1 cor 2.6-16 - a non-pauline interpolation

7/30/2019 1 Cor 2.6-16 - A Non-Pauline Interpolation

1/21

[JSNT47 (1992) 75-94]

1 CORINTHIANS 2.6-16:

A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION?

William O. Walker, Jr

TrinityUniversity, San Antonio

Texas 78212, USA

Introduction

Commentators have often noted that 1 Cor. 2.6-16 'stands out from its

context both in style and in content'.1

Thus, it is not surprising that theauthenticity of the passage has been questioned. In a 1979 article

M. Widmann argues that: (1) numerous linguistic peculiarities ser

iously call into question Pauline authorship; (2) the passage contradicts

what Paul says elsewhere; (3) the consistent use of 'we' and other

features distinguish 2.6-16 form-critically from its immediate context;

and (4) the presence of the passage in 1 Corinthians can plausibly be

explained as an attempt by Corinthian 'pneumatics' to correct what

they saw as Paul's distortion of their position.2

J. Murphy-O'Connor, however, has examined Widmann's argu

ments and found them inconclusive.3

Acknowledging that the exegesis

of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is perhaps more complicated than that of any other

suspected interpolation in 1 Corinthians, he concludes that 'Widmann's

proposal is a possible explanation of the particularities of 2.6-16' but

is 'less probable than the alternative hypothesis that Paul has taken


2/21

76 Journal for the Study of the New Testament47 (1992)

over the ideas and terms of his opponents'4a view advocated, in

fact, by most commentators.5

In contrast to both Widmann and Murphy-O'Connor, E.E. Ellis

suggests that the passage, 'which has the literary form of a midrash or

exposition of Scripture, probably was created within a (Pauline)

group of pneumatics prior to its use' in 1 Corinthians. Ellis cites as

evidence of non-Pauline origin:

(1) the shift from the singular. . .to the plural with the 'we' , i.e. the

pneumatics as the subject. . . (2) the unity ofthe section independent of

its context, and (3) the considerable number ofphrases not found elsewhere in the Pauline literature.6

On the basis of such evidence, he concludes that 'on balance, 1 Cor.

2.6-16 is probably a pre-formed piece that Paul has employed and

adapted to its present context'.7

Three possible explanations of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 thus emerge:8

(1) it

4. Murphy-O'Connor, 'Interpolations in1

Corinthians', p. 83.5. See, e.g., G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 100.

6. E.E. Ellis, '"Spiritual" Gifts in the Pauline Community', NTS 20 (1974),

pp. 128-44 (130). Non-Pauline phrases include: 'rulers ofthis age', 'before the

ages', 'the spirit of the cosmos', and 'the spirit that is from God'. For a fuller

exposition, see E.E. Ellis, 'Traditions in 1 Corinthians', NTS 32 (1986), pp. 481-

502 and esp. p. 490.

7. Ellis, 'Traditions in 1 Corinthians', p. 490. Apparently, his principal reason

for viewing this passage (and others) as 'tradition' rather than 'interpolation' is theabsence ofany direct text-critical evidence for interpolation; see his 'The Silenced

Wives ofCorinth (1 Cor. 14.34-5)', in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (eds.), New

Testament TextualCriticism: ItsSignificance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour ofBruce M. Metzger(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 220; and idem, 'Traditions

in 1 Corinthians', pp. 488, 498 n. 58; cf. also, e.g., F.W. Wisse, 'Textual Limits

to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus', in J.E. Goehring etal. (eds.), Gospel

Origins andChristian Beginnings: In Honor ofJames M. Robinson (ForumFascicles, 1; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), pp. 167-78

8. Not included in this study are treatments such as those of G. Theissen

(PsychologicalAspects ofPauline Theology [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987],


3/21

WALKER 1 Corinthians 2.6-16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation! 11

was composed by Paul, using ideas and terminology taken from his

opponents, (2) it was composed by someone other than Paul but wasincorporated into the letter by Paul, or (3) it is a non-Pauline interpo

lation, both written by someone other than Paul and interpolated into

the letter by someone other than Paul.

My own judgment is that Widmann is correct in regarding

1 Cor. 2.6-16 as a non-Pauline interpolation. I believe, however, that

his hypothesis can be strengthened both by detaching it from his

reconstruction of the history of the Corinthian correspondence and by

adducing additional arguments for non-Pauline authorship. Moreover,I believe that some, at least, of Murphy-O'Connor's critique of

Widmann's hypothesis can be rebutted. In what follows, therefore, I

shall argue that the passage is in fact a non-Pauline interpolation. In

the process I shall also take into account the opposing arguments of

Murphy-O'Connor and others.

