1 Cor - Concerning Peri de
1 Cor - Concerning Peri de
C O N C E R N I N G IN 1 C O R I N T H I A N S by M A R G A R E T M. M I T C H E L L Chicago, IL It is a unanimous conclusion in scholarship on 1 Corinthians that the phrase ( " a n d concerning . . . " ) in 1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 provides in some way the key to the structure and composition of the letter. 1 Despite this agreement in principle, the interpretation of the formula has proceeded from unques tioned assumptions about the function, meaning and usage of the formula which have had almost consensus status among scholars. 2 The purpose of this essay is fourfold: to examine the role which observations about the formula have played in the recent history of exegesis of 1 Corinthians; to uncover the assumptions behind that scholarship; to present and document a thesis about the correct nature of the formula on the basis of its use in ancient Greek literary and epistolary texts; and, in conclusion, to indicate some implications of a proper understanding of for the investigation of the composition of 1 Corinthians. I M a n y scholars have concluded that the formulae in 1 Cor inthians introduce successive parts of a single excerpted letter, the For a list of scholars who "call attention to the significance of this repeated phrase" see J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (reprinted, Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1983), p. 64 n. 1. Hurd's list is current to 1965. Since then see, e.g., C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NY and Evanston: Hajper & Row, 1968), p. 154; F. F. Bruce, I andII Corinthians, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 24, 66; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), p. 132; G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 267; G. Sellin, "Hauptprobleme des Ersten Korintherbriefes," ANRWll, 25.4, 2940-3044, pp. 2941-42. 2 On the modern "consensus" see, e.g., V. L. Wimbush, Paul the Worldly Ascetic (Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1987), pp. 11-13; for both ancient and
modern views, see E.-B. Alio, Saint Paul. Premiere Epitre aux Corinthiens (Paris:
1
230
MARGARET M.
MITCHELL
so-called Antwortbrief,3 by which Paul responds, point by point, to the Corinthians' letter to him which he mentions in 7:1 ( ). 4 T h e formula is thus a central component of almost all partition theories of 1 Corinthians. 5 The classic formula tion of this argument remains that of W. Schmithals in his Die Gnosis in Korinth:
N u n ist die Beobachtung wichtig, class Pis von 1 7 , 1 an bis zum Ende des Briefes verschiedentlich Bezug nimmt auf schriftliche Anfragen der Kormther an ihn Die mit eingeleiteten Abschnitte gehren zweifellos demselben Paulusbrief an (7, 1 25, 8, 1, 12, 1, 16, 1, 16, 12), und zwar handelt es sich u m den Brief , zu 6 dem j a 16, 1-12 mit Sicherheit zahlt Es ist zu erwarten, dass Pis die Beantwor tung des Briefes ohne grossere Abschweifungen durchfuhrt Dass er das im Sinne hatte, geht aus dem 7,1 hervor, das nicht n u r die bis 7,24 folgenden Ausfuhrungen berschreibt, sondern anders als die spateren berschriften auf smtliche Anfragen des Gemeindebriefes blickt 7
For these reasons Schmithals concluded that 1 Cor. 1:1-6:1; 7:19:23; 10:23-11:1; 12:1-14:40 (with chapters 13 and 14 reversed); and 16:1-12 constitutes a single Pauline letter in response to the Corinthians' letter. 8 For Schmithals and the other exegetes who
3 This term seems first to have been used as a title by W Schenk, " D e r 1 Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung," ZNW60 (1969) 219-43, 241, and has been taken u p in subsequent partition theories (see Selhn, pp 2965-68 for a list) 4 For the various partition theories of 1 Corinthians with complete bibliography, see Merklein, " D i e Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes," ZNW 75 (1984) 153-83, pp 154-56 (see especially 153 1) and Selhn, pp 2965-68, now out of date but with helpful charts of the earlier theories is H u r d , pp 43-47
See the summary statement on the role of in partition theories by Merklein, 162 " I n dieser Hinsicht gibt es denn auch kaum einen Dissens unter den Teilungshypothesen " H e notes that among the partition theorists it is only J H r i n g {La Premiere Eptre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens, C N T 7 [Pans Delachaux & Niestl, 1949]) and E Dinkier ( " K o r i n t h e r b n e f e , " RGG3 IV, 1960, cols 17-24) who do not put all sections beginning with in the same letter Dinkier's theory (in dependence upon Bultmann) does not keep these sections together despite the fact that he points to the significance of the repetition of the formula in 1 Corinthians (col 19) 6 See Schenk's transformation of Schmithals' bold assumption into fact " E s ist nicht n u r 'zu erwarten' sondern auch zu b e o b a c h t e n " (p 224) 7 Die Gnosis in Korinth, F R L A N T s 48 (Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969 3 ), 85 8 Ibid, 95 (see 23 on the inversion of chapters 13 and 14) Even in Schmithals' later variations on his partition theory ( " D i e Korintherbnefe als Briefsammlung," ZNW64 (1973) 263-88, Die Briefe des Paulus in ihrer ursprnglichen Form [Zurich Theologischer Verlag, 1984], pp 19-85), this piece of logic has remained (but see the hesitation on oral and written questions in Die Briefe, 34)
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
231
divide 1 Corinthians into a collection of letters, the formula has been an important key to making those divisions. 