JBL117/2 (1998) 275-298

1 CORINTHIANS 4:6 AND THE POSSIBILITY OF WRITTEN BYLAWS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH
JAMES C. HANGES Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 1 Cor 4:6 has generated a long history of controversy. The central issue is the interpretation of the phrase in v. 6b, . 1 Specifically, commentators have wrestled with the difficulty of locating a referent for . The various attempts to clarify this problem can be described accord ing to which of two fundamental presuppositions is assumed: either (1) the present text cannot be interpreted, or (2) the text makes sense as it stands. I. The Present Text Cannot Be Interpreted In despair some scholars have decided that defies interpretation and have labeled the text incomprehensible.2 The most radical hypothesis has been emendation of the text. The first modern suggestion of this
The RSV translates the phrase, "... not beyond what is written." The text variants reflect, to some degree, the difficulties presented by this verse; D, F, G, the Majority Text, and Old Latin have instead of d; K2, C^d, D2, the Majority Text, a single manuscript of the Vulgate, and the Syriac tradition insert the verb . The text is very secure, and these variations can be easily accounted for as attempts to alleviate specific problems of interpretation which will be described in due course. 2 For Hans Conzelmann the phrase is "unintelligible" (1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975] 86, following O. Linton, "'Nicht ber das hinaus, was geschrieben ist' (1 Kor. 4,6)," TSK102 [1930] 425-56). Also see James Moffatt (The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians [MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938] 46-47), who eliminates the phrase without accounting for this decision in terms of emendation. Moffatt illustrates the ambiguity with which this text is often handled. While eliminating the phrase, he believes the essential meaning of the passage to be clear. Moreover, he recognizes the use of as certainly a reference to the "Old Testament." He also holds out various other possibilities, including the possibility that the phrase is juridical, or that it is a slogan (and particu larly a slogan used by one of two sides in a debate). See also Christophe Senft, La premire Eptre de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 2/7; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1979) 67; however, Senft prefers to see the phrase as a gloss.
1

275

276

Journal of Biblical Literature

sort was by J. M. S. Baljon (crediting Bornemann),3 who has subsequently been followed by a number of commentators.4 The most compelling version of the Bornemann-Baljon emendation hypothesis is presented by John Strugnell. 5 He recognizes the fundamental problem with the attempts to refer to the scriptures, that is, that "reference to scripture is out of place here." 6 As the most obvious solution, Strugnell accepts Baljon s major proposition that the phrase represents a copyist s marginal note explaining a problem in the text that, in the course of successive copying, was mistakenly inserted into the text.7 Strugnell acknowledges, however, that the older hypothesis fails to answer every objection. To overcome the remaining problems, Strugnell proposes a simple but plausible alternative. Rather than the multiple steps (all of which must have occurred at the earliest stage of text reproduction) required by Baljon, Strugnell translates as "[t]he is beyond what is written." In this case, the copyist found a sentence for which the context clearly demanded a negative that had been unfortunately left out. Having inserted the necessary negative, the scribe simply noted that his insertion went beyond what was written in the text.8
3 J. M. S. Baljon, De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de Corinthirs en de Galatirs als voorwerp van de conjecturalkritiek beschouwd (Utrecht: J. van Boekhoven, 1884) 49-51, in L. L. Welborn, "A Conciliatory Principle in 1 Cor. 4:6," 29 (1987) 321 n. 9, 329 n. 51. Bornemann is mentioned in H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch ber den ersten Brief an die Korinther (7th ed.; ed. C. F. G. Heinrici; MeyerK 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888) 121 note. 4 Paul Schmiedel, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und die Korinther (2d ed.; HKNT 2/1; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1892) 112-13; C. Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe, an der Hand der bisher mit bezug auf sie aufgestalten Interpolations- und Compilationshypothesen geprft (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894); Wilhelm Bousset, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (3d ed.; Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917) 2.91, without crediting Baljon; W. F. Howard, "1 Corinthians 4,6: Exegesis or Emendation?" ExpTim 33 (1922) 479-80, a brief survey article written in support of Johannes Weiss's version of the emendation theory; Jean Hring, La premire ptre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 7; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1959) 35; C. S. C. Williams, "I and II Corinthians," PCB, 956; Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (3d ed.; FRLANT 66; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 115 n. 1; Andr Legault, "Beyond the Things Which are Written (1 Cor. 4:6)," NTS 18 (1972) 227-31. For lists of commentators, see Legault, "Beyond the Things," 230; and Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 321 n. 9, 329 nn. 51-54. 5 John Strugnell, "A Plea for Conjectural Emendation in the New Testament, with a Coda on 1 Cor 4:6," CBQ 36 (1974) 543-58. 6 Ibid., 555. 7 Baljon (i.e., Bornemann) suggested that originally a scribe saw the MH written above the A in the word '. The scribe, having inserted the MH into the intended spot, recorded his editorial deed by writing in the margin, "the MH was written above the A"; see Legault, "Beyond the Things," 230; Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 555. See also Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 167 n. 14. 8 Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 557. The original text would have been, ' . Following Strugnell are, e.g., Dennis R. MacDonald, "A

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6 IL The Text Makes Sense as It Stands

277

The traditional view has of course been that the text makes sense as it stands. This interpretation has been expressed in several ways. Most often the referent of is located within the limits of Christian tradition. Early interpreters such as John Chrysostom and Theodoret believed that Paul here refers to the words of Jesus regarding self-exaltation and the true leader (Matt 9 9:35 and Matt 7:1; 23:12). There is a substantial body o logia on humility versus self-exaltation in the traditions ascribed to Jesus; it is easy to understand how readily the church fathers could be reminded of these traditions, given Pauls content. This view has not been seriously promoted by recent commentators due to the obvious difficulty in arguing for Pauls knowledge of specific sayings of Jesus, not to mention his knowledge of the Gospels themselves. A more common view has been to argue that Paul is referring to the scriptures as a unity. Presented as early as Origen, this view has continued to find proponents.10 Attempts have been made to identify specific passages to which Paul
Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor. 15:31-32 or the Case of the Misplaced Lion Fight," HTR 93 (1980) 266; and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Interpolations in 1 Corinthians," CBQ 48 (1986) 85. Murphy-O'Connor believes that because Strugnell's translation is "undoubtedly correct" his solution is the only possible one. Strugnell's suggestion was preempted in its essentials by J. T. Hudson, "1 Cor. iv.6," ExpTim 35 (1923-24) 332; Strugnell does not mention Hudson. 9 John Chrysostom, In Epistulam 1 ad Corinthos, PG 61.97, lines 11-19; Theodoret, Interpretatio XIVEpistulas sancii Pauli, PG 82.256, Unes 22-39, esp. lines 34-39; cf. Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 323 n. 29; Meyer-Heinrici, Briefan die Korinther, 120. It is important to note that both Chrysostom and Theodoret understand as a prohibition against vio lating the Lord's teaching on self-exaltation, and believed the phrase to be integral to Paul's admon ishment of the Corinthians in the preceding passages. This has continued to be the understanding of all translators who retain the phrasethat is, "not beyond () what is written" must mean "do not exceed the limits of (violate) what is written." On Matt 9:35, cf. Mark 10:43-44; Matt 18:4; 20:26-27; 23:11; Luke 22:26. On Matt 7:1; 23:12, cf. Luke 6:37; also cf. Luke 14:11; 18:14; 2 Cor 11:7. 10 Origen, Catenae graecorum patrum 5 (ed. J. A. Cramer; Oxford, 1844) 77, lines 21-25, cited by Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 325 n. 30. In addition to the examples given by Wel born (p. 326), see also T. C. Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (2d ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1885) 102; cf. Werner de Boor, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertaler Studienbibel; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1973) 86; C. . Barrett, A Com mentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, 1968) 107 (Barrett interprets the phrase as an injunction to live in accordance with the scriptures); Gaston Deluz, A Companion to 1 Corinthians (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963) 45; August Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Zrcher Bibelkommentare, NT 6/1; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989) 89 (Strobel, in understanding the phrase in terms of Deut 4:2, holds essentially the same view). This approach is also similar to that of H. G. Ewald, Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus bersetzt und erklrt (Gttingen: Dieterich, 1857) ad. loc., cited by Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 327 n. 42, along with Frederic Godet, who clearly shows how an understanding of the phrase as "a proverbial maxim, in use perhaps in the Rabbinical schools" amounts to an injunction to live in harmony with the tradition, including of course the scriptures {Commentary on St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians [Clark's Foreign Theological Library, n.s. 27/1; Edinburgh: Clark, 1889] 217); see also