Historical Considerations

Two matters call for preliminary consideration. The first relates to

the history of the Corinthian correspondence. Murphy-0'Connor,

after finding Widmann's form-critical, linguistic and ideational argu

ments for non-Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 inconclusive, sug

gests that in the final analysis the interpolation hypothesis stands or

expressed in clear language rather than being communicated in glossolalie sounds'(p. 343). Gillespie maintains that 'the unlabeled subject matter' of 1Cor. 2.6-16 is'early Christian prophecy' and that 'the function of such prophecy was theinterpretation of the apostolic kerygma'; cf. also G. Dautzenberg, 'Botschaft undBedeutung der urchristlichen Prophtie nach dem ersten Korintherbrief (2.6-16, 12-14)', in J. Panagopoulos (ed.), Prophetic Vocation in the New Testament and Today(Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 131-61. My own judgment is that the arguments ofTheissen and Gillespie, even if substantially correct, provide little positive support

for Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 2.6-16. Gillespie begs the question by simplyassuming Pauline authorship, while Theissen (p. 349 n. 7) rejects both Widmann'sinterpolation hypothesis and 'assumption of a pre Pauline source that Paul is said to


4/21

78 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992)

falls with 'Widmann's explanation of how the interpolation came to be

part of 1 Corinthians': 'If [this explanation] should prove to be

unsatisfactory, his hypothesis must be declared unacceptable'.9

To some extent, following reconstructions proposed by W. Schenk

and W. Schmithals,10

Widmann finds traces of seven different letters

in 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 'Letter B2',11

Paul defines true wisdom in

such a manner as to suggest that the wisdom of the Corinthian

pneumatics is inauthentic; they, in turn, add 2.6-16 to Paul's

correspondence as a corrective.12

Murphy-O'Connor's rejoinder is

that 'no convincing arguments have ever been put forward that wouldjustify the dismemberment of 1 Corinthians' and that 'Widmann's

explanation of how the interpolation took place is [therefore] utterly

implausible'. In addition, Murphy-O'Connor also finds it highly

unlikely that such an interpolation would have been 'retained when, in

[Widmann's] hypothesis, the various letters were collected into what

we now know as 1-2 Corinthians'.13

I believe that it is helpful, insofar as it is possible, to identify the

occasion, situation or circumstances behind the writing and/or addi

tion of a particular passage suspected of being an interpolation; more

over, I regard an exploration of possible motive and opportunity for

interpolation as appropriate. Motive and opportunity generally remain

elusive, however, and judgments regarding such matters are necessar

ily speculative.14

Various scholars have questioned the integrity of

1 Corinthians,15

but the very multiplicity and mutual incompatibility

9. Murphy-O'Connor, 'Interpolations in 1 Corinthians', p. 83.10. W. Schenk, 'Der 1. Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung', ZNW60 (1969),

pp. 219-43; W. Schmithals, 'Die Korintherbrief e als Briefsammlung', ZNW64(1973), pp. 263-88; idem, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation ofthe Letterstothe Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 87-101.

11. 1 Cor. 1.1-2.5; 3.1-4.21; 2 Cor. 10-13.12. Widmann, Kor2 6-16', pp. 50-52.

13. Murphy-O'Connor, 'Interpolations in 1 Corinthians', p. 84.14. See, e.g., W. Munro, Authority in Pauland Peter: The Identification ofaPastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (SNTSMS 45; Cambridge:


5/21

WALKER I Corinthians2.6-16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation! 79

of the proposed reconstructions make it extremely problematic, in my

judgment, to base a theory of interpolation upon any such reconstruction. Interpolation theories must be supported primarily on other

grounds.16

Indeed, even when the presence of an interpolation is

virtually certain,17

it is impossible to know the circumstances under

which it became a part of the text.18

My own guess is that 1 Cor. 2.6-

16 would most likely have been added after Paul's death, when the

prevalence and popularityof Gnostic-like notions of 'wisdom' made it

desirable (at least to someone) to bring Paul into the fold of the

. Nevertheless, I agree with Murphy-O'Connor thatWidmann's proposed explanation (or any other) of how the interpola

tion came about lends little if any positive support to his interpolation

hypothesis.

Text-Critical Considerations

A second preliminarymatter has to do with textual criticism. On the

face of it, text-critical evidence would appear to constitute the mostcogent basis for any interpolation hypothesis.

19In principle text-criti

cal evidence for interpolation might be of two types, direct and indi

rect.20

The absence of a passage from one or more of the manuscripts,

particularly early manuscripts, and/or its inclusion at different places

in various manuscripts may constitute direct text-critical evidence for

16. W. Munro ('Interpolation in the Epistles', p. 440) distinguishes between

'initial indicators' of interpolation (direct textual, ideological, stylisticAinguistic andcontextual features, plus literary dependence) and 'confirming factors' (literary/

historical coherence, omission in external attestation, and 'the essential confirming

factors ofcontextual and historical plausibility'). She also speaks (p. 434) of 'the

essential components of opportunity and motive' (see also her Authority in PaulandPeter, pp. 131-47). It is clear, however, that Munro regards such items as

'opportunity', 'motive', and 'contextual and historical plausibility', as 'confirming

factors' that 'generally only carry weight if there are other good reasons to think a

passage may be interpolated' (p. 440).