9 Yet the formula has not only been constitutive of partition theories of 1 Corinthians. J . C. H u r d ' s The Origin of 1 Corinthians, so far the only sustained defense of the unity of the letter, 1 0 is also based on assumptions about the formula. H u r d argues that 1 Corinthians is one single letter, despite its apparent inconsistency in tone and expression, on the grounds that variations in the letter are due to the different types of information Paul received, that is, from oral and written sources. Thus when Paul responds to oral information, H u r d concludes, his tone is "aroused, even angry,'' but when he replies to written information (the Corinthians' letter), his tone is " c a l m and b a l a n c e d . " 1 1 H u r d reconstructs the CorinSo also Schenk, pp 224-25, A Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe (Gtersloh Gerd M o h n , 1975), pp 204-5, R Jewett, " T h e Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School, " JAAR 46/4 Suppl (1978) 398-444, pp 396-98, - J Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, N T A b h s 15 (Munster Aschendorff, 1982), 241 and passim, R Pesch, Paulus ringt um die Lebensform der Kirche Vier Briefe an die Gemeinde Gottes in Korinth, Herderbuche rei 1291 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien Herder, 1986), p p 88-97, 191-246, cf the remarks of J Weiss which have been influential for these scholars (Der erste Korintherbrief, K E K 7, 9th ed [Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910], pp x l n a n d l 6 9 ) C Senft acknowledges the weakness of the argument by appeal to the form ( La Premiere Epure de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens, C N T deuxime srie 7 [Neuchtel/Pans Delachaux & Niestl, 1979) 'Tndice formel qui lui seul ne serait pas trs significatif " (p 19) Yet on the further grounds of " l e style thologique" Senft assigns all the sections beginning with to his letter C , " r p o n s e s " , anyway 10 Since the advent of partition theories of 1 Corinthians (the first to gain serious attention were the suggestions of Weiss, pp xl-xhn), the partition theories themselves have been debated, e g , by K u m m e l , but the unity of 1 Corinthians has more often been conceded (Conzelmann, Barrett) or assumed (Bornkamm), than defended in a systematic treatment T w o recent studies have argued for the unity of the letter Merklein's " D i e Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes" and D L u h r m a n n , "Freundschaftsbrief trotz Spannungen Zu Gattung und Aufbau des Ersten K o n n t h e r b n e f s , " in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments, F S H Greeven, B Z N W 47, ed W Schrge (Berlin & NY de Gruyter, 1986), pp 298-314 Merklein defends the unity of 1 Corinthians by demonstrating that the sections not introduced with have pragmatic and semantic coherence with the sections (pp 162-79) H e does not question the formal assumptions about which underlie the partition theories with which he contends 11 pp 61-94 (the quotations are from pages 82 and 74 respectively) H u r d ' s assumption that there should be a correlation between the tone of Paul's response and the way in which he received the information can, I think, also be challenged, b u t in this paper I a m focussing on his assumptions about the formula This study will, however, challenge H u r d ' s assumption that a rigid separation can be made between oral and written information received by an epistolary author
9
232
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
thians' letter referred to in 7:1 (and correspondingly Paul's responses to their letter) from the sections beginning with .
As we shall see, each of the passages thus introduced in 1 Corinthians appears to consist of an answer to a question or questions asked Paul by the Corinthians It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that Paul's list of answers corresponds more or less closely to a list of questions from the Corinthian C h u r c h 1 2
H . Conzelmann, who also considers 1 Corinthians to be a single letter, 1 3 is perhaps even more adamant than H u r d about the infor mation to be gleaned from Paul's repeated use of the formula:
Dort [Kap 5] war nicht sicher festzustellen, ob es sich u m mundliche oder schriftliche Nachrichten handelt Von 7,1 an stehen wir eme Strecke weit auf sicherem Boden Paulus antwortet direkt auf schriftlich gestellte Fragen Diese bilden offenbar den Leitfaden durch den hier beginnenden Bnefteil Die Antwort wird jeweils mit eingeleitet 25, 8,1, 12,1, vgl auch 16,1 12 1 4
II
We have seen that both scholars who argue for the division of 1 Corinthians and those who argue for its unity appeal to the same observation 1 5 of the repeated formula. What is especially surprising is that both sides of this debate proceed from the same assumptions about the formula. In particular, three assumptions are operative in the work of the scholars we have considered, despite their different compositional conclusions: 1. the assumption that each in 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 refers back to 7:1, and thus must introduce a topic contained in the 16 Corinthians' letter. 2. the inverse assumption that Paul would only introduce a topic
64 Although Conzelmann more allows the unity of 1 Corinthians than argues for it (Der erste Brief an die Konnther, K E K vol 5, 12th ed [Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981 2 ], p p 15-17 and passim) 14 Ibid , 146 15 See D Betz's remark on 2 Corinthians " P r o p o n e n t s of hypotheses of partition and of unity unconsciously employ the same types of arguments, turning them first to one purpose, then to a n o t h e r " (2 Corinthians 8 and 9, H e r m e n e i a [Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1985], 26) 16 1 C o r 7 1 clearly does refer to a written inquiry T h e question is if the other uses of m 1 Corinthians undeniably refer to topics contained in that same letter
13
12
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
233
17
broached by the Corinthians in their letter to him with . 3. the further assumption that Paul responds with point 18 by point, in its order, to the Corinthians' letter. It is the purpose of this paper to challenge the absolute validity of these assumptions. This inquiry proceeds from two questions. What is the nature of the formula that we can be so sure what it means as an organizational and compositional element of 1 Cor inthians? And, granting that the repetition of the formula tells us something about the composition of 1 Corinthians, what and how much information can it tell us? These questions can only be answered by studying the formula in other ancient Greek texts as well as in the New Testament to ascertain its nature and function. 1 9 In so doing we shall see that the three assumptions about delineated above, which have had great influence upon scholarship on 1 Corinthians, are questionable, and perhaps even untenable. A comparative analysis of the use and function of in ancient Greek literary and documentary texts suggests a dif ferent understanding of the formula. Ill T h e thesis I shall propose is that the formula , as found in a wide variety of ancient Greek texts (with particular emphasis on