278

Journal of Biblical Literature

alludes, but no consensus has arisen among those who take this route. 11 A varia tion on this theme is the interpretation by some which makes Paul refer to a general principle, theme, or "spirit" expressed uniformly throughout the scrip tures. 12 To overcome the difficulties encountered in attempting to locate the ref erents in the "Old Testament," some interpreters argue that Paul is referring to the scripture cited in the preceding passages of his letter. 13 Morna Hooker has argued the most widely recognized case for this interpretation, presenting a twofold explanation: first, interpreting Pauls preceding argument as a refuta tion of human wisdom, of which the inappropriate preference for a specific
G G Findlay, St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (Expositor's Greek NT 3, New York Dodd, Mead, 1900) 800, A Robertson and A Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (2d ed, ICC, Edinburgh Clark, 1916) 81 For some, the text variant in D, F, G, the Majority Text and the Old Latin also appears to support the inter pretation that Paul is referring to the "Old Testament" as a unity by using the singular o instead of (Godet, Commentary, but cf Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 324 nn 23-24, where precisely the opposite argument is made, that is, that the shift to particularizes the referent to a single scripture passage and does not point to the whole) It must be conceded that Paul can refer to the Hebrew scriptures in a way that seems to indicate his understanding that the scriptures as a whole speak with a single voice e g, Rom 1 2, scriptures (ai ) contain the promised gospel, Rom 15 4, the scnptures contain consolation, 16 26, the scriptures reveal the long-hidden mystery, 1 Cor 15 3,4, the gospel events take place "according to the scnptures", Gal 3 22, the scripture ( ) includes all persons under the dominion of sin 11 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 324-25, esp n 25, citing Hugo Grotius's argument that Paul refers to Deut 17 20 Following Grotius is Hermann Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on St Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Clark's Foreign Theological Library 20, Edin burgh Clark, 1851) 79 Cf Findlay, Corinthians, 800 "it is superfluous to look for particular pas sages intended " The argument is based on being Paul's regular formula by which to refer to the scnptures, see, e g , C F G Heinnci, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die Konnthier (Berlin Wilhelm Hertz, 1880) 140-41, Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther I, II (3d ed , HNT 9, Tubingen Mohr-Siebeck, 1931) 19 Fee also notes the difficulties with this approach (Corinthians, 169) Most allow for several possibilities, e g, Barrett, Corinthians, 106-7 12 Similar to Ongen's concept (n 10 above), the "Old Testament" is understood as the boundary withm which life is to be lived, see A Stanley, The Epistles of St Paul to the Corinthi ans with Critical Notes and Dissertations (2d ed , London John Murray, 1858) 73 "the general spint of many passages " See Welborn, "Conciliatory Pnnciple," 325 n 29, for additional refer ences It must be noted that Paul generally refers to the scnpture only in terms of a specific passage when using the verb form (Rom 117,2 24,3 10 [aflonlegium], 4 17, 8 36, 9 33, 11 26, 15 3, 9-12, 21, 1 Cor 1 31, 2 9, 2 Cor 8 15, 9 9), (Rom 3 4, 9 13,10 15,11 8), (Rom 12 19,14 11,1 Cor 119,3 19, Gal 3 10,13,27), (1 Cor 10 7), (1 Cor 9 9,14 21), (1 Cor 15 45), (2 Cor 4 13) See also n 10 above 13 Fee, Corinthians, 169 n 22 This was one of the two options that Calvin had allowed for in interpreting 4 6 "The phrase, 'beyond that which is wntten,' can be explained in two ways, as refernng either to what Paul has wntten, or to the scnptural proofs which he has adduced" (trans J W Fraser in The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians [Calvin's Commentanes, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1960] 90)

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

279

teacher (fostered by false teaching) is a sad expression; and, second, trying to show that what Paul has in mind is his gospel, as the fulfillment of the scrip tures, which he has preached to the Corinthians. 14 In this way, Hooker can argue for a type of semantic encapsulation; that is, since Pauls gospel (the preaching of the cross in contrast to human wisdom) is the fulfillment of the scriptures (as his preceding citations illustrate), in the context of his argument in chaps. l-A, Paul can warn the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written. 15 Another way of explaining Paul's referent in terms of the authority of Christian tradition is to argue that Paul is referring in some way to himself. P. Wallis argues that refers to at the beginning of v. 6. The implication is that Paul refers to what he has just written, by way of example, regarding himself and Apollos: . . . , ' ' . 16 A variant of this approach is to understand the phrase as a reference to Pauls own teaching, either as a reflection of something Paul him self has espoused or as Pauls rhetorical appropriation of an opponents accusa tion. Heinrici argued that Paul has appropriated a slogan used against him by
14 Morna Hooker, '"Beyond the Things Which are Written': An Examination of 1 Cor. IV.6," NTS 10 (1963-64) 128-30. Hooker simply assumes that Paul refers to scripture; the only question here is whether the scripture referred to is a passage other than one of those found in the present letter. 15 Hooker casts Paul's problem in terms of the exaltation above others of particular individual leaders, that is, factionalism based on personal loyalties ("'Beyond the Things,'" 128). This is the issue behind thefirst clause. The second refers to the resulting circumstances of conceit, which have arisen from the cause presupposed in the first ' clause, viz., false teaching resulting in fac tional loyalties. Hooker further argues that the point being made by Paul has to do with the foolish ness of human wisdom and that this theme has been dealt with by the scriptural citations in the preceding sections. Paul is concerned with active opponents in Corinth who are teaching false doc trines (building with rubbish upon his foundation [3:11-13]). Hooker refers the first ' clause in 4:6 to 3:10-20, claiming that the "things written" are the scriptures cited in this earlier passage (p. 129). Throughout, Paul is concerned to distinguish the kind of wisdom in which the Corinthians take pride from the wisdom of God. Because these false teachers were adding something to the "simple gospel" that Paul had preached (a gospel that was, in his mind, the fulfillment of the scrip ture) these teachers were, in essence, adding their own teachings (human wisdom) to the scripture itself (p. 130). 16 P. Wallis, "Ein neuer Auslegungsversuch der Stelle 1. Kor. 4,6," TLZ 75 (1950) 506-8. Wallis has proposed a clever solution, but one that has been accepted by few others (e.g., Erich Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Erste Teil, Einfhrung und Auslegung der Kapital 1-7 [THKNT 7/1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975] 147). He repunctuates the phrase as , producing an independent maxim, (similar to the wellknown ), which he translates, "Nicht zu viel" (p. 507). The consequently refers back to , as mentioned above. Wallis thus attempts to retain the text and salvage a meaningful interpretation. The general sense of this interpretation is actually not much different from others, given the context and Paul's concern for exaggerated evaluations of individual leaders in the church. Moreover, despite Wallis's refusal to admit the full phrase as a maxim, the is understood as an undeniable indicator of the form. Cf. on Wallis, Welborn, "Conciliatory Princi ple," 327.

280

Journal of Biblical Literature

opponents who misrepresent his teaching, claiming that he goes far beyond the scriptural tradition.17 Others have argued that the phrase is a Gnostic slogan that Paul has turned back on its advocates.18 In the end, no single solution to the difficulty presented by 1 Cor 4:6 has gained a solid consensus. Nor is any hypothesis without problems. On the one hand, the emendation theories, here exemplified by Bornemann-Baljon and Strugnell, arose in response to the failure of those theories which attempted to make sense out of the received text by assuming a reference to the OT or to some form of the Christian tradition. To this degree these radical hypotheses have been justified; in Pauls context the purpose of a reference to scripture (either as an allusion to the Jewish scriptures or as a reference to immediately preceding citations of scripture) is far from clear.19 Had Paul wished to refer to his own, just-penned words, he would have most probably made reference by means of a different formula.20 Moreover, Paul does not refer to the scripture in this way elsewhere.21 The most concise criticism of these attempts is given by Strugnell: "a reference to Scripture would be irrelevant at this point in Pauls argument."22 On the other hand, Strugnell s own emendation theory serves as a response to the specific criticisms leveled against the Bornemann-Baljon version of the emendation hypothesis.23 Even so, Strugnell s simplified version has won but

17 Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben, 141. Welborn ("Conciliatory Principle," 328) cites Heinrici (Der erste Brief an die Korinther [MeyerK 5.7; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896] 148), calling this the most plausible explanation of this type. For criticism of this view, see Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief XMeyerK 5.10; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910)102-3. 18 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 327-28 n. 45, citing Wilhelm Ltgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth (Gtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1908); see also Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 19 (arguing that, because the letter is a private one, it is unlikely that Paul would have quoted opponents); see also F. F. Bruce, I 6- II Corinthians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971)48-49. 19 It has proven especially difficult to show the referent of Paul's supposed allusions to scripture; see Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 322, 324-25; Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 555. If Paul's previous citations are targeted, the argument inevitably becomes weighted down in defense of an exegetical scheme, itself open to criticism, designed to integrate these citations and the parallel phrases in 1 Cor 6:b (e.g., Hooker, "'Beyond the Things'" 128-30). 20 Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben, 148, suggesting (). 21 Not as ("the things") but as (ai , included by Welborn, "Conciliatory Prin ciple," 326) or ; see n. 10 above. 22 Strugnell, "Conjectural Emendation," 555 (emphasis his). 23 Ibid., 556: "Can we not sap the force of these objections and remove all grounds for hesita tion?" For specific criticism of Bornemann-Baljon see J. M. Ross ("Not Above What is Written: A Note on 1 Cor 46," ExpTim 82 [1971] 215-17), who rejects the emendation theory on the grounds that it lacks any positive evidence, either specifically for the case being argued or for other instances within the New Testament, and on the improbability that such an error could have entered the tra dition at such an early stage that no manuscripts without the error exist. For Ross, there is simply