17. E.g., in the case ofJn 7.53-8.11 (not, ofcourse, in the Pauline corpus).18. See, e.g., W.O. Walker, Jr, 'The Burden of Proof in Identifying Inter


6/21

80 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament47 (1992)

interpolation. So far as I can ascertain, however, such direct text-

critical evidence does not exist with regard to 1 Cor. 2.6-16.

Indirect text-critical evidence might be of two types: (1) more or

less insignificant textual variants in the material immediately preced

ing and/or following a passage or (2) the failure of an early church

writer (particularly one from the third century or before) to refer to

a passage at a place where the subject matter, point of view and

perhaps use of other related passages would appear to call for such a

reference. The former suggests the possibility of attempts by different

scribes to smooth out otherwise awkward transitions between originaland interpolated materials; the latter that the passage in question was

unknown to one or more early church writers (presumably because it

was absent from their texts).21

As in the case of direct text-critical

evidence, however, such indirect text-critical evidence appears to be

missing with regard to 1 Cor. 2.6-16. The only significant textual

variants immediately before or after the passage are in v. 4, and it

would be difficult to find here any positive support for a theory of

interpolation.22 As regards the use of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 by early churchwriters, this is a question yet to be explored in any detail so far as I

am aware.23

In short, there appears to be no direct and, at the

moment, little, if any, indirect text-critical evidence for regarding 1

Cor. 2.6-16 as an interpolation.

I note, however, that 'the absence of text-critical evidence for inter

polation must be seen as precisely what it is: the absence of evidence'.24

The earliest extant manuscripts of Paul's letters date from the late

21 . These types of indirect text-critical evidence should be considered significant,

of course, only where there is strong additional evidence for interpolation. The

second type requires an argument from silence, and the first may overlook a digres

sion on the part of the author, the author's own abruptness of style, or the author's

use of 'traditional' material as the reason for a 'rough transition'.

22. For discussions see, e.g., B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the

GreekNew Testament(London: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 546; Conzelmann,

1 Corinthians pp 54-55; and Fee The First Epistle to the Corinthians p 88 n 2


7/21

WALKER 1 Corinthians2.6-16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation! 81

second century, and it is clear that they represent edited versions.25

We have little evidence regarding the texts prior to this time. It is pre

cisely during this earlier period, however, that interpolations would

most likely have been introduced. Thus, if there are compelling other

reasons for regarding 1 Cor. 2.6-16 as an interpolation, the absence of

text-critical evidence should not be allowed to decide the issue.26

ContextualConsiderations

I turn now to a consideration of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 itself. The mostobvious indication that the passage may be an interpolation is the

abrupt shift at v. 6 from singular ( T ) to plural ('we'), from aorist to

present tense27

and from autobiographical reminiscence to timeless

propositions. Furthermore, the passage forms a complete, self-

contained unitwhat H. Conzelmann calls 'a commonplace of

"wisdom"'.28

Thus, as Widmann notes, 2.6-16 is to be regarded on

form-critical grounds as representing a quite different literary genre

from that of its immediate context (2.1-5; 3.1-4).29 The immediatelypreceding and following verses (2.1-5 and 3.1-4) represent 'the living

forms of an epistolary discourse with the Corinthian community'. On

the contrary, 2.6-16 consists of 'the a-historical assertions of the "we"

about their pneumatic status'. Indeed, Widmann suggests that 'the self-

affirmations of the pneumatics [in 2.6-16] belong to the same type of

pneumatic eulogy with which 1 John debates'.30

In short, the smoothly

connected autobiographical summary of 2.1-5, 3.1-4 is interrupted by

2.6-16 with its panegyric to Wisdom and its possessors.

Murphy-O'Connor acknowledges in principle the validity of

Widmann's observation but insists that 'in itself it proves nothing'.

Focusing only on 'the switch from the singular to the plural and back

25. See, e.g., L.E. Keck, PaulandhisLetters(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2nd

edn, 1988), pp. 16-19.