e.g., Conzelmann, p. 221: " E s besteht eine gewisse Spannung zwischen usserer und innerer Disposition der Kap. 11-14: Ein neues Thema wird erst 12, 1 angegeben, wieder mit , also offenbar wieder durch eine Anfrage aus Korinth angestossen." On this assumption Hurd becomes puzzled at 11:2 because " T h i s allusion immediately suggests that Paul is still dealing with the Corinthians' letter although the introductory is absent" (p. 90). For the partition theorists, this assumption demands that all material in chapters 7-16 not under must belong to another letter (Schmithals, Gnosis, pp. 85-89; Schenk, p. 225; Suhl, p. 206; Pesch, pp. 89-90). 18 Conzelmann, p. 21: "Offenbar folgt er einfach der Reihenfolge des korin thischen Briefs." Of many others, see also Hurd, p. 64 and his partial list of scholars who hold this view on p. 65 n.l. This assumption is challenged by Lhrmann, p. 305 and Fee, p. 267, but they do not question the first two assumptions. 19 The only specific study of the formula in the New Testament of which I am aware is that of C. E. Faw, ( " O n the Writing of First Thessalonians, " y & L 71 [1952] 217-25, pp. 220-222). This study suffers from the same presuppositions we have seen above. On these grounds Faw and others have postulated a letter to Paul from the Thessalonians which is indicated nowhere else in 1 Thessalonians (for a list of scholars who hold this view, see Hurd, p. 64 n. 2; and the discussion below). Faw deals only with the N T uses of , which is one of the problems with his analysis (his conclusions will be debated below).
17
234
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
letters), is simply a topic marker, a shorthand way of introducing the next subject of discussion. 2 0 Although this formula can be used in response to information received by letter, it is surely not restricted to this use, even in letters which mention a previous letter. 2 1 By the formula an author introduces a new topic the only requirement of which is that it is readily known to both author and reader. In itself the formula gives no information about how the author or reader became informed of the topic, nor does it give information about the order of presentation of topics. In addition, is one of a number of such topic-changing formulae which an ancient author writing in Greek could and did use. There is then no reason to assume that it is the only way an author could introduce a new topic in a letter or a discourse, regardless of how the topic has come to be known. Before a comparative analysis of in ancient literature can be done, the formula requires definition, is itself a preposition which takes the genitive or the accusative case, meaning ' 'concern i n g " or " w i t h reference t o " . 2 2 In the Koine period is often syn onymous with with the genitive. 2 3 However, it is not solely the
T h e function of as an introductory formula has been previously noted, for example, by J L White " with the genitive is often shorthand in private conversation for 'to a subject mentioned in previous communication' ' ' (The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter A Study of the Letter-Body in Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle, SBLDS 2 [Missoula, M T Society of Biblical Literature, 1972], 31) See also White's Light From Ancient Letters (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1986), 208, J Sanders, " T h e Transition from O p e n i n g Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline C o r p u s , " JBL 81 (1962) 348-62, 350 3, and Betz, 90 in regard to literary letters " I n ancient letters, it was customary to introduce the subject matter by means of the preposi tion ('regarding the matter of ') " 21 See Berger's analysis " T y p i s c h ist die R e d e von Senden u n d Emp fangen und die Bezugnahme auf andere Korrespondenz, dabei ist + Genitiv auf Dinge bezogen, die in frherer Korrespondenz erwhnt wurden" ("Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen T e s t a m e n t " ANRWll, 25 2, 1031-1432, 1331) Berger's comment advances the discussion because he opens the realm of reference by to any earlier correspondence, and not merely the most recent letter, but he still limits its sphere of reference to epistolary communications 22 B A G D , s M o r e often it is with the genitive which means " w i t h reference t o , " but it can mean " w i t h regard t o " with the accusative case also ( B A G D s 2 d, cf H W Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1920, 1980], para 1693, 3c, LSJ s ) 23 J Moulton and W F Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edin burgh & Clark, 1929), vol 2, 321, J Moulton-G Milhgan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London Hodder, 1930), 504, Smyth, para 1693
20
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
235
lexical meaning of the word which constitutes the form found throughout 1 Corinthians. The primary characteristic of this for mula is syntactical and stylisticthe phrase is pulled to the 24 front of the sentence for emphasis. with the genitive pulled to the front of the sentence is found in both absolute and gram 25 matically connected constructions. Even where a verb could con strue with the phrase ( e , in 1 Cor. 12:1 , , ), the formula stands off at the front as a topic marker, and retains a flavor of the absolute usage. T h e final element in the formula is the conjunction . 2 6 O n e question revolves around whether the is copulative or adver sative. 2 7 If the is merely copulative, then ..., for example, would be an identical form. 2 8 Most scholars seem to regard the as in some way constitutive of the form, as 1 Cor. 8:4 ( ) is rarely included in the list of verses using the for mula. 2 9 We have noted that the chief characteristic of the formula is the emphatic word order with the phrase pulled to the front