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

281

few adherents and has itself not gone unchallenged.24 More fundamentally, in spite of Strugnell s improvement of the theory, the greatest problem for those who promote emendation of the text is not the development of a viable theory but rather whether recourse to emendation is required at all. III. Making Sense of the Text in Terms of the Wider Cultural Context While still accepting the basic presupposition that the text is sensible, a different approach has been to argue that Pauls referent is not to the scripture but to certain elements rooted in Hellenistic culture. Recently two important hypotheses have been proposed. The first is B. Fiore s proposal that Pauls phrase is an allusion to the common experience of school children who are taught to write correctly by tracing over paradigmatic figures supplied by their teachers. 25 In this context the allusion amounts to an injunction to "trace the pattern" correctlythat is, Paul and Apollos as examples of proper harmony rooted in the possession of correct wisdom and understanding. The obvious advantage of this proposal is the ease with which it fits Pauls rhetorical strategy in dealing with the problems in Corinth. 26 The weakness of this explanation is linguistic. According to Fiore s sources, the most common terminology associ ated with this phenomenon centers around the verb and the tech nical term , neither of which is ever used by Paul. If this image
insufficient time for the multiple steps required by this version of the emendation hypothesis to have been played out. Moreover, the wording of the supposed gloss is itself improbable; both the MH and the A would have been articular. Finally, rather than explaining where the MH had been improperly placed, Ross argues that the corrector would have explained where it should have been written. Strugnell believes that his scenario deals adequately with each of these objections. 24 For criticism of Strugnell, see G. D. Kilpatrick, "Conjectural Emendation in the New Tes tament," in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 349-60, esp. 356-60. In his commentary, Fee simply dismisses the emendation theories as being too clever to be probable (Corinthians, 168; cf. Wallis, "Ein neuer Auslegungsversuch," 507). 25 . Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986) 165-66. 26 But cf. D. W. Kuck, who gives qualified agreement (Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul's Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in I Corinthians 3:5-4:5 [NovTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1992] 213). The verb can be metaphorically extended to refer to the imitation of an archetype or rhetorical figure (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isoc. 4.711B). Fiore's credit of H. Schlier's article appears to be mistaken; I do not see anywhere on pp. 32-33 that Schlier mentions this pedagogical technique (Fiore, Function of Personal Example, 173 n. 24; cf. H. Schlier, "," TDNT 2.32-33). Of course, Paul's use of the preposition does not suggest obvi ously the idea assumed by Fiore, nor does it suggest the compound . This hypothesis is defended in greatest detail by John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 123-28.

282

Journal of Biblical Literature

were so ready-at-hand that Paul could assume the allusion to be easily under stood by the audience, the question arises as to why he would choose to phrase it in such a roundabout way, avoiding any of the usual technical language associ ated with the practice to which he alludes.27 The second recent proposal we should mention is Welborn s. Here as well, the key becomes proper identification of the rhetorical context of 1 Corinthians 1-4, on the basis of which clues to the interpretation of the elliptical phrase in 4:6 may be identified. Its elliptical quality (i.e., the missing verb) and the use of the article in this type of construction indicate a maxim, or what is often described as a "slogan."28 Welborn looks to the philosophical topos of self-conceit, focusing on the key word (1 Cor 1:10-12; 3:3-4; 3:21; 4:8ff), which is found also among the rhetoricians, orators, and political historians in the context of the threat to concord.29 For example, in the case of Philos discussion of the discord caused by Macro because of his disregard for the famed Delphic Maxim, both the principle Paul argues for and the word are used. 30 Welborn con cludes that Paul is doing something analogous to what philosophers and rhetori cians do when they attempt to resolve political strife between rival factions. Both Fiore and Welborn rightly assume that if we can locate the proper context for the phrase we can then say something about its meaning and significance. More specifically, Welborn describes Pauls efforts in terms of the goals of the institution of arbitration in Greek political life.31
27 Note that the author of 1 Peter, recognized for his superior Greek, apparently knows the technical language; see 2:21. As Fiore admits in his note, there are no parallels for this formulation in the sources for this practice. 28 That the phrase has the features of a maxim has been recognized by most scholars who try to make sense of the present text, e.g., Hooker, "'Beyond the Things,'" 132; and Welborn: "[t]he words are evidently a proverb, or a principle in proverbial form. This is the only satisfactory explanation of the introductory article and the elliptical sentence structure." It was Paul who "gave it the character of a maxim" ("Conciliatory Principle," 322,345); cf. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 110-11, 3; Edwards, Corinthians, 102; Meyer-Heinrici, Brief an die Korinther, 120; Godet, Commentary, 217; Findlay, Corinthians, 799-800; Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief 102; Robertson and Plum mer, Corinthians, 81; Wallis, "Auslegungsversuch," 507-8; Ross, "'Not Above What is Written,'" 217; Fascher, Korinther, 146-47. Welborn's argument that the maxim must be of broad cultural currency (not local) because the letter is intended for the whole church, thus it is expected to be common knowledge, seems somewhat arbitrary, since, if the maxim was known only within the local church, we should not expect it to be less accessible than slogans such as in 6:12 and 10:23 (pp. 332-33). 29 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 340-41: "We may hope . . . to find the key to Paul's per plexing phrase, , in the literature on concord." 30 Philo, Leg. Gai. 69; also cf. Demosthenes 19.314 (also 59.97); Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.25; Ps. Plato, AL. 2 USE; Plutarch, Cic. 887B; Philo, Leg. Gai. 86. 31 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 343. Arbitration usually resulted in the submitting of a written judgment by the arbitrator to the conflicting parties (), which was usually

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

283

Welborn identifies the rhetorical genre of 1 Corinthians 1-4 as a , 32 through which Paul attempts to dissuade the Corinthians from factionalism. Specifically, Paul's argument takes the form of a , a deliberative discourse generally used by political types to reconcile opposing parties. It is essentially an appeal for unity.33 Welborn shows how well Paul s rhetoric and use of images reflects this type of discourse.34 Paul recog nized the effectiveness of this principle in cases of factionalism, and "[i]t was [he] who abstracted the admonition from its context and gave it the character of a maxim."35 Welborn s hypothesis is the most detailed and is very plausible. It has the advantage of recognizing the problems that develop when the "scripture" (or a particular scripture text) is made the referent, and of providing a positive proinscribed (here citing M.N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks [Oxford: Claren don, 1913] 152-54). In this context Welborn proposes to find language similar to that used in 1 Cor 4:6, citing an oath to which two disputants (Magnesia and Smyrna) swear (p. 344). The text cited (OGIS from 242 BCE; abbreviations of epigraphical publications conform to those used in SuppLmentum Epigraphicum Graecum) supports the idea that a written document is encapsulated in the principle; the verbal parallel is found in the equivalent phrase, (cf. SIG3 712 from 101-2 BCE, Unes 15-18). 32 That is, a genre suited to counseling or giving advice. 33 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 334-35; for examples, see 335-56. 34 This includes Paul's "building metaphor" (Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 336-39). 35 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 345. Of course, the admonition is, in general terms, to return to a state of harmony and to refrain from factionalism. Paul's use of this phrase conforms to the classic description of the nature and function of maxims in rhetoric found in Aristotle (Rh. 2.21). Aristotle himself shows that the form Paul uses is appropriate to the designation of maxims ( and , 2.21.13). According to Aristotle, the speaker should always try to use the hearers' presuppositions in order to express his own views about these ideas in gen eral terms (2.21.15). Consequently, the maxim is a general statement () limited to the sphere of human actions (), a statement about what should be chosen or what should be avoided ( , 2.21.2). Paul's phrase also seems to conform to Aristotle's principle that a maxim should express the common wisdom of experience and that, where it is necessary to clarify an obscure maxim, the speaker should supplement it with an explanatory sentence (2.21.8-9, 14). If Welborn is correct, the second clause performs this function in 1 Cor 4:6. One clarification must be made, however; Aristotle's definition of a maxim describes it as either the premise ( ) or the conclusion () of an enthymeme with out a syllogism (see 1.1.11). In other words, a maxim makes a positive statement about human action (2.21.2). Paul's use of the maxim appears to be more a command than a statement about the best course of action. However, Aristotle also cites explicitly the famed Delphic Maxim as an example, a phrase that not only takes the form of a command but was so inter preted in antiquity (a command from the god to know one's proper place; see Ps. Plato, AL. 1 124A; E. Wilkens, "Know Thyself in Greek and Latin Literature" [diss., University of Chicago, 1917] 21-22; cf. Philo, Spec. Leg., 1.263-65). To be in line with Aristode's understanding of the form and function of maxims we must understand this form of maxim as the expressed answer to the under stood question, What is best for us human beings to do? In this case, the maxim itself becomes an elliptical slogan well-known enough to the hearers that they can easily supply the understood whole: "It is best for human beings not to go beyond what is written."

