 284 302 304305

15 181 25615 6 18316 5 8 138 140 142 145 146 156

179 183 185 188 196 275 284304

16 8 110 116 120 138ndash146 148176ndash179 184

17 147 186 25617ndash8 184 186 189 211 257 275 28717ndash9 28718 138 147 186 187 188 285 30519 5 105 138 140 147 148 170 175

184 187 188 189 305110 137 256 290110ndash421 206110ndash611 262110ff 139 147 148


277 282 28335 6 22 26435ndash45 6 8 101 102 121 125 126

128 129 131 189ndash197 246 288302ndash305



336 Index locorum




259 261 266 267 287 304 306317 203 211 220 255 260ndash261 265


321b-23 201 202 212 256 264 271275ndash285 288


254 257ndash260 267 271 273ndash275284 285 287



Index locorum 337






Galatians29 253218 24649 256

338 Index locorum

63 26764 265


Philippians17 14234 267320 34 103321 290

Colossians16 7 14216 8 144110ff 144

1 Thessalonians15 142213 142511 246

2 Thessalonians13 142110 180213 142

1 Timothy26 180

2 Timothy18 180212 140



126 66239100 2










10394 23110114 65


426E 292498E-F 213 229





20 279463 279


Index locorum 339












185 22374 218 297







340 Index locorum











1121 165384 213 165










84ndash10 247117ndash8 247


CD-A 319 (=4Q269 2) 247Jubilees 247






Index locorum 341












491 17544 18





147 156on 1 Cor 35ndash45 199 200 202 211



342 Index locorum

SUBJECT INDEX



















Aquila 86 87 88 100 264
















Carthage 1 53 54 73 82Cephas 208 211 263

343












































344 Subject index











206ndash209 212 253 259 274 275 284305



























Subject index 345
























assembly 132 258




scholarship 4 84 108 199 205 254295



179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276













173ndash175



346 Subject index























Corinth and 259


189ndash196














scholarship 4 84 108 199 205254 295




Subject index 347






















Pompei 49


honoring 143 148 152ndash156 167173 188






















Sosthenes 86 87

348 Subject index







179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276










144ndash146 148 172 176ndash179 184


and 199 206ndash209 212 253 259 274275 284 305


















Subject index 349

MODERN AUTHOR INDEX






Eger Otto 204ndash205 212 213 216217 220









Kuck D W 205ndash208 209 254 273274 286

Kurzon D 112


350



Nongbri B 193








Urdahl L B 95






Cover

Half-title page

Series page

Title page

Copyright page

Contents

Figures

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations








213Law and Life

2113Lawrsquos Leben












3813Conclusion





4413Conclusion






5513Conclusion








6613Conclusion












71013Conclusion



Bibliography

Index Locorum

Subject index

Modern Author Index


MONOGRAPH SERIES



























Volume 163













ISBN 978-1-107-08848-1 Hardback


CONTENTS








vii










viii Contents

FIGURES


ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS






xi



xii Acknowledgments

ABBREVIATIONS








xiii














1961
































Constituted Colony





1












Argument and Aims

























Methodology





Scope and Structure














PART I


1

PAUL AND POLITICS




1 Cf Bitner (2014b)

13














































Heinrici (1880)




















































































1221 Applying Paul











1222 Resisting Paul























80 Metso (2008)81 Cotton (2003)









































































121 Walters (2010 343)122 Winter (2001)




2

LAW AND LIFE


21 Lawrsquos Leben



44





Law and life 45
















Law and life 47















Law and life 49








21 Crook (1996 34)22 Meyer (2004 3)

Law and life 51

3



Ando (2007 432)






52












Urso

CarthageCorinth












































B (R) C D (S T) E (F)

424140393837363534333231302928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321















36 Stylow (1997 45)






































Tablet Chaptersa







Ch 20 elections










Table 1 (cont)

Tablet Chaptersa


















Table 1 (cont)

Tablet Chaptersa












Tablet Chapters












Table 2 (cont)

Tablet Chapters











Table 2 (cont)

Tablet Chapters










































0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40































97 Torelli (2001)

















38 Conclusion









4





84





411 Philo
















14 Acts 188




































(2013a)











48 Eg Adams (2000 10)



















































































44 Conclusion





















5






106




























































source Politeia




















































Translation38











the contract






























526 Summary























see Grant (1963)






