As noted in the lxica See Moulton and Milhgan, 504, B A G D , s 1 h, H Riesenfeld, TDNT 6 53 25 B A G D s 1 h, citing 1 C o r 7 1,8 1, 16 1, 12 as absolute and 7 25, 8 4, 12 1 (1 Thess 4 9, 5 1) as instances where the phrase construes with a verb (cf also the vi at 16 12) It should be noted that is found with a wide variety of verbs of both oral and written communication (see the list in B A G D s l a ) O n the absolute usage cf C F G H e i n n c i , Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die Konnthier (Berlin W Hertz, 1880), 60 n 2 26 Robertson and P l u m m e r see two distinct functions for the and the (First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, I C C [NY Charles S c n b n e r ' s Sons, 1925], 259, cf 132) 27 B A G D s , cites 1 C o r 7 1,8 1, 12 1 and 16 1 under the description " i n lists of similar things, to bring about a clearer separation betw the things listed" (1 c) Since 7 25 and 16 12 are not listed there (the in 16 12 is called " a transi tional particle pure and simple, without any contrast i n t e n d e d , " 2) one must con clude that the function of in the formula is, in their view, variable from case to case Robertson and P l u m m e r regard the " a n t i t h e t i c a l " sense of in the for mula less possible (p 259) Faw's contention that in 7 8, 11 2 and 15 1 is an abbreviation for ( 221) is highly questionable 28 T h e problematic formula in 2 C o r 9 1 will be left out of this discussion, as it is generally (and correctly) understood to be a different formula (on which see Betz, 90, V Furnish, // Corinthians, AB 32A [Garden City, N Y Doubleday, 1984], pp 425-26 and the works listed by them) 29 For example, Fee puts it m brackets [cf 8 4], (p 267) Selhn refers to the form as (), but curiously, even with this reserve about the , he does not include 8 4 m his list of references (p 2943)
24
236
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
of the sentence, and thus in most Greek sentences near some con junction. T h e formula 3 0 in 1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 therefore consists of t h r e e 3 1 elements: 1. the preposition with an object in the genitive; 2. the prepositional phrase is pulled to the front of the sentence ( is the first word); 3. the postpositive conjunction (in second position in all those instances). In our comparative analysis we shall focus in particular upon uses where all three elements are in place, but we shall also look at some instances where the different conjunction is found, or none at all. 3 2 What follows is an examination of the use of the formula in 1: Literary and Rhetorical Works; 2. Literary Letters; 3. Private Documentary Letters; and 4. the New Testament, in order to dem onstrate the validity of the thesis that the formula is nothing more or less than a way of introducing a topic the only requirement of which is that it be readily known to both writer and reader. T h e formula at the beginning of a sentence is common in a wide range of Greek literature. For example, in the Politics Aristo tle uses as a topic marker no less than thirteen times. 3 3 T h e topics which are the object of the preposition may or may not
30 O n e might ask if is indeed a " f o r m u l a " as H u r d and others have called it (p 74, cf Bruce, 66, Sanders, 350 3) Conzelmann refers to it as a " s t y l e " of answering questions ( " i m Stil der Antwort auf Anfragen" 248), Selhn " d e r Stichwort-referierenden W e n d u n g " (p 2943), and Barrett more generally " a similar form of words" (p 154) White has differentiated " f o r m u l a e " and "non-formulaic transitional devices" under which he classes with the genitive ( The Body of the Greek Letter, 31 and passim) While White has retained these categories in subsequent work (see the different terms and subcategories u n d e r which () is classed in Light from Ancient Letters, 203, 207, 208, 211), the exact definitions and differences between these categories have not been spelled out I will use the term " f o r m u l a " for the introductory phrase which has the three elements here defined 31 T o which we can add a fourth, negative criterion the does not answer a preceding 32 But priority will be given to occurrences of the exact formula 33 (2 6 1), (2 6 20), (3 3 1, with ace ), (3 11 1), (3 11 2), , (4 8 1), (5 7 1), (7 5 3), (7 10 4), (7 10 5), (7 14 10), [] (7 14 12), (8 4 3), (8 6 3) (Text cited according to the L C L edition, ed H Rackham ) T h e fre quency of use of () in the Politics was noted by F Susemihl (Aristotehs Pohticorum Libri Ocio [Leipzig Teubner, 1872], 631)
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
237
have been mentioned previously in the work, but all are common, well-known political and social topics, which the reader should immediately recognize (see the list in n. 33). For example, * 'for tified places" are not mentioned previously in the work, but are introduced at 7.10.4 with because the topic is readily under stood. Other comparable formulae beside are also used to move the work forward. 3 4 In a different genre, a rhetorical , 3 5 Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, is also used to introduce new topics. 3 6 As with the Politics, it is not the only formula so used in the work. 3 7 Again here in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum the object of the preposition, the topic being introduced, is a common subject which the readership should know (e.g., laws, oligarchy, peace). A third literary example of the use of is provided by Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophers, where is one formula used to move on to a new topic about the person under consideration (their death, their age, etc.). 3 8 is also commonly used in speeches to introduce the next topic of discussion, and thus functions as a rhetorical formula as well. 3 9 T o cite a conspicuous example, in Ps-Demosthenes Or. 7, the formula six times introduces the next subject of
34 Such as , , (cf 1 Cor 11:18), , (cf 1 Cor 11:34), and the common summarizing formulae and . 35 The work is set up with an epistolary opening, but this is probably a literary fiction to promote its attribution to Aristotle (see C. Robert, "Anaximenes," PW II, cols. 2086-98; especially 2090-91). For another instance of to mark a "subhead" in a rhetorical treatise, see POxy. 3708 ( ...). 36 (2.1424); (2.1424; with a c e ) ; (2.1425); (26.1435); (38.1446); (38.1446). (Text LCL edi tion, ed. . Rackham.) 37 See, e.g., in 6.1427; 23.1434; 24.1435; 25.1435; 35.1441; 36.1441; 38.1445. See also the summary formula (2.1423A [2 x ] ; 2.1424; 6.1428; 12.1434; 28.1436). 38 (8.67); (8.74); (8.77); (8.82); (10.83); (10.117). (Text LCL edition, ed. R. D. Hicks.) 39 See, e.g., Antiphon First Tetr. 9; Herodes 5.7; Andocides Myst. 34 (cf 33); Ag.Alcib. 42 (cf Peace 24); Isocrates 3.17; 5.30, 105; 8:18 (cf 8:26); 12.35 (cf 12:70, 93, 105, 110, 126 for uses without ); 15.139 (cf 15.259, 281); Lysias 24.10 (cf 13.32); Demosth. 49.55, 62 (cf 49.48); D. H. Ant.Rom. 4.34.1; 8.35.1; 11.6.6; 11.15.5 (in speeches); Dio Chrys. 7.132.