284

Journal of Biblical Literature

posai that fits the context of Pauls argument, allowing the phrase to stand as it is in the text without resorting to theories of emendation. However, despite the progress Welborn has made in understanding this difficult phrase, several problems with this hypothesis remain. First of all, Welborn never actually identifies the referent of . While I agree with both Fiore s and Welborn s descriptions of the rhetorical context (Paul is trying to overcome factious behavior in Corinth) and acknowl edge the appropriateness of the use of the maxim in this context, I regret Wel born's failure to take the logical step that the examples cited imply, that is, to postulate a prior, foundational document (the referent of ) to which Paul and all of the Corinthians are parties. 36 Heinrici had suspected that such a document (a "community rule") could explain Pauls referent, but he felt that the evidence for such a hypothesis was lacking.37 It is interesting to note that Welborn s best examples are derived from the legal-political arena, where the resolution of conflict results in the formalization of the resolution in a treaty that is usually published as an inscription.38 For example, Welborn argues that the advice not to go beyond what is written is "commonly applied by philoso phers and statesmen to those who threaten to arouse discord. Sometimes the principle takes the form of an exhortation to abide by the established laws."39 The example of application to "established laws" would seem to imply that this referent was a written document of some kind. The analogy of arbitration, in every case cited, involves the presupposition of a prior document, oath, 40 or
36 This is, in fact, Welborn's viewthat is, there is no Corinthian document to which Paul refers; he has instead abstracted a principle from the rhetorical context of discussions of concord and the practice of arbitration, in the form of a maxim, to make a point in his argument against fac tionalism. If Paul is alluding to the principle of unity as a common topos in this type of context and not to a specific document to which refers, then in actuality Welborn's hypothesis leaves the reference to "things written" just as unanchored as it becomes in those hypotheses which postulate a reference to scripture(s). 37 Heinrici referred to this hypothetical document as a Gemeindestatut (community rule) (Erste Brief an die Korinther, 149n; cf. his earlier suggestion, "die Erinnerung an geschriebene Normen des Gemeindelebens" [Das erste Sendschreiben, 140]). This possibility was held out also by Moffatt (Corinthians, 47), E.-B. Allo (Saint Paul: Premire ptre aux Corinthiens [2d ed.; Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1934] 73), and Reginald St. John Parry (Commentary on First Corinthians [CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926]), who suggested that the phrase referred to a contract and was being used in a technical sense, "not to go beyond the terms*' of the agreement (pp. 78-79). 38 Welborn, "Conciliatory Principle," 341-44. 39 In addition, Welborn goes on to say, "When the conflict lies between cities, or when established laws do not apply, the factions are exhorted to submit to other written documents such as treaties of peace" ("Conciliatory Principle," 341). 40 Even Welborn's comments about the use of this principle in cases where the referent is not to a specific written document concede that when the principle is used in such cases it is used in reference to a solemn oath. We must keep in mind, however, that such oaths were used not only in

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

285

treaty to which the opposing factions are mutually accountable. The arbitrator, or the orator in making his plea for unity, exhorts the parties to honor their agreements, that is, not to go beyond what is written. Second, Welborn's analogy does not quite fit the Corinthian context because the parallels cited presuppose that conflict has already occurred and been resolved; the parties are being asked, in the present, to return to a former state of mutual loyalty. In the Corinthian letter, Paul gives no indication that he is facing a problem of factions at Corinth that he had already resolved on a pre vious occasion. If this is the case, then we should not, as Welborn does, expect Paul to be referring to a previously formalized agreement from which the Corinthian factions have since deviated. Moreover, Welborn's hypothesis fails to actually locate the maxim with respect to anything more than a general agreement in principle; no real verbal parallels are cited for the particular form of the exhortation Paul uses in 1 Cor 4:6 in the examples given.41 This is not to deny that Welborn has convincingly established philosophical and political parallels to the rhetorical context in which Paul cites the maxim. It is to say that the maxim itself does not seem to be borrowed from such parallels. In the end Welborn appears to agree with this point, arguing that the phrase itself is Paul's own abstraction. The problem here is that if this were the case, then it would be difficult to call the expression a slo gan or to account for Paul's rhetorical purpose in using it, unless it was some thing already known to the Corinthians. It is more likely that Paul is borrowing this maxim from common currency for use in his present argument. I would suggest that the whole force of Welborn's argument points in the direction first indicated by Heinrici, that is, to a prior, written document that was known to all parties involved. If Paul is abstracting a principle from the context of discussions of concord as well as the processes of the institution of arbitration and applying these by means of the maxim "not beyond what is writ ten" to a factious situation for which there has been no previous resolution to which the parties are accountable, the maxim makes little sense. However, if Paul is referring to a "written" document, perhaps a foundation document or charter similar to those we find in numerous leges sacrae, the use of the maxim makes perfectly good sense.
political documents but also, in cultic contexts, to forestall confusion and disagreements, and that these oaths were routinely inscribed in public documents. For example, for an oath sworn by sacred participants in public cult, see the great lex sacra from Andania, IG 5 1 1390 (92 BCE) lines l-6a; 8; 26b-28; SIG3 671A (160-159 BCE) Unes l-5a; IG 127 515 (end of the second century BCE) Unes 89-95 (an oath of the , the supervisors of the festival activities). Consequently, the presupposition of a "fixed" referent for the maxim is not avoided by Welborn's suggestion regarding the use of oaths ("Conciliatory Principle," 341). 41 Welborn argues that the phrase "has a specific function and characteristic form in each of the contexts" ("Conciliatory Principle," 345), but he does not supply any examples using ( ) or equivalents by which to demonstrate this characteristic form.

286

Journal of Biblical Literature IV. The Greek Leges Sacrae as an Interpretive Context

It is easy enough to establish that Pauls letter presupposes a body of knowledge that he shares with the Corinthian readers. This knowledge includes teaching that the apostle himself had imparted to the newly founded church. In the Corinthian situation, Paul uses the technical terms for the handing down of tradition, and , with reference to previous instruction.42 In 1 Corinthians 11, Pauls correction of current practice presupposes deviation from previous instruction or ; Paul is here commanding them ( . . . , 11:17) to return to a previously agreed order (see 5:9-13; 15:1-11; chap. 15). Of course, this is not the only kind of presup posed instruction for which we have evidence in Pauls letters. 1 Thessalonians consists largely of reminders of things that the members of the congregation supposedly know well.43 For example, in 4:1-2 we find Paul encouraging his readers to live in accord with what they have already received () from him, things that are later referred to as "commands" (). We know from both literary and inscriptional sources that , , and are technical terms regularly used for the specific regula tions of the cult. For example, Dionysios of Philadelphia claims to have reformed his own household cult because Zeus had revealed specific to govern the new institution. The same terminology is used in the cultic bylaws of the guild of Zeus Hypsistos and in the bylaws of the Anda man mysteries for the regulations to be followed by participants.44 As we see in the case of 1 Cor 11:17, when issuing commands about cultic matters, Paul can
In 1 Cor 11:2 Paul praises the Corinthians, , a textbook example of the technical use of these terms. Of course, 1 Cor 15:3-8 is perhaps the most often mentioned example. In 11:23, we also have a classic exam ple of the use of the two complementary technical terms used for the receiving and passing on of tradition. Paul can use other expressions to refer to instruction already presupposed by his readers; for example, in 1 Cor 4:17 (assuming this to be genuine, as Conzelmann does [Corinthians, 92-93]) Paul refers to his "ways" ( . . . [], ). Here, as Conzelmann clearly points out, Paul's "ways" are his teachings, as the verb ) indicates. 43 W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1983) 114-15. 44 The first definition found in LS J is a military command, citing Xenophon, Hell. 2.1.4. For the cultic commands given to Dionysios of Philadelphia, see SIG3 985, lines 3-4, 12, 34, 42-^4, 50-51, 57-59 (late second or early first century BCE). Note in lines 57-58: . This passage clearly unites the ideas of tradition and instructional author ity. 1 Thess 4:11 also presupposes an ongoing teaching relationship regarding how one is to live properly, . Here Paul only reminds the Thessalonians of authoritative instructions of which they are already aware. For the in the cultic bylaws of the guild of Zeus Hypsistos; see P. Lond. 2710, Unes llb-12a (Egypt, late Ptolemaic period). The text for the cultic bylaws of the Mysteries of Andania is IG 5 1 1390, lines 40-43 (92/91 BCE); also cf. SEG 22.110, line 52 (mid-second century CE, the commands issued by the and the ,
42