26. Walker, 'Text-Critical Evidence for Interpolations in the Letters ofPaul',pp. 629-30. Note, however, F.W. Wisse's strong insistence to the contrary('Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in thePauline Corpus' p 178)


8/21

82 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament Al (1992)

again', Murphy-O'Connor maintains that the same phenomenon is

manifest in 1.18-25 and that in both cases there is 'a very natural

explanation' for 'the switch': Paul 'uses the singular when it is a ques

tion of his personal experience (2.1-5) and judgment (3.1-4)' and the

plural when he wishes 'to associate himself with Apollos, who had

been set over against him by those who thought of themselves as a

spiritual elite () ' . In support of this view, Murphy-

O'Connorcites the use of the plural (referring to Paul and Apollos) in

3.5-9.31

I note, however, that 'the switch from the singular to the

plural and back again' is really not at all parallel at the three pointsmentioned by Murphy-O'Connor. In the cases of 1.18-3132

and 3.5-9,

there is an obvious reason for the change, and, at least in 3.5-9, the

identity of the 'we' is clear. Paul begins the account of his first visit to

Corinth at 1.14, using the first person singular. The account continues

through 1.17, where it is interrupted by a discussion of Christ as the

wisdom and power of God (1.18-31); here, the first person plural

appears (1.23), apparently to distinguish Paul and his fellow Christian

preachers from 'Jews and Greeks'. At 2.1, Paul resumes the accountof his visit and, accordingly, returns to the first person singular. If

2.6-16 is an interpolation, the autobiographical account continues in

the first person singular at 3.1, shifting momentarily to the plural at

3.9 because here Paul speaks of both himself and Apollos, but

returning to the singular at 3.10 in order to distinguish Paul from

Apollos and other leaders.33

In 2.6-16, however, the 'we' is

completely anonymous,34

and there is no apparent reason for the

change to the plural (Paul quite naturally could have continued in v. 6

with 'among the mature / impart wisdom... ' ). Thus, I do not regard

Murphy-O'Connor's argument regarding the shift from singular to

plural as valid. Moreover, as already indicated, Murphy-O'Connor

ignores the corresponding shift from aorist to present tense.

There are, however, other considerations of a contextual nature

suggesting that 1 Cor. 2.6-16 may be an interpolation. In principle,

31 Murphy-O'Connor 'Interpolations in 1 Corinthians' p 82; cf M Carrez


9/21


the most obvious such indication might be a clear interruption of

the subject matter of the text.35

'Wisdom', however is a major theme

in 1 Corinthians from 1.17 at least through 3.23,36

including 2.6-16.

Nevertheless, the latter passage does, in significant ways, interrupt the

train of thought of its immediate context. Specific linguistic and

ideational differences between 2.6-16 and the surrounding material

and they are both numerous and significantwill be treated below. At

this point, however, it should be noted that the removal of 2.6-16

leaves a smoothly connected passage (2.1-5; 3.1-4) dealing with Paul's

initial visit to the Corinthians and emphasizing both his own'weakness' (2.1-5) and the 'fleshly' nature of his hearers (3.1-4). The

passage is interrupted, however by

an exposition of the exalted status and role of the Christian pneumatic as

one who is privyto divine mysteries, a theme that does not appear to have

its genesis in the critique of the Corinthian practices.37

Yet another contextual consideration is suggested by Murphy-

O'Connor's view that in 1 Cor. 2.6-16 'Paul deliberately takes overthe terminology and ideas of his adversaries'.38

1 find this viewhighly

problematic. As Conzelmann has noted, the passage, taken on its own

terms, is not really polemical in nature: the 'we' in 2.6-16 are the

pneumatics as opposed to 'the powers of this world' and the non-

pneumatics, and 'the character of direct polemic against the

Corinthians attaches to the "we" only through its being placed between

2.1-5 and 3.Iff.'39

Most translators and commentators, assuming 'an

emphatic antithesis'40

between 2.6-16 and what precedes, render the of v. 6 as 'but' or 'yet' and the as 'we do speak'. Often,

however, means 'and' or functions simply 'as a transitional particle

pure and simple, without any contrast intended';41

moreover,

35. See, e.g., 1 Cor. 14.34-35, which many regard as an interpolation.

36. See, e.g., Conzelmann, 7 Corinthians, p. 57.

37. Ellis, 'Traditions in 1 Corinthians', p. 490. Note again, however, that Ellis

regards 1 Cor. 2.6-16 not as an interpolation but rather as an example of Paul's use

of 'traditional' materials


10/21

84 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992)

would normally be rendered simply as 'we speak' or 'we

are speaking'. Thus, apart from its context, the beginning of 2.6

would be translated in a much more neutral manner: 'And we speak

wisdom among those who are perfect. .. '4 2

If Paul intended the pas

sage to be polemical, one might expect the polemic to be much less

subtle and more explicit and direct.