238
40
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
discourse. Thus is also used in rhetorical texts as one (among many) means by which to move on to the next subject. This 4 "shorthand" use of + the genitive is well attested in its use as 41 one of the most common title or subtitle formulae for ancient Greek letters, speeches and treatises as, for example, Demosthenes' Ep. 1 , or Aristotle's . Therefore, the phrase is found in Greek literary texts of varied genre 4 2 and d a t e 4 3 to introduce the reader, in a shorthand way, to the next topic of discussion. In such works is clearly not restricted to answering written questions. No conclusions can or should be drawn from the use of the formula alone about: 1. the source of the topic; 2. the chosen or determined order of presenta tion of topics; or 3. the literary integrity of the work. 4 4 is one of a variety of forms used to proceed to a new subject. With the use of in literary texts as a background, we turn to the use of the form in ancient letters as especially pertinent to our
7 14, 18, 30, 33, 36, 39 T h e concentration of use of this one formula is one argument (of many) for doubting that the work was composed by the stylist Demosthenes (it is attributed to Hegesippus) See F Blass's comment " U m eine engere Verbindung der Abschnitte kmmert sich dieser Redner nicht, die meisten fangen einfrmig mit a n " (Die attische Beredsamkeit [Hildesheim Georg O l m s , 1962], vol I I I , pt 2, 144 cf already D Dem 13) This speech takes u p topics known from a letter and from oral reports, using to introduce either (and subjects mentioned in both) 41 This is easily confirmed by glancing at the list of works Diogenes Laertius gives for each philosopher (e g , Aristotle m 5 22-27, Theophrastus in 5 42-50 and throughout the work, where , begins a title more frequently than any other term) is also used for subtitles, as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Holtz has pointed to this usage in Test X I I as parallel to Paul's in 1 Thess 4 9 (Der erste Brief an die Thessalomcher, E K K [Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag, 1986], 172 n 146) 42 See also the mysteries inscription from Andania (Ditt Syll3 736 lines 1 [reconstructed], 45, 78, 84 [with accusative] ) This text is cited as a parallel to m 1 Corinthians by Moulton-Milhgan, 504, BAGD s 1 h T h e for mula is also found in a will recorded by D L ( , 5 72) These are both more documentary than literary examples In historical works, see,e g , D H Ant Rom 1 63 1, 1 1 6 6, the texts from Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus cited by H e i n n c i , 60, n 2 43 Since Diogenes Laertius' Lives dates to the 3rd century, the examples from it and from Aristotle's Politics show the range in which the formula was used, thus placing Paul well within this chronological spectrum of use 44 T h e compositional integrity of the Politics has long been questioned (see W R N e w m a n , The Politics of Aristotle [Oxford Clarendon Press, 1887-1902], vol I Appendix C, Vol II pp xxi-xl and passim), mostly on the basis of incon sistencies in content, repetitiveness and hard transitions T h e use of in the work has not, however, been an issue in the deliberations
40
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
239
investigation of 1 Corinthians. The questions we shall ask of these letters to challenge the scholarly assumptions delineated above are: 1. is the formula in letters always used to answer a question from a previous letter (and is it even possible to determine this?); 4 5 and 2. is there evidence that by an epistolary author answers a previous letter in its order? We shall treat literary letters first and then private documentary letters. 4 6 T h e Platonic Epistles, 4 7 in particular Ep. 2, 12 and 13, provide very important parallels to the use of in 1 Corinthians. In Platonic Epistle 2 4 8 Plato writes to Dionysius of Syracuse. The let ter begins with a record of an oral report (" " I heard from A r c h e d e m u s " ; 310B), 4 9 but later in the letter reference
45 White rightly concludes somewhat more reservedly than the scholars we con sidered above, but even his view may overstate the case " () with the genitive case often signals a reply to something which the recipient has written O n occasion, the letter writer uses the construction to refer to something which he himself had previously w r i t t e n " (Light from Ancient Letters, 208, emph ) cf 211 " T h i s phrase ( ) usually indicates that the letter writer is replying to some inquiry of the recipient" (emph ) In fact in many letters it is not possible for us to determine the source of the topic, as we shall see below 46 T h e history of scholarship on ancient epistolary classification is vast and divided This work follows the broad categories of * ' Private or Documentary Let t e r s " and " L i t e r a r y L e t t e r s " as set out by D E Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity, vol 8 (Philadelphia Westminster, 1987), pp 158-72 (bibliography pp 180-82) For summaries of the debate and bibliography see, in addition to Aune, Vielhauer, pp 58-66, S Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity, vol 5 (Philadelphia Westminister, 1986), White, Light from Ancient Letters, pp 221-24 47 T h e Greek text here followed is Plato Epistulae, ed J Moore-Blunt (Leipzig T e u b n e r , 1985) T h e translations are my own 48 This work is of doubtful authenticity (see L Edelstein, Plato's Seventh Letter [Leiden Brill, 1966], pp 134-38 and the works cited there), but that should not affect the work's formal characteristics If inauthentic, the letter dates later than the historical Plato and thus closer to the first century C E (The author of these letters will be referred to here as Plato for the sake of clarity ) 49 cf 312D It becomes clear from the letter that Archedemus has been sent as an envoy to inquire of Plato in regard to specific matters ( , 312D, cf 313D) Archedemus will in turn be sent back to Dionysius from Plato and will inform him of Plato's response ( , 312D, cf 313D) and presumably also carry this letter (see 313D-E) T h e same vocabulary for information received by an envoy (, ) is found in 1 Cor inthians (1 11, 11 18, cf 5 1, see Berger, 1332, especially n 361) In 1 Corin thians, as here, it is impossible to differentiate information received by letter and by oral report, unless it is stated explicitly (as in the verses above and in 7 1) T h e reason this is so difficult is, as we shall see, that the letter and the envoy's report are part of the same communicative act (see, e g , Sb 6799, 10 , cf Col 4 7-9, Eph 6 21-22, Cic Ep ad Farn 3 1, 1 C o r 4 17?)