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

287

use , along with a string of imperatives (11:28, 33-34), just as we find in the Greek leges sacrae (the published bylaws or proceedings of civic and private cults). Paul also uses the technical term for command, . 4 5 He reminds the Corinthians that he has customarily issued commands in all the churches he has founded. 46 In 1 Cor 11:34 he promises to set in order the remaining cultic matters left unresolved in his immediate, written instructions. As 1 Cor 9:14 makes clear, Paul is only doing what the Lord had done before him. 4 7 Even more relevant to the present discussion is the fact that Paul clearly shows no aversion to issuing written instructions to his churches. To be sure, what Paul writes in his letters is supplementary to his previous instruction, which is usually described as something Paul has given orally.48 However, Pauls letters contain specific instructions, which also refer to previous written instructions, in addition to whatever instruction Paul may have imparted orally. The most obvious example is his juridical opinion in 1 Cor 5:3-5. 49 Not only does Paul use written instructions in the present context, but we also know that this pattern has a history. In 5:9, 11 Paul refers to previous written instructions regarding inappropriate associations. 50 Examples of written instruction, in
including matters of a cultic nature); I.Magnesia 50, Une 23 (matters of religious concern are "com manded," , by the Magnesians; here the sending of sacred envoys, , to consult an oracle). Cf. Plutarch, Is. et Os., E, 9-10, Stephanus p. 354. 45 Cf. LSAM 9 (= CIG 3599), line 30 (Ilion, second century BCE). As Gerhard Delling's TDNT article makes clear (", .," 8.27-48, esp. 34-35), the word is used in the NT particu larly for cultic instructions: for example, the instructions for the fabrication of the Temple by Moses (Acts 7:44); Jesus' missionary instructions to the disciples (Matt 11:1); Paul in reference to instruc tions from the Lord (1 Cor 9:14); Paul in giving his detailed instructions on the collection (1 Cor 16:1); the Torah was the result of the action labeled by this verb (Gal 3:19). Delling further argues that this capacity for issuing commands rests in Paul's apostolic authority (p. 35). None of the stan dard lxica points out the emphasis on this term in the Leges Sacrae, e.g., IG 51 1390, lines 8, 25, 32,80; I.Pergamon 255, lines 16,20. 46 (1 Cor 7:17). 47 48 Cf. Gal 1:9; 5:21; 2 Cor 7:3; 13:2; 1 Thess 3:4; 4:6. With regard to the present context, Paul's repeated uses of words for oral delivery must be noted: 1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2:4, 6, 7, 13; 3:1. Although it may appear at first that in 1 Cor 4:6 Paul could be referring to oral instructions similar to those referred to in the examples just mentioned, the clear indication of "something written" in 4:6 remains extremely difficult to assimilate to these references. 49 "What is plain is that Paul is resolved upon a judicial act of a sacral and pneumatic kind against the culprit" (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 97). In 5:3-5 Paul pronounces judgment on an indi vidual member of the church with the confident expectation that his written decision will be car ried out. On this, see Adela Yarbro Collins, "The Function of'Excommunication' in Paul," HTR 73 (1980)251-63. 50 This reminder of other categories of inappropriate associates in his present response (1 Cor 5:9-11), in addition to the primarily at issue, proves that these various categories were actually included in his earlier instructions about avoidance, along with , on the same principle; see also Phil 3:2-3, again referring to similar, previously written instructions.

288

Journal of Biblical Literature

addition to Paul's references to even earlier instruction of various sorts, appear to represent the foundational instruction that Paul customarily left to his churches. In principle, since Paul regularly provided his churches with written, authoritative instructions in his letters, there is no reason to assume that his foundational instructions could not have been preserved as a written docu ment. 5 1 This type of document is, in fact, something we might expect to find in the context of Pauls churches if we give some attention to the usual practices of contemporary cult groups, among the membership of which many of Pauls converts might have formerly been counted. We certainly have precedent from Pauls Jewish experience for such community self-regulation, at least with respect to cultic law and practice. 52 As we have already noted, the possibility that refers to some kind of document or legal contract has been noted by scholars, especially those like Heinrici, who tried to understand the earliest Christian communities in terms of their cultural context. In fact, references essentially synonymous to Pauls phrase are commonly found in the documentary records of various cult groups of all periods 5 3 The use of the verbal form held a firm place
1 emphasize "in principle" with specific reference to the kind of assumed umqueness rep resented by R Sohm's programmatic judgment, "Das Kirchenrecht steht mit dem Wesen der Kirche in Widerspruch," by which he systematically precluded any possibility that the earliest could have appropriated any form of binding "cultic law" from Hellenistic culture (Kirchenrecht I Die geschichtlichen Grundlagen [Systematisches Handbuch der Deutschen Rechtswissenschaft 1, Munich/Leipzig Duncker & Humblot, 1923] 1) 52 Both the author of Luke-Acts and Josephus assume that the Jewish cultic community is self-regulating Acts 18 12-16 portrays the Roman governor Gallio's unwillingness to involve him self m disputes over cultic matters of concern only to the Jewish population With respect to wntten documents, Josephus (Ant 12 148-53) records the wntten grant from Anhochus 3 to Zeuxis, governor of Lydia, establishing a Jewish military colony m Lydia and Phrygia and granting it selfregulation in religious matters (between 212 and 205 BCE, see Paul R Trebilco, Jewish Communi ties m Asia Minor [SNTSMS 69, Cambndge Cambndge University Press, 1991] 5-6), see also Ant 14 186-267,306-23,16 160-78, Philo, Leg Gai 311-16 However, Trebilco (Jewish Commu nities, 10-19) does remind us that Jewish nghts to self-regulation were not automatic and needed constant defending 53 With regard to the nature of the content of the instructions to which Paul may be referring, specific parallels will be pointed out m the concluding section of this essay It is sufficient here to point out that the issue of factionalism and divisive behavior is also a concern of the founders of other Greek cultic institutions We have only to mention again the cultic bylaws of Dionysios of Philadelphia, which clearly show the founder's fear of deceit ( [lines 16-23], especially as it can be expressed through the use drugs and potions) and conspiracy ( [lines 22, 29]) Moreover, Dionysios's invocation of Agdistis, the protector of the household, asks her to engender the proper disposition of obedience among the initiates (lines 51-54)initiates who will have sworn an oath to maintain a proper attitude toward the association (lines 22-23) Dionysios's regu lations reveal that the roots of factionalism and division are a concern for voluntary associations of all types Paul's pnor instructions, presupposed in the letters to the Thessalonians and Philippians, deal with the behavior appropnate to members of the cultic community Given the pattern we find
51

Hanges: 1 Cornthians 4:6

289

in the technical language of sacred documents as the common way of referring to the present text or to previously written regulations.54 In the early fourth century BCE we find the publicly inscribed regulations relative to the benefactions of the priestess of Artemis of Miletus referred to as . 55 Other similar documents reveal that (, used when the "things written" are being contradicted) and the adverbial phrase () are functionally interchangeable. For exam ple, in a third-century BCE inscription containing the foundation of rites by a certain Epicteta of Thera, 56 we find the phrases (lines 34, 62, 93) and () (lines 49, 85) both referring to confor mance to the inscribed regulations of the cult, without any functional semantic distinction.57 A second-century Asian inscription prohibits anything more than what is prescribed in the regulations from being distributed from the offerings of the cult: [] ... . 5 8 There is also some evidence that at times these phrases can be used to refer to docu ments other than the immediate text in which they occur. For example, in a text from the third century BCE dealing with the ruler cult of Antigonos Gonatas we find a reference to another set of laws presupposed by the present text, [ ] []... . 5 9 The participial phrase and the finite verb are used in the leges sacrae in contexts analogous to Pauls in 1 Cor 4:6. For examin other cultic communities, it would not be surprising to find evidence that at least a basic collec tion of Paul's foundational instructions were in written form. 54 Adolf Schlatter, Paulus: Der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1956) 153-54; it seems clear that Schlatter can only be citing SIG3 1106, lines 133-35, but this is not the citation listed in his text. s5 380-379 BCE; SGDI5496; LSAM 45 Une 10. 56 SGDI 4706; IG 123 330; LSCG 135. The foundation is made on behalf of her husband and her deceased son. Cf. also LSAM 34, line 9 (Magnesia, from the cult of Sarapis, second century
BCE).

That is to say that these two phrases conform to the linguistic definition of synonymity: viz, words or phrases are considered to be synonymous when, in a specific collocation, one may be sub stituted for the other without changing the meaning of the sentence. See John Lyons, Semantics (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 242,292. 58 LSAM 70, fines 8-9. + the accusitive = "contrary to" (Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [rev. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956] 1692.3a; cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1 43). 59 The reference must be to an earlier law, since no such regulation as the one in question is found in the present text, LSCG 106, line 4 = IG 125 1008. Cf. [] [ ] [] [] [] [] [] [] , [] [] ("But if anyone should dare to annul something which Diomedeon has arranged, violating the sacred objects as well as the forefathers on whose behalf it is inscribed on the altar and on the stele, those who are kin of Diomedeon are not to allow it") (LSCG 177 [Cos, 300 BCE, lines 130-137]). The text may refer to two separate inscriptions located on the altar and on the stele.