To carry the point a step further, it is far from clear to me why

Paul would at this point choose to adopt in polemical fashion the

terminology and ideas of 'opponents'. Indeed, he has yet to intimate

that there are any 'opponents' as such. In 1.10-11 he indicates that thesource of the difficulty in Corinth is 'dissensions' or 'quarreling

among you' (not between Paul and his opponents), and he returns to

the same idea at 3.3 ('jealousy and strife among you'). Only at 1.17

does he first suggest that 'wisdom' might be a part of the problem, and

even here there is no mention of 'opponents'.43

Paul's rejection of

'wisdom' maywell be simply the negative aspect of his insistence upon

the gospel of the crucified Christ. Nowhere in 1.10-2.5, 3.14.21,

with the possible exception of 4.8-13,44

does Paul even hint that mereare people in Corinth claiming a superior 'wisdom' that sets them

apart from other Christians. Indeed, I suspect that 1 Corinthians has

too often been read in light of 2 Corinthians and/or that interpretation

of other parts of 1 Corinthians has been unduly influenced by

1 Cor. 2.6-16!4 5

e.g., Fee, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, p. 101 n. 12: 'Gk. , clearly adversative here and thus rightly translated "however" (cf. "yet" in RSV, GNB, NAB)'.

42. Indeed, it is farfrom clear to me that 2.6-16, even in its present context, ispolemical in nature. Ifanything, it is apologetic in tone: far from attacking the'wisdom' claimed byothers, it rather can be seen as insisting that 'we [too] speak

wisdom'. Removed from their present context, however, the verses appear neitherpolemical norapologetic.

43. Translation ofthe phrase is problematic, but it may meannothing more than 'eloquent wisdom' (RSV) or'cleverness in speaking' (BAGD,p. 759), in which case the reference may be simply to Paul's lackofeffectiveness asa speaker (cf 2 1 where and appear to be used virtually synonymously)


11/21


Another contextual consideration is suggested by E. Hirsch's obser

vation that the repetition of a catch-wordor phrase sometimes indi

cates the insertion of redactional material, with the interpolation

either beginning shortly after the first occurrence of the Schlagwort

and running through the second or including the first occurrence and

ending shortly before the second.46

Just such a phenomenon may

occur in the repetitive ,

(2.1). .., (3.1), occurring shortly before and

immediately after 2.6-16. If2.6-16 is an interpolation, the repetition

of and in 3.1 may represent the interpolator's way ofreturning to Paul's autobiographical summary, now interrupted after

2.5 with the insertion of 2.6-16.47

Finally, it is just possible that 3.1 in its entirety represents a scribe's

attempt (or even that of the actual interpolator) to link the interpola

tion (2.6-16) both to what precedes (2.1-5) and to what follows (3.2-

4). The reference to in v. 1 would relate 3.2-4 back to

the interpolation (2.6-16), while the remainder of v. 1 would point

both back to 2.1-5 and forward to 3.2-4. Moreover, if both 2.6-16and 3.1 were removed, 2.1-5, 3.2-4 would perhaps form an even

more smoothlyconnected, coherent unit than would be the case if only

2.6-16 were removed.

In short, appeal can be made to at least four, and possibly as many

as six, contextual considerations to support the view that 1 Cor. 2.6-16

is an interpolation:

1. The shift from singular to plural number.2. The shift from aorist to present tense.

1 Corinthians may be misguided'indeed, that '[t]he situation reflected in the letter

seems to be more complicated, involving not simply Paul against Corinthians, but

Corinthians one against the other' (p. 116); see also on p. 119: 'Investigation ofthe

problems of 1 Corinthians should be restricted to the text of1 Corinthians'.

46. E. Hirsch, 'Stilkritik und Literaranalyse im vierten Evangelium', ZNW43(1950-51), pp. 129-43; cf. R.T. Fortna, The Gospel ofSigns: A Reconstruction of

th N ti S U d l i th F th G l (SNTSMS 11 C b id


12/21


3. The interruption of the autobiographical material with a

timeless panegyric to Wisdom.

4. The lack of evidence for the view that 2.6-16 represents

Paul's polemical use of the terminology and ideas of his

opponents.

5. The possibility that the repetition in 3.1 of the and

in 2.1 suggests the presence of intrusive material

and an attempt in 3.1 to pick up again the threads of 2.1-5.

6. The possibility that 3.1 in its entirety may represent a

secondary link between 2.1-5 and 3.2-4.

Thus, on what he terms 'form-critical' grounds and what I have called

'contextual considerations', I agree with Widmann that 1 Cor. 2.6-16

appears to be an interpolation.48

Linguistic Considerations

Further support for regarding 1 Cor. 2.2-16 as an interpolation isbased on linguistic peculiarities of the passage. Most of these have

been set forth by Ellis and Widmann. Ellis notes the following phrases

not found elsewhere in Paul's letters:

(. 6, 8), (. 7),

(. 8), (. 11),

(. 12), (. 12),

(v. 14),49

and .5 0

To these can be added

(v. 6) and (. 10). Ellis also notes one word notfound elsewhere in Paul's letters: (v. 13);

51another is the

adverb (v. 14).52

48. It is true, ofcourse, that there is some verbal, ideational and perhaps evenstructural overlap between 2.6-16 and its context. Such overlap maywell saymoreabout whythe interpolation appears at this particular point in 1 Corinthians (i.e.,

some congruence in subject matter and terminology) and/orreasons forthe content ofthe interpolation than about any original relation between the passages.49 Cf 'old h man' in Rom 6 6; Eph 4 22; Col 3 9


13/21

WALKER I Corinthians 2.6-16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation! 87

Widmann notes a number of 'linguistic, terminological peculiarities

in the passage, which', in his judgment, 'allow one to suspect non-

Pauline authorship'.53

These include:

1. Use of 'solemn mystery-language' to characterize Christian

proclamation54

rather than Paul's usual kerygmatic, eschato-

logical terminology.

2. Portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion not in kerygmatic terms but

rather as a crime perpetrated by

(v. 8).

3. Reference to political or demonic authorities as

(v. 8).

4. Use of as a title for Christ (v. 8).

5. Presence of an Apocryphal citation (v. 9).55

6. 'Completely unique development of the word-group ,

', in which serves not, as for Paul, 'as

a designation for the heilsgeschichtlich presence of Christ in

the community' but rather 'as organ of knowledge and. . .as

divine self-consciousness' (vv. 10-15).

7. Non-Pauline use of 'the dualistic anthropological conceptual

pair Psychic-Pneumatic, originating from Gnostic speech',

to differentiate humankind into two classes of people

(vv. 14-15).56

8. 'Further development of the pneumatic-language' along non-

Pauline lines with 'the proud, self-confident statement:

' (. 16), in which 'mind of Christ'is used as a synonym for 'Spirit'.

57

as an 'assimilation to v. 14' (1 Corinthians, p. 67 n. 112). Otherwise, occurs onlyat Rev. 11.8 in the NT.

53. Widmann, Kor 2 6-16', pp. 46-48.54. For fuller treatment of this feature, see, e.g., Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians,

pp. 57-62.55. It is not completely clear that v. 9 is an Apocryphal citation. See, e.g.,

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp. 63-64. In any case, Widmann also regards 1 Cor.


14/21

88 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament Al (1992)

Murphy-O'Connor acknowledges that the evidence cited by

Widmann 'is compatible with' the interpolation hypothesis. Insisting,

however, that 'evidence which fits' must be distinguished from

'evidence which proves',58

he maintains that it is precisely these

linguistic data 'which have given rise to the current hypothesis that

Paul deliberately takes over the terminology and ideas of his adver

saries'. Thus, in his judgment, Widmann's 'list of unique features does

not constitute a valid argument'. Murphy-O'Connor also asserts, pace

Widmann, that it is possible, primarily from Paul's own terminology

in the passage, 'to propose a plausible reconstruction of the positionthat Paul is arguing against in 2.6-16'.

59

Contrary to Murphy-O'Connor, I believe that the linguistic data

weigh heavily against Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 2.6-16. In the first

place, without providing a detailed analysis of specific linguistic

features cited by Widmann, Murphy-O'Connor simply asserts that the

evidence is compatible with both hypotheses regarding the origin of

the passage. It is by no means clear just what degree of significance he

attaches to each of the various items. My own judgment is that the linguistic data are more nearly compatible with the interpolation

hypothesis than with the opposing view (for example, the presence,

within the scope of only eleven versesa total of barely over 200

wordsof two words and at least nine phrases not found elsewhere in

the authentic Pauline letters surely cannot be disregarded). Indeed, it

is precisely such linguistic data that Ellis cites as one of his principal

arguments for non-Pauline (pre-Pauline) authorship of the passage.60

In the second place, Murphy-O'Connor considers the linguistic data

in isolation from contextual and ideational considerations. As will be

noted below, arguments for interpolation are inevitably cumulative in

nature. No single argument can be taken as conclusive. When viewed

in the light of these other considerations, the linguistic data become

even more important.

In the third place, quite apart from Widmann's 'list of unique

features', Ellis has cited a number of other linguistic data that, in myjudgment, call into serious question the Pauline authorship of 1 Cor.


15/21


2.6-16 (I have added several more).61 Murphy-O'Connor does notdeal with most of these data at all.

Finally, it must be noted that much of the terminology (as well asmuch of the ideational content) in 2.6-16 is remarkably similar towhat is found later in Gnosticism (see further below).62

In short, I believe that the linguistic data, particularly when viewedin the light of other considerations, constitute a strong argumentagainst Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 2.6-16.

IdeationalConsiderations

Thus far, the evidence appears to indicate a non-Pauline origin of1 Cor. 2.6-16 but not necessarily that the passage is a later interpolation (note Ellis's view that it is a /?re-Pauline piece used by Paul).Even scholars who maintain Pauline authorship, however, have notedsignificant differences between the thought world of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 andthat reflected elsewhere in the authentic Pauline letters (including

1 Corinthians). Thus, Schmithals notes thatthere suddenly appears [in 1 Cor. 2.6-3.1] a doctrine of wisdom whichformally, at any rateis genuinely Gnostic and against which in thepreceding section Paul emphatically set himself.