240
MARGARET M.
MITCHELL
is made to some past letters as well. 5 0 Thus, like 1 Corinthians, Platonic Ep. 2 is (or purports to be) in response to both oral and written information. T h e formula is used by this author at 314C: " a n d concerning Polyxenus, you were surprised that I sent (him) to you " It is not possible to determine if this is in response to oral or written information. Either is possible; in this context it is as likely (or even more likely) in response to the oral information communicated by Archedemus. The use of the formula in itself tells us nothing about the source of this information. It tells us merely that the topic (Poly xenus) was known to both writer and recipient. A similar formula is used at 315A, again with a proper name as the object of the preposition 5 1 : ... " a n d con cerning Lysicleides . . . " In both of these cases the prepositional phrase serves to introduce a topic which is readily recognized by both writer and recipientthe proper name of a person whom they both know. In 31 IE Plato begins " F o r concerning philosophy I say " Philosophy is of course a topic readily known to both Plato and Dionysius. Plato introduces the topic of philosophy here to make his case for the necessity of the reconciliation between himself and Dionysius. It is not a response to Dionysius' question, written or oral. 5 2 Platonic Ep. 2 displays for us the problem of too readily assigning references to topics which arose from inquiries in a previous letter. Any epistolary situation contains within it many contexts of
313C and 314E cf 1 Cor 16 12 T h e formula is common with proper names also in the papyri (see below) T h e reason is that the persons so named are known to both parties and can be referred to in shorthand There is no reason to suppose these instances are in response to a direct inquiry about these persons by Dionysius (but even if they were, one cannot infer that that inquiry came in the form of a letter) For another example, see Julian Ep 4 384D " , " a s for that abominable e u n u c h " (text and tr from W C Wright, L C L ) This is not in response to an inquiry (there is no mention of a previous letter from Onbasius), but is instead a call for information, as Julian goes on to say , ( " s o tell me whatever you can about t h i s " ) Scholars argue over to whom the epithet refers, but clearly Julian and his recipient O n b a s i u s knew' 52 For we know what Dionysius' question was , (312, cf 313C) It is not clear if this question was addressed orally or m written form (or both)
51
50
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
241
53
shared experiences and contacts between sender and recipient. With an author can call, in shorthand, upon any topic or person readily known to the recipient from their common experience. It is not restricted to the answering of written questions. Platonic Ep. 12 affords a good case for testing assumptions about because this letter is repeated by Diogenes Laertius in his life of Archytas ( D . L . 8.4), along with Archytas' letter which pur portedly prompted Plato's response (Ep. 12). 5 4 Even if both letters are fictitious,55 seen together they give us some sense of the epistolary protocol which some later writer followed. Archytas' let ter to Plato first reports the receipt of a letter from Plato and an oral report by the envoy Lamiscus, both telling of Plato's recovery from an illness ( D . L . 8.4.80). T h e very next line of the letter begins ( " a n d concerning the memoranda . . . " ) . 5 6 Again, there is no way to tell if the topic of the was con tained in Plato's previous letter, 5 7 Lamiscus' report, or both, or is introduced by Archytas. T h e letter does not tell us. In Plato's reply to Archytas' letter (PI. Ep. 12 = D.L. 8.4.81), he refers explicitly to that letter by using a similar formula to that found in 1 Cor 7:1 ( ' , ... ' ' a n d with respect to the memoranda before me, concerning which
53 In this instance, oral news from Archedemus, who represents Dionysius, let ters from some point in the past, and even some conversation in the past ("but you yourself were saying this to me in the garden . . . " [313A]). Because the modern scholar is an outsider to the epistolary conversation, and the on-going life conversation of which it is a part, one must be cautious about claiming to know more than one can. What we can determine from the use of in his letter is that the author thinks he can count on his recipient to know the people and things to which he refers, out of any number of common contexts which they share. [The situation becomes somewhat more complicated in the case of pseudepigraphical literary letters, which function at the level of the understanding of the readers, and not merely an epistolary addressee.] 54 There are minor variations between the two texts (mostly in word order) but none affects the references. 55 It is quite possible that Archytas' letter was a later composition occasioned by the extant (itself probably pseudepigraphical) PI. Ep. 12 (see F. Novotny, Platonis Epistulae. Commentants Illustratele [Brno: Opera Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis, 1930], p. 281). For a summary of the arguments concerning the authorship of these two letters and bibliography, see Edelstein, p. 127, n. 14. 56 D.L. 8.4.80 (text LCL edition ed. R. D. Hicks, translations mine). 57 If Platonic Ep. 9 is understood by Diogenes to be that previous letter (he knows of two such letters; see 8.4.79), it does not mention the .