57

290

Journal of Biblical Literature

pie, in the cult bylaws of the Andaman mysteries we find the legal pronounce ment, . 60 In line 5 of this text the terms and rst appear.61 Based on the clause [] (lines 94b-95a), we can conclude that and are actually synonymous.62 This is made more evident by the equivalent use of (line 25) and (line 81b). The text also makes clear that these latter two phrases are both synonymous with (lines 43b-44a). The use of the phrase or its equivalent, , in the Andanian bylaws is clearly a warning against the violation of the regulations prescribed in the inscription itself. This is clear because nega tive consequences are entailed: that is, the transgressor is liable for damages. 63 In this respect Pauls use of the preposition in the phrase appears to be functionally equivalent to and to . 64 That Paul is prohibiting the violation of something written is unanimously held to be the sense of the phrase by inter preters who try to make sense of the present text.65
60 IG 5 1 1390, lines 81b-82a. Similar phrases appear in line 110, ; also cf. LSCG 166, line 27, [ ]; IG 129 194, line 29 (Eretria, early third century BCE); IG 125 107, lines 2-5 (los, second century BCE); IG 125 126, lines 6-7 (Paros, second century BCE). 61 The Andanian cult bylaws are clearly described as a in the closing legal pro nouncement of the document, - (lines 192-94). 62 Cf. also ' (LSCG 177, line 117). In the Andanian text, the formula (lines 43b-44a, 101b-102a, 110) and (lines 58b-59a) are simply "shorthand" forms of . That which is written is the con tents of the . This point is clearly illustrated in the bylaws of the Philadelphia cult already mentioned; here (SIG3 985, lines 57-58). 63 In the case of line 110, since the liability concerns two classes of transgressors (the slave and the free man) two penalties are prescribed: scourging for the slave and a fine for the free man (lines 110b-lll). 64 Both formulas prohibit certain actions and imply negative consequences if neglected; see n. 60 above. 65 This is certainly the implication with Welborn; see pp. 284-85 above and nn. 36-40. It is true that and are not easily interchangeable. However, can have the sense of going beyond limits; this is certainly the consensus where 1 Cor 4:6 is concerned. This sense of plus the accusative has a long history: for example, in Plato's Respublica the preposition is used to pro scribe "producing children beyond one's means of supporting them" (372C); to describe the height and strength of a ship captain "surpassing all those on board" (488A-B); or to describe that which "surpasses all things in beauty" (509A). For a later example, we need look no further than Lucan of Samosata. Lucan can use this construction to describe Alexander's rascality as "surpassing even the Cercopes, and Eurybatos" (Alex. 4.12); to excel with respect to certain characteristics is also expressed in this way, e.g., Rh. prae. 13.12; 15.6; 23.18; 17.6; 9.8; Pro imag. 7.4-5. Lucan uses plus the accusative to describe "going beyond accepted limits" (Pro imag. 9.7; 29.2); to "surpass in age" (Alex. 41.11); to "exceed in size" (Pro imag. 10.8); "to be excessive" (e.g., the idiom

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

291

These prohibitions from the leges sacrae share with Pauls warning in 1 Cor 4:6 a well-known and fundamental legal principle that considers "what has been written" to be inviolable.66 This legal principle is not foreign to Jewish traditions; it is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:19) referring to the Torah. 67 Here the violation of the written code is defined in terms of "specific commandments []." 68 Conzelmann correctly points to this with refer ence to the legal principle that the written laws cannot be added to or sub tracted from.69 Our point here is simply that, despite the complicated nature of Pauls relation to Jewish law, we can assume that his Jewish background would not have precluded his familiarity with this legal concept. In certain cases the prospects for amending a written law can be very intimidating; to propose an amendment that was judged to violate the intent or content of the written code could result in severe penalties. For example, Dio Chrysostom, in his comments about some of the outstanding lawgivers of the past, cites with approval the law code enacted by Charondas of Thuria which contained an article dealing with the revision of the law code itself. While it allowed for revision theoretically, the process guaranteed a limited number of amendment proposals. According to this law, anyone who proposes an amend [Rh. prae. 18.5; Pro imag. 21.4]). Also cf. -1 , -1 . . . (I.Priene 174, lines 27-29 [second century BCE] = SIG3 1003). 66 The fundamental principle is found in the Crito, which argues that to disobey validly enacted laws of the state is to attack the proper authority of the law itself, in a sense to damage the laws of the state. See A. D. Woozley's analysis of Socrates' reason for not escaping the verdict of the court in Law and Obedience: The Argument of Plato's Crito (Chapel Hill: University of North Car olina Press, 1979) 19-25, 30-32,126. Of course, this principle is presupposed by the (the legal indictment for proposing an illegal or unconstitutional measure); see Harvy Yunis, "Law, Politics, and the Graphe Paranomon in Fourth-Century Athens," GRBS 29 (1988) 361-82. If the reconstruction is sound, the passage [][] [] [] [...] may also provide an exam ple that comes very close to Paul's phrase in form and content (I.Ephesos 10, lines 30b-32 [secondthird century CE]). Cf. LSAM 45, lines 6-7, . The same idea must have occurred to the copyists behind K2, C^d, D 2 , the Majority Text, a single manuscript of the Vul gate, and the Syrian tradition, where is inserted. 67 Hans Dieter Betz, "Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt (Mt 5,17-20)," in Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufstze II (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992) 119-20; originally published in Verifikationen: Festschrift fr Gerhard Ebeling zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. E. Jngel, J. Wallman, W. Werbeck; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1982); Eng. trans., "The Hermeneutical Principles of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17-20)," in Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 46-47 (note "Sentence[s] of Holy Law," in 5:19). See also Ep. Arist. 308-11; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1 $42; Did. 4.13; Barn. 19.11. 68 Betz, "Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien," 120 (Eng. 47). 69 (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 86 n. 14); cf. Rev 22:18-19 and Did. 11.1-2. Also cf. Deut 4:2; Prov 30:6; Eccl 3:14; Gal 1:8-9 (Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 50); W. C. van Unnik, "De la regie . . . , " VC 3 (1949) 1-36.

292

Journal of Biblical Literature

ment to the written laws would be required to place his neck in a hangman's noose while the proposal was being debated. If the proposal passed the pro poser could remove his neck from the noose, if it failed he would be hanged on the spot (12.17.1-2). In the Greek context we find numerous examples of "laws against abroga tion of the (written) laws."70 According to Plato, Socrates believed that to break the law of the state is to act unjustly; Plato personifies the laws of Athens, which then begin to speak to Socrates as if they could suffer damage from his disobe dience. One of the reasons the personified Athenian Law gives for Socrates' obedience is the existence of a specific law that declares court decisions to be binding; and since Socrates had agreed to obey this particular law, he is thereby obligated to abide even by an unfavorable verdict.71 This general legal principle applies in cultic regulations also. The most com mon way this principle is expressed in cultic law is by a statement that the laws authority will endure for all time, for example, - . 72 The idea that the written law is inviolable is expressed also by the common practice of depositing copies of the law in a temple. 73 Just as in the civil law code, the authority of cultic law can be defended by penalties, as we see in a first-century BCE cultic inscription from Mylasa, in west-central Caria, "And it shall be lawful for no one to annul this regulatory decree, but if this should not be the case and someone attempts to do this, the one proposing the amendment, having been defeated in court, shall repay to the priests of Zeus . . . three-thousand drachmae." 74 In the foundation inscription of Brea, the punish70 Eberhard Ruschenbusch, in : Die Fragmente des solonischen Gesetzes werkes mit einer Text- und berlieferungsgeschichte (Historia 9; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966), cites two examples from literary sources: Dio Chrysostom 80.6 (2.224 Arn.) and Gellius, Nodes Atticae 2.12.1. 71 Cri. 50c; cf. Woozley, Law and Obedience (n. 66 above). 72 IG 5 1 1390, lines 192-94; also cf. LSCG 158, lines 4-5 (Cos, third century BCE; a more elaborate statement from the Asklepieion, ). For additional parallels, see I.Pergamon II, no. 251, lines 41-43 (a second-century BCE lex sacra passed by the Boule and the Demos permanently committing the priesthood of the cult of Asklepios to the family of the founder, Archias [Pausanias 2.26.8]); I.Per gamon II, no. 255, lines 17, 29; SIG3 867, lines 32-34 (Ephesus, mid-second century CE). 73 I.Magnesia 98 = SIG3 589 lines 64-65 (197-196 BCE); LSAM 28 = CIG 3062, lines 18-19 (Teos, from the reign of Tiberius); LSAM 53, lines 35-40 (Miletus, from the end of the first cen tury; here multiple copies are deposited in several locations); JG12 9 194, lines 33-34 (see note 60 above). This presumes a principle similar to the principle of temple asylum. 74 LSAM 62, lines 10-11: [] [ ], , [ ][] [ ][ . . . ] . . . . Also see JG5 1 1390, lines 180-94 (Andania); I.Priene 201, lines 7-20; also 202, lines 14-15. Plato's Athenian proposes an article of cultic law that prohibits the proposing of hymns or dances other than those publicly commissioned for a specific deity on penalty of expulsion from the religious festivals of the city (Leg. 799A-B).