Indeed, 'what is found in 2.6-3.1 could be the precise exposition of aGnostic'.63 Similarly, H. Conzelmann speaks of

a contradiction ofhisprevious statements when Paul now announces after

all a positive, undialectical possibility of cultivating a wisdom of the'perfect'.

Further, Conzelmann observes that 'the esoterism put forward in this

section' is 'the only instance of its kind in Paul'.64

61. See above.62. See, e.g., Conzelmann, / Corinthians, pp. 57-69.63 W Schmithals Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the


16/21


Supporting his interpolation hypothesis, Widmann cites eight signifi

cant ideational differences between 1 Cor. 2.6-16 and its immediate

contextdifferences reflecting such antithetical world-views as to

seriously undermine any claim that Paul was responsible for the

presence of the passage in 1 Corinthians:

1. Christian speech is viewed as the mysterious hidden divine

Wisdom or 'the deep things ofGod' rather than as the openly

proclaimed word of the cross.

2. Crucifixion is seen as an act committed in ignorance by

'archons of this aeon' rather than as the 'ground of salvationestablished by God in Christ'.

3. A positive evaluation of wisdom is made ratherthan rejecting

wisdom and, paradoxically, identifying the preaching of the

cross as wisdom.

4. The maturity of pneumatics is exalted rather than such

'maturity' being depicted as arrogance and the inferior posi

tion and earthly weakness of both preachers and members of

the community being emphasized.

5. A distinction between psychics and pneumatics is made, both

with predetermined destinies, rather than between Jews and

Greeks, both with equal need of and access to salvation in

Christ.

6. An elaborate understanding is shown of the Spirit as the

means of access to 'the depths of God' and supernatural wis

dom rather than more primitively as the 'strange miraculouspower' and eschatological gift working in the 'difficult,

weak, all-too-human task of mission' and the 'daily practice

of faith'.

7. Preaching is understood as 'esoteric mystery-speech' rather

than as the community's intelligible human 'missionary and

catechetical work'.

8. An attitude of 'superiority over all criticism' is displayed

rather than the realization of being weak, fearful, earthlybeings, far from self-honor, far from the goal, and


17/21

WALKER 1 Corinthians2.6-16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation! 91

Murphy-O'Connor rejects Widmann's 'second line of argument'

(the ideational), as 'specious, because ofthe eight points [Widmann]mentions only one is not a variant ofthose listed in his first argument'

(the linguistic). In addition, Murphy-O'Connor claims that Paul at

certain points, 'with tongue in cheek, is merely appropriating the

formulae ofhis adversaries' (e.g. 'the idea that the .. .is

immune from criticism') and that 'there is no real contradiction

between the cross as related to men in 2.8 and the cross as related to

the will ofGod in 1.18-25'. He concludes, therefore, that 'Widmann's

second line ofargument.. .fails to strengthen his position'.66

It is true, ofcourse, that the linguistic and ideational data of1 Cor.

2.6-16 overlap to a considerable extent (ideas can only be expressed in

words!) Nevertheless, I believe that Murphy-O'Connor has failed to

do justice to the full range ofthe ideational data cited byWidmann. In

the first place, as already noted, he does not provide a detailed analysis

of the linguistic data, simply asserting that they are compatible both

with the interpolation hypothesis and with the view that Paul has

adopted the terminology and ideas ofhis opponents. Thus, because he

essentially equates Widmann's ideational data with his linguistic data,

his rejection of the former carries no more weight than does his

rejection ofthe latter.

In the second place, Murphy-O'Connor fails to explain why,

throughout an entire passage ofeleven verses, Paul would employ

both terminology and ideas that appear to be contradictory to his

views as expressed elsewhere (particularly immediately preceding andfollowing the passage). The only argument cited by Murphy-

O'Connor supporting Paul's use ofideas and terms taken from oppo

nents67

is 'the presence ofthe same phenomenon in the discussion con

cerning meat offered to idols (chs. 8-10)'.68

The latter passage

(1 Cor. 8-10), however, is not really analogous in this respect.

1 Cor. 2.2-16, in itsentirety, appears to contradict Paul's views as

66. Murphy-O'Connor, interpolations in 1 Corinthians', p. 83.

67 . A n alternative suggestion is that


18/21

92 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament Al (1992)

expressed immediately preceding and following in the same letter. In

chs. 8-10, on the other hand, we find a dialectic in which Paul

apparently quotes from his opponents and then comments upon or

amplifies the quotations in such a way as to correct the opponents and

thus make clear his own views regarding the matters at hand. To be

sure, there are difficulties of interpretation in chs. 8-10, not to

mention questions regarding the integrity of the section,69 but neither

the chapters as a whole nor individual units within the chapters can, in

my judgment, be regarded as reflecting sustained use of language or

ideology of Paul's opponents with which he himself disagrees.A final point regarding ideational considerations in 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is