242
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
you wrote . . . , ' ) . 5 8 Here we are on sure footing; where this extended formula is used there is no doubt that the reference is to a previous epistolary communication (as in 1 Cor. 7:1). Indeed, this cor responds with Archytas' letter, which, as we have seen, is about the . Two lines later, in the last line of his letter, Plato uses the formula: ..., " a n d concerning the custody . . . " (of the m e m o r a n d a ) . 5 9 This topic was not mentioned in Archytas' letter to which this letter respondsbut it is a topic known to the recipient from some other context, as the rest of the sentence shows: , ' " a n d concerning the custody we both agree, so it is by no means necessary to give instructions". 6 0 From the juxtaposition of both of these letters we can say with certainty that does not refer to the previous let ter. T h e context from which this topic is so readily known to both author and recipient cannot be definitely reconstructed. The use of the formula does not resolve the question of the source of the topic. Indeed in this case, the formula introduces a topic which the second letter writer wishes to discussindependent of any request from his recipient. One can only conclude by the introduction of the subject of custody with the formula that it was so under stood (from previous discussion, epistolary or oral) as to be readily called to mind. Since the does not refer to the previous letter, Plato is obviously not confined to its order in arranging the topics of his epistolary response. In his letter the organization of topics is logicalfirst he mentions his purpose in writing, to send the memoranda on to Archytas (359D), and then he discusses what Archytas is to do with the memoranda once they have arrived. In Platonic Ep. 13, Plato writes again to Dionysius of Syracuse, as in Ep. 2. It is a complicated letter, filled with a variety of topicsthe transporting of philosophical works, the introduction of the teacher Helicon, the sending of general merchandise, and a
PI Ep 359D = D L 8 4 81 359E = D L 8 4 81 60 Ibid , cf 1 Thess 4 9 (sic) These both would be nonsensical sentences if they were in response to inquiries for information cf Julian, Ep 29 41 IB , ( " C o n c e r n i n g the affair of Lauricius, I do not think I need write to you any instructions, but I give you just this word of advice " ) (text and tr Wright, L C L )
59
58
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
243
61
discussion of the financial affairs of both Plato and Dionysius. T h e epistolary context includes several previous communications 62 between the two: a letter (or letters) from Dionysius referred to by the specific formula we saw in Ep. 12 ( ... " a n d concerning what you were writing to me to 63 send off to you . . . " ) , oral communication from the envoy Lep64 65 tines (361B), prior conversations, and even future letters. T h e formula is used three times in this letter: ... " a n d concerning what you were writing to me . . . " (361 A); ... " a n d concerning (the) plants . . . " (36IB); ... " a n d now concerning the sign which refers to the letters . . . " (363B). In the first instance it is clear that the topic comes from the previous letter(s), as we have seen. It is possible that the second instance also refers to a previous letter, as the plants could logically be among the things Dionysius requested Plato to send, but one cannot tell. The Apollo (361A), along with the figs and myrtle-berries Plato regrets he cannot send (36IB), could be the extent of Dionysius' shopping list. But Plato also sends other things not requested (361 A). T h e plants may or may not have been mentioned in one of Dionysius' letters to Plato. 6 6 In regard to the third instance of in this letter, it is clear that this topic is brought up by Plato, not in response to a ques tion from Dionysius: " A n d now concerning the sign which refers to the letters, as to which ones I write in earnest and which not, I suppose on the one hand that you remember (it), but nevertheless,
61 Edelstein argues for the inauthenticity of this epistle as well, on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the genuine Ep. 7 (pp. 131-33). T h e pedestrian nature of the concerns which occupy Plato in this letter has also been used as an argument against its genuineness (see Edelstein, p . 133 n. 23; J . Souilh, Platon. Oeuvres Completes, Vol. 13, pt. 1 [Paris: Socit d'Edition, 1926], pp. lxxi-lxxv). 62 Note the Imperfect tense of in 361 A. 63 361A; cf 1 Cor. 7:1 and the same formula in Julian Ep. 29.411B. 64 See ' in 362E. in 362B could refer to oral or written com mands. T e r m s we might identify with oral conversation can also be used to refer to information conveyed by letter (see the c o m m a n d in 361C). 65 ' ' , ' ' (362). 66 Notice that Plato's response is to refer the matter to the envoy ( ; 361 ; cf 363C). It is equally likely that the matter arose from an oral report of Leptines to Plato (or, again, from both his oral report and the letter). It could also have been a shopping matter left over from previous letters! T h e important point is that the presence of the formula does not resolve the question.