Hanges: 1 Cornthians 4:6

293

ment for proposing an inappropriate amendment to the law is confiscation of property.75 These few examples are sufficient to show that Pauls phrase bears a certain functional resemblance to the kinds of "internal selfreference" common to Greek leges sacrae.76 Moreover, these parallels, taken together with the implications of Welborn's examples (all of which point to some form of presupposed, usually written, precedent standing behind exhor tations designed to overcome factionalism), offer support for Heinrici s original suspicion that Paul may be referring here to a community rule or bylaws. There is at least one additional indication in his letter that the source of the maxim quoted by Paul may be a rudimentary, Christian lex sacra. In 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23 Paul adapts for use in his argument the formula "it shall be lawful for" ( + dative).77 It is generally accepted, especially since the work of J. C. Hurd, that Paul is quoting a "slogan" used by the Corinthians, which may actu ally have its origin in Pauls own preaching.78 The least that we can say is that the phrase represents something with which Paul presupposes the Corinthians to be familiar. As to the significance of this formula, it must be admitted that it occurs in a wide variety of contexts. It can mean that an action is possible or within the capacity of the person in question.79 At times this formula can express what is
A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester: Manchester Uni versity Press, 1964) Appendix 2, p. 229; Graham writes elsewhere "similar provisions are very com mon in all decrees" (p. 60). Also see pp. 20-26, and for Cyrene and Naupactus, pp. 38-45. 76 See n. 66 above. 77 Schlatter has argued that the maxims in 1 Cor 4:6 and 6:12/10:23 belong together. To is a reminder to the Corinthians provoked by the same misapprehension of free dom in Christ that lies behind the slogan () . Schlatter derives this misuse from a Jewish principle that distinguishes the individual's obligation from freedom on the basis of the spe cific relevance of the law; that is, where there is specific guidance, one is under obligation, but where the law does not apply, one is free to act according to one's own moral judgment. Once the concept of "freedom from the law" was introduced, there existed no more grounds for personal obligation to any "canon" of any sort (Paulus: Der Bote Jesu, 198-99; but cf. Kuck, Judgment, 19). 78 J. C. Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965). Hurd lists twenty-four commentators known to him who accept the phrase () (6:12; 10:23) as a quota tion. Since Hurd, we can add also R. Kempthorne, "Incest and the Body of Christ: A study of 1 Corinthians VI. 12-20," NTS 14 (1967-68) 574; de Boor, An die Korinther, 113; Fee, Corinthi ans, 251; D. F. Watson, "1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric," JBL 108 (1989) 303. Hurd also outlines the basic arguments for this conclusion (pp. 120-21; cf. also 123, 278-79). For the limitations of Hurd's analysis, see M. M. Mitchell, "Concerning in 1 Corinthians," NovT 31 (1989) 234, 240-42, 244-45, 250, 255. Mitchell cautions that only 1 Cor 7:1 explicitly refers to written questions from the Corinthians. 79 W. Foerster, "," TDNT 2.560-61. This seems to be the sense in 4 Mace 1:12; 17:7; outside of the biblical tradition (Foerster denies that this sense is found in the NT [p. 560]), see, e.g., Xenophon, An. 7.1.21; Aristotle, Rh. 1401b.26; Teles, " ," 11H, in . N. O'Neil, Teles (The Cynic Teacher) (SBLTT 11, Graeco-Roman Religion 3; Missoula, MT: Scholars
75

294

Journal of Biblical Literature

fitting or proper in a given situation.80 We also find many instances in which the possibility of an action is determined by some kind of higher ethical or material power or by established law.81 With respect to Pauls phrase, E. Fuchs has located the interpretive context in discussions of freedom, especially as they are found in Epictetus. 82 However, in spite of the fact that Pauls argument echoes such philosophical discussions, it is not likely that it is from this arena that he has actually borrowed the formula. Instead, I would suggest that both Paul and Epictetus appropriate this formula from one of its more common applications We find a hint of this context in the literary record, when the formula is used with reference to cultic regulations.83 In fact, this formula is found com monly in Greek leges sacrae and is particularly prominent in the of public cult institutions, expressing the will of the civic officials who are in charge of the operation of the cult. The most common form of this legal phrase in the cultic regulations is the imperative. 84 For example, in the famous "minutes" of the Iobakchoi from
Press, 1977) 10-11, Philo, Plant 64 3 (possibly), Virt 57 3, Prov frg 2, 57 2, Omn Prob Lib 59 5, Epictetus, Diss 2 16 37,3 24 6, and also his well-known comment in Diss 1 1 2 1 . 80 Cf Ael, VH 12 6 1, Anaxagoras, Testimonia, frg 35 4,2 Esdr 4 14, Esth 4 2, Matt 20 15 81 E g , see Teles, " ," 29, m O'Neil, Teles, 28-29, Epictetus, Diss , 1 26 8, Philo, Plant 64 3 (possibly), Omn Prob Lib 59 5 (possibly), Acts 22 25, Ael, VH, 2 7 2, in legal contexts, cf Plato, Cri 51d, Philo, Plant 169 4, Josephus, Ant 8 404,1 Mace 14 44, John 18 31 82 E Fuchs, "Die Herrschaft Chnsti Zur Auslegung von 1 Kor 6,12-20," m Neues Testament und christliche Existenz Festschrift fur Herbert Braun zum 70 Geburtstag am 4 Mai 1973 (ed H D Betz and L Schottroff, Tubingen Mohr-Siebeck, 1973) 183-93 As far back as Olshausen, this phrase has been described as a "universal principle," related to what Paul says in Rom 8 21, and having to do with the freedom of the children of God (Epistles to the Corinthians, 104-6), see also Conzelmann, who says that "[o]nly the Stoics and Cynics provide material for comparison" (Corinthians, 108-9), more recently, Strobel, Korinther, 111-12 Drawing specific parallels between Paul's phrase and passages such as Diss 1 1 21, 18 2, 22 1, 27 14, 28 5, and Epictetus's famous definition of the truly free human being m 4 1 1, Fuchs suggests that Paul has appropriated what is essentially a Stoic phrase, into which he has introduced a new element (), in order to argue against a radical understanding of an expression of freedom, with which he agrees m princi ple, by focusing on the problem of allowing oneself, m the name of freedom, to become controlled instead by less worthy interestswhen m fact the Christian's freedom from such domination is the manifestation of the lordship of God, through the victorious Christ's ownership of the believer (pp 186-89) 83 Herodotus 1 183, Philo, Jos 43 4, Spec Leg 1 242 8, Josephus, Ant 13 252, 373, 15 203, 419, 20 268,/ W 6 426,1 Mace 14 44 (this is in fact a cultic installation decree, cf Josephus's account of Antiochus Ill's decree prohibiting aliens from entering the Temple of Jerusalem [Ant 12 145-46), 3 Mace 1 11, Mark 2 24, 26, 10 2, 12 14 and parallels, Matt 12 10, 12, 27 6, Luke 14 3, John 5 10 As we shall see, Foerster's comment that "[occasionally it [the for mula] is used also of religious and cultic commandments," is at best an understatement See on the form BAGD, s , 2, the impersonal third person singular is the common form m the literary record + the dative of the person + the infinitive of the action to be performed See also Moule, Idiom Book, 27 n 2, BDF 130 1,358 2,245 3,393 1,5,409 3,410 84 Smyth, Grammar, 1985, the third person singular imperative This is the consistent form