suggested by Conzelmann, who notes that the passage contains 'traces

of a certain theological schema, the "revelation schema": the "mystery"

had been decreed by God from eternal ages, but remained hidden, and

now is revealed'. According to Conzelmann, this schema, 'in its estab

lished form', first is found in the deutero-Pauline epistles 'and their

neighborhood'.70 Arguing that the schema 'is not gnostically conceived'

and that it 'evolved within the internal life of the Pauline school',Conzelmann then suggests that 'Paul himself is here [in 1 Cor. 2.6-16]

developing the beginnings of the schema which was then further

developed by his disciples'.71 My own judgment is that Conzelmann's

earlier point should be pursued to its logical conclusion: with only two

possible exceptions, the schema appears only in the deutero-Pauline,

never in the Pauline, writings. The two possible exceptions are Rom.

16.25-27 (widely regarded as an interpolation)72 and 1 Cor. 2.6-16 (the

passage under present consideration). I regard this as a strong indication of non-Pauline, and indeed post-Pauline, authorship of the latter.73

69. See, most recently, L. Cope, 'First Corinthians 8-10: Continuity or

Contradiction?', ATR supp. 11 (1990), pp. 114-23. Cope argues that 1 Cor. 10.1-

22 is a non-Pauline interpolation designed to bring Paul into line with the view of

later Christians.

70. See Col. 1.26-27; Eph. 3.5, 9-10; 2 Tim. 1.9-10; Tit. 1.2-3; 1 Pet. 1.20; and

Rom. 16.25-27 (almost certainly an interpolation; see, e.g., E. Ksemann,Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], pp. 421-28).


19/21


In short, it is my judgment that the ideational content of 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is so significantly different fromand indeed contradictory toPaul's views as expressed elsewhere in the authentic letters (and particularly in 1 Corinthians) as to make Pauline authorship or Paulineresponsibility for the presence of the passage in 1 Corinthians highlyunlikely.

Conclusion

Murphy-O'Connor is surely correct in his view that 'evidence whichfits' is not necessarily the same as 'evidence which proves'.74 'Proof,however, is rarely if ever possible in matters of literary judgment. Inthe case of interpolation theories, various types of arguments can beadvanced, each of which involves certain problems, such as the dangerof circular reasoning. Thus, no argument 'can stand by itself.Different kinds of criteria must be used to 'correct and complementeach other'. 'It is a matter of taking into account the cumulative effect

of converging lines of evidence'.75

The crucial question must alwaysbe: in which direction does the cumulative preponderance of theevidence point?

It appears to me that Murphy-O'Connor proceeds in atomisticfashion in his critique of Widmann. First, after examining only one ofits features, he rejects Widmann's form-critical argument; secondly,without subjecting them to a detailed analysis, he asserts thatWidmann's linguistic data are less than conclusive; thirdly, he dis

misses Widmann's summary of ideational contradictions between 2.6-16 and the remainder of 1 Corinthians on the grounds that it represents essentially a repetition of the linguistic data; finally, he rejectsWidmann's reconstruction of the history of the Corinthian correspondence. As he finds each separate line of Widmann's argument inconclusive, he drops it from further consideration. Thus, it is my judgment that Murphy O'Connor fails to take into account the cumulativeimpact of the various lines of evidence supporting the interpolationhypothesis.

My own conclusion on the other hand is that the interpolation


20/21

94 Journal for the Study of the New Testament Al (1992)

does the view that Paul has adopted the terminology and ideas of his

opponents or that he has, for whatever reason, employed a pre

formed piece of traditional material. This conclusion is based upon thecumulative weight of the form-critical, linguistic, ideational and other

contextual data.

ABSTRACT

In response to J. Murphy-O'Connor's rebuttal, this article seeks to support and

strengthen J. Widmann's argument that 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is a non-Pauline interpola

tion. Historical considerations (attempts to account for the origin and presence in

1 Corinthians of the alleged interpolation) are regarded as important but inconclu

sive, as are text-critical considerations. The argument for interpolation is based on the

cumulative weight of (1) contextual considerations (the relation of the passage to its

immediate context), (2) linguistic considerations (the distinctive language and style of

the passage), and (3) ideational considerations (the distinctive ideas of the passage).

* W

Heikki Risnen

JE S US , PAUL AND TOR AH

Collec ted Essays

Transla t ions by David E. Orton

This collection of major essays by the distinguished FinnishNew Testament scholar will prove an invaluable sourcebook forstudents of this much-debated complex of problems. The lastessay is here published for the first time, and five others havenot before appeared in English.

Heikki Risnen is Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the

University of Helsinki. David E. Orton is Senior Editor atE.J. BrillPublishers.


21/21

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

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

1 cor 2.6-16 - a non-pauline interpolation

Documents