534 Summary








541 Roman Corinth






























544 Summary







55 Conclusion



PART II


6










137


























































































































mative feature











































98 Millis (2014)








































































































625 Summary






























































meetings























































66 Conclusion
















227 Mitchell (1991 107ndash11 195 217)





























































7




1 Cor 37c




197
















































































63 Kuck (1992 170 n97)





















































































minor modifications





























(ll 33ndash9)















(ll 130ndash3)


























139 Crawford (1995 421)










(JRS 1986)
























































Rust 513


































p(robavit)











p(robavit)















Iversen B




Iversen C






743 Summary





















Jer 110 (LXX) 2 Cor 108 2 Cor 1310



















































Summary





































































(2010 5)278 Colet (1985 112ndash13)















(2011 208ndash30)



















304 Ker (2000 91ndash3)305 Weiss (1910 78)



















brotherrdquo





















329 Dahl (1967 324ndash5)












333 Kuck (1992 170ndash86)










335 Weiss (1910 100) Fee (1987 156)336 Kuck (1992 155)








126ndash44)











the one whowaters









345 Clarke (1993 119)

























































710 Conclusion













































































































Conclusion














302























BIBLIOGRAPHY

















309























310 Bibliography


















Bibliography 311























312 Bibliography




















Bibliography 313




















314 Bibliography



















Bibliography 315




















316 Bibliography



















Bibliography 317























318 Bibliography



















Bibliography 319






















320 Bibliography





















Bibliography 321























322 Bibliography























Bibliography 323























324 Bibliography




















Bibliography 325




















326 Bibliography





















Bibliography 327
























328 Bibliography





















Bibliography 329






















330 Bibliography




















Bibliography 331























332 Bibliography












Bibliography 333

INDEX LOCORUM










335





199 209 212 259 284 302 304305

15 181 25615 6 18316 5 8 138 140 142 145 146 156

179 183 185 188 196 275 284304

16 8 110 116 120 138ndash146 148176ndash179 184

17 147 186 25617ndash8 184 186 189 211 257 275 28717ndash9 28718 138 147 186 187 188 285 30519 5 105 138 140 147 148 170 175

184 187 188 189 305110 137 256 290110ndash421 206110ndash611 262110ff 139 147 148


277 282 28335 6 22 26435ndash45 6 8 101 102 121 125 126

128 129 131 189ndash197 246 288302ndash305



336 Index locorum




259 261 266 267 287 304 306317 203 211 220 255 260ndash261 265


321b-23 201 202 212 256 264 271275ndash285 288


254 257ndash260 267 271 273ndash275284 285 287



Index locorum 337






Galatians29 253218 24649 256

338 Index locorum

63 26764 265


Philippians17 14234 267320 34 103321 290

Colossians16 7 14216 8 144110ff 144

1 Thessalonians15 142213 142511 246

2 Thessalonians13 142110 180213 142

1 Timothy26 180

2 Timothy18 180212 140



126 66239100 2










10394 23110114 65


426E 292498E-F 213 229





20 279463 279


Index locorum 339












185 22374 218 297







340 Index locorum











1121 165384 213 165










84ndash10 247117ndash8 247


CD-A 319 (=4Q269 2) 247Jubilees 247






Index locorum 341












491 17544 18





147 156on 1 Cor 35ndash45 199 200 202 211



342 Index locorum

SUBJECT INDEX



















Aquila 86 87 88 100 264
















Carthage 1 53 54 73 82Cephas 208 211 263

343












































344 Subject index











206ndash209 212 253 259 274 275 284305



























Subject index 345
























assembly 132 258




scholarship 4 84 108 199 205 254295



179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276













173ndash175



346 Subject index























Corinth and 259


189ndash196














scholarship 4 84 108 199 205254 295




Subject index 347






















Pompei 49


honoring 143 148 152ndash156 167173 188






















Sosthenes 86 87

348 Subject index







179 182ndash183 185 188 247 259 272275 276










144ndash146 148 172 176ndash179 184


and 199 206ndash209 212 253 259 274275 284 305


















Subject index 349

MODERN AUTHOR INDEX






Eger Otto 204ndash205 212 213 216217 220









Kuck D W 205ndash208 209 254 273274 286

Kurzon D 112


350



Nongbri B 193








Urdahl L B 95






Cover

Half-title page

Series page

Title page

Copyright page

Contents

Figures

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations








213Law and Life

2113Lawrsquos Leben












3813Conclusion





4413Conclusion






5513Conclusion








6613Conclusion












71013Conclusion



Bibliography

Index Locorum

Subject index

Modern Author Index