Hanges 1 Connthians 4 6

295

second-century CE Athens, we find the same form of the verb used to express both negative and positive injunctions "it shall be lawful for no one ( [line 32; cf. 1 Mace 14 44]), " it shall be law ful for the secretary. ." ( ... [line 100]) f The same negative constructions can be found in a cultic law from the same area and period, here in the published statutes of a private club.86 From the early first century we find the positive formulation used to prescribe the right to any Gythian who wishes to make a dedication to the emperor Tiberius on behalf of the city.87 Within the Greek homeland, there are many other examples of this type of usage, spanning several centuries.88 Outside the homeland, the Greek pattern was consistently followed in both Greek and non-Greek cultic decrees. In the decree of the association of the Sabbatistai of Elaioussa, from the Augustan period, we find the phrase (lines 7-8). 89 From Miletus
used in cultic regulations, e g, LSCG 177 (Cos, 300 BCE), IG 5 1 1390, IG 122 1368 (the minutes of the Iobakchoi of Athens, second century CE) In the donation of cultic nghts by Diomedon from Cos we find a prohibition with the unusual form, , which is probably the perfect infinitive active = (SGDI 3634 = SIG31106 = LSCG 177, line 43) Also cf SIG3 1097, line 36, , the plural with the singular imperative, also similar is LSCG 177, lines 80-81 The formula also appears in marriage contracts (P Eleph 20, no 1, lines 7ff ) 85 IG 2 2 1368 (= SIG2 737, SIG3 1109, LSCG, no 51), cf also line 63, 1 Pnene 202 5 This is an inscription published by a restneted club in the rituals of which public officials plav a role the inscription details the introduction of revised, and an affirmation of existing, cultic regulations See also IG 12 9 194, lines 3-5, SGDI 3052 (Chalcedon, second century BCE) 86 The in line 31 prohibits the entry of any person prior to approval by the group (IG 2* 1369 = LSCG 53) 87 SEG 11 923, line 17 = James Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178, Philadelphia American Philosophical Society, 1989) no 15a, pp 58-65 Oliver puts the terminus post quern at 10 March 15 CE This is the terminus post quern for the response letter from Tiberius, which would naturally postdate the actual proposal of the city of Gythium and the appended lex sacra Cf also / Pnene 202, line 5, LSAM 48, lines E2-4 (Miletus, 276/275 BCE), LSAM 54, lines 1-2 (Didyma, undated) 88 E g , LSCG 14, Ime 9 (Athens, 418/417 BCE), IG 2 610, Ime 21 (= IG 22 1361 = LSCG 45, Piraeus, fourth century BCE, a decree of the cult of Bendis, using the infinitive instead of the imper ative + the dative) and LSCG 177 (mentioned above, n 84), 47, lines 11,36 (Athens, 307/306 BCE), 98, line 38 (Keos, third century BCE), IG 9 2 1 2 583, line 76 (= LSCGSup 45, Actium, 217 BCE an agreement containing details for the reorganization of a cult of Apollo as a "federal" cult), IG 2 2 1346, line 16 (= LSCGSup 127, Athens, beginning of the Imperial Period), IG 5 2 514 (Lykosura, Arcadia, third century BCE = SIG3 999, prohibitions against wearing jewelry, sandals, purple, elab orate hairstyles, men's head coverings, black clothing, and flowery decorations on clothing, begin ning with the same form but here preceded by ) Additional examples can be found in SIG3 981, hnes 2-3 (Arkesine, third century BCE), SIG3 636, line 25 (Delphi, 178 BCE), SIG* 1157, lines 10-11 (Korope, 100 BCE) 89 OGIS 573 = LSAM 80 The formula also occurs in the same inscription at line 15, again in a prohibition There has been debate as to whether this inscription is Jewish, the members could bedepending on the interpretation of the name "keepers of the Sabbath"or they could be

296

Journal of Biblical Literature

comes a frst-century CE inscription, publishing new regulations instituted by a former official of the group (now cultic reformer) for a guild of musicians, which uses the formula in a prohibition against the transfer of the liturgies of and to an individual for a cash payment: vi . 90 More intriguing are those examples which bring the various elements dis cussed together in a single cultic law.91 From Cos we have a regulation for the cult of Dionysos Thyllophoros (second or first century BCE) dealing with the sale of the priestly office. In lines 23-30 we find a potentially interesting collo cation:92 . . . [][] [ ] [ ] [ ] [] ' [ ][] [][] I ai [ ], [] [ ] [][ ] [][ ] [] []... And the priestess shall be permitted to appoint an assistant priestess at the city's expense. But another woman shall not be permitted to serve as priest ess nor to perform [therites]for Dionysos Thyllophorus, unless the priestess should appoint someone for each deme. But if any woman should act con trary to the things which are written, the Master of the priestess and of the others, having the desire to do so, shall be permitted to impeach, in the Council, the woman who has carried out the injustice. Of course, the fact that, in this case, we must rely on restoration for the refer ence to makes this example problematic. However, that we can be certain of the use of the two phrases in question in other similar texts, for example, the lex sacra from Andania already mentioned, only increases the probability that the restoration is justified.93 These examples show the degree to which the + the dative formula and equivalents of the phrase found in 1 Cor 4:6 are at home in the context of the Greek

devotees of a deity called Sabbathikos (Sambathikos; see the editor's corresponding note). See also LSAM 62 (first century CE), a tribal cultic regulation, using the negative fonnula to forbid to any one the option of altering the document (line 11). 90 LSAM 53, lines 18-20. Here, as in IG 2 2 1361 (see n. 88 above), the infinitive is used. 91 I.e., (and equivalents) and . 92 Here we see the grouping of the formula in both positive and negative ordinances described as ; cf. SGDI 3627 = SIG2 598 = SIG3 1012 = LSCG 166. 93 [the prohibition against giving aid to slaves who have sought asylum in the sanctuary] . . . (lines 81b-82a), and lines 83b-84a: [the runaway slave] []-1 . Here we clearly have both technical terms used in close proximity in one of the most detailed of all cultic bylaws.

Hanges: 1 Corinthians 4:6

297

leges sacrae?* When we add to the mix Pauls use of technical terms of com mand and his practice of instituting specific community regulations (in both oral and written form), the parallel with the leges sacrae, in both form and con text, appears more obvious. It might be argued that the nature of Pauls instructionin fact, the nature of the church itselfis so alien to the concerns of Greek religion that it pre cludes the possibility of a Christian community rule or cult bylaws. Yet it is clear that much of Pauls written instruction deals with the same kinds of issues that are important for other religious groups. He issues regulations dealing with cul tic procedures, 95 with the relations between members of his group, 96 with ques tions of marriage, sex, and the cult, 97 with the participation of women and slaves,98 with decency and good order, 99 with proper cultic attire, 1 0 0 with the order of worship, 101 and with concern for the well-being of the state. 1 0 2 Fur thermore, we know that the contents of cultic regulations reflect the particular concerns and priorities of the individual group. While certain patterns remain consistent in the presentation and formulas used in these documents, their con tent is wide-ranging, including philosophically based concerns for ethics and moral purity. 1 0 3 With respect to the specific context of Pauls concerns in 1 Corinthians 1-4, the cult document of the "Guild of Zeus Hypsistos" demon strates that the issue of each members personal loyalty to the legitimate leader of the group, as well as regulations against factionalism, is not outside the range of appropriate topics. 104
94 In addition to IG 5 1 1390, see LSCG 177 for the collocation of these formulas (, 11.43, 80-81,148; equivalents of , 11.117,134-35). 95 1 Cor 11:17-34; cf. I.Ephesos la, lines 10-12; LSAM 60, lines 1-12. 96 1 Cor 5:11; 6:1-8 (presupposing knowledge of the principle involved); 8:9-13; Rom 14:1-15:7; cf. LSCG 53, lines 40-44; IG 22 1368, lines 72-90. 97 1 Cor 5:1-10; 6:12-20; chap. 7; cf. SIG3 985, lines 25-41; LSAM 12; 29, lines 5-7; IG 5 1 1390, line 8. 9 1 Corinthians 7; 11:3-16; Philemon; cf. IG 5 1 1390, lines 8, 16-26; SIG3 985, lines 14-44/IG 5 1 1390, lines 76-84; SIG3 985, lines 5-6. 99 1 Cor 14:26-40; cf. IG 5 1 1390, Unes 39-45. 100 1 Cor 11:2-16; cf. IG 5 1 1390, lines 13-26; IG 5 2 514, lines 2-9. 101 1 Cor 14:1-40; cf. I.Ephesos la 10, lines 12-15; IG 2 2 1368, lines 63-67. 1Q 2 Rom 13:1-7; cf. IG 42 1 128, lines 3-9; LSAM 9, lines 1-7; 53, Unes 33-35; I.Ephesos la 10, Unes 14-17. 103 E.g., LSCG 59, Unes 10-14 (Dlos, Imperial Period) also mentions such concerns, and expresses the ideal that a participant in the cult of Zeus Kynthios and Athena Kynthia, ... . . . . ("to enter with clean hands and soul"); LSCG 53, Unes 32-34; SIG3 985 (Philadelphia, first century BCE), Unes 14-50, 54-60 (S. C. Barton and G. H. R. Horsley, "A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches/'/AC 24 [1981] 7-41, esp. 17-23). 104 P.Lond. 2710, Unes 13-14; see C. Roberts, T. C. Skeat, and A. D. Nock, "The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos," HTR 29 (1936) 39-88. Some practical concerns must also be mentioned: while it could be objected that Paul's letters give no evidence either for the inscribing of a formal bylaws decree or for their permanent placement, we must note (1) that the aforementioned document (P.Lond.

298

Journal of Biblical Literature

Therefore, taking into consideration the frequent co-occurrence of these two characteristic phrases in the documentary record of a variety of contempo rary cult organizations, it seems to be a plausible hypothesis to propose that the referent of the phrase is a foundational document of the Corinthian church, a public document (i.e., open to all members of the community) mod eled on the kind of cult bylaws that would have been familiar to every member of the church, in which Paul had laid out those guidelines and principles which he felt necessary for the group s prosperity. Such a hypothesis appears to satisfy the conditions of the text and to interpret it plausibly in relation to contemporary culture.
2710) is not an inscription but a papyrus text (cf. the decree from Miletus, n. 73 above, lines 3541), and (2) that we appear to have evidence for the placement of cultic bylaws at the entrance to the private homes in which the cult group assembled (SIG3 985).

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.