244
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
67
have (it) in mind and turn your thoughts (to i t ) . " The epistolary author introduces the issue of the epistle's authenticity here and at the beginning of the letter (360A) to maintain the literary fiction 68 that the letter is by Plato (cf 363E). T h u s within the same letter, Platonic Ep. 13, is used to refer to topics broached from various sources, oral and written, and even by the author himself. Once again we have seen the interrelatedness of oral and written reports, and noted the methodo logical difficulties in distinguishing between them. The order of topics in this letter is determined by the epistolary author's pur pose, with references to the sign of authenticity at beginning and end. In the middle of the letter topics are arranged by the author's choice. 6 9 We have seen that the formula in literary letters 7 0 introduces the next topic for consideration, which may have been mentioned in a prior correspondence but need not have been. The formula may also refer to information conveyed orally, or to a topic which the letter writer chooses to bring up. is not restricted to the answering of epistolary questions in literary letters. We now turn to private letters which provide important parallels to Paul's epistolary conventions and style. 7 1 The formula is found throughout these texts. 7 2 First we shall look at parallels to 1 Cor. 7:1,
67 , , , ^ , 363 68 As with 2 Thessalonians, this emphasis on authenticity in the letter itself is taken as an indication that it is spurious (see Souilh, p lxxiv) 69 Uses of are frequent in this letter to introduce a new topic, sometimes in combination with another introductory formula (see 361 C, 362A, C, and E) 70 For other examples, see D Ep ad Ammaeum 1 730, ad Pompeium 766, Apoll of T y a n a Ep 14, Socrat Ep 7 3 (cf 7 1), 27 5 ( ), Ps-Demetr Epist Types 9, Julian Ep 4 384D, 29 41 IB See also the letter of Souron in Eupolemos fragment 2 ( = Euseb E 34 2, 3) Note also Betz's reference ( 90 n 7) to the parallel use of de in Latin letters (citing Cic Ep ad Fam 1 8, Ep ad Quint 3 9 1, Ep ad Brut 21 1) 71 As long noted by scholars (see n 46 above for the literature) All references to papyri in this article follow the abbreviations used in B A G D , translations are my own 72 Moulton-Milhgan cites PEleph 13, 4f , B G U 1097, 3, 246, 13 as parallels to the formulae in 1 Corinthians (p 504, picked u p by B A G D s 1 h , adding B G U 1095, 9) See below for an analysis of these and other texts which have not been cited before
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
73
245
... , This extended formula is a specific way to refer to topics broached in a prior letter (as we have seen above), as in BGU 417, 74 2: ... . It is also used to refer to the writer's own past letter: ... " a n d concerning what 75 I wrote to you before .... ' ' This introductory formula is not used solely with the verb , but is also used to refer to topics arising from oral communiques, as in Sb 9017, 17: ... "concerning what you have said to us ' ' 7 6 A similar construc tion is found in inquiry formulae: "concerning of what you have need, write to m e " . 7 7 T h e fact that 4- genitive (in these instances, as in 1 Cor 7:1, with a relative pronoun) is found with a variety of verbs of both oral and written expression, indicates that the word in itself gives no information about how the topic arose. 7 8 T h e formula is commonly used in papyrus letters which make no mention of a previous letter, 7 9 so it is clearly not always an "answering formula." For example, in BGU 1097, which dates c. 50 C . E . , the formula occurs twice, each time with a proper name: & ... (line 5) and ... (line 11). In this letter the author (reconstructed as ) writes to her father to remonstrate him for encouraging his son Sarapas to join the army, and to inform him that Sarapas has gone to the camp. This letter does not answer a
73 Commentators have long noted the rhetorical figure brachylogy here (see Weiss, p. 169, who cited PLond. 43, 4f. and PPetr. 16, 5 as parallels [p. 169 n.
2])
74 cf POsl. 1475, 3; BGU 1208, 12 (reconstructed) and 20. See the combination with the disclosure formula in Sb 9120 ( [] xt ...), a parallel to 1 Cor. 12:1 (cf 1 Thess. 4:13). 75 Sb 6734, 3 ( = Zen.-P. 28); cf Sb 1045, 2; POxy. 113, 19. In the text cited, because of the it may or may not have been the last letter to which the author makes reference. 76 See also, e.g., Sb 11020, 2 ( ...); PPetr. 16, 5 ([] []...); Sb 9017, 15 ( [] ...); and the more general ... (PGoodspeed 4.11). 77 Sb 11584, 10. Of many other examples, see Sb 10451, 2; BGU 892, 23; POxy. 1.113, 30; 9.1218. 78 An accompanying verb (as in these examples and in 1 Cor. 7:1) may answer that question, but that leaves the other instances of without such a specific phrase ambiguous in this regard (see below). 79 As we have seen above, a very specific and formulaic acknowledgement of receipt of a prior letter is found throughout private letters where such is the case.
246
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
80
previous letter, as none is mentioned. here serves to intro duce the next topic of conversation, a person readily known to the 81 addressee (he is father to at least one of the two). The same use is made of the formula in B G U 246: ... (line 13) and ... (line 17). In the reconstructed papyrus there is no mention of a previous letter which this answers, and there is 82 no need to postulate one. The phrase ... does not refer to a written inquiry, but instead introduces a new topic about which the author has heard: , ... [] " a n d concerning Hermione, let it be a concern to you, how she might be without grief ... for I heard that she was grieved." At Oxyrhynchus a letter was preserved from Isidorus to his brother Aurelius, containing instructions on a variety of agri cultural matters. No prior letter from Aurelius is mentioned. Instead, Isidorus refers to past oral conversation ( [ = ] ... ' 'just as I said to you concerning the prickly plants . . . " ) . 8 3 At line 14 the letter continues [ = ] ... ''concerning the bulls " The bulls are a topic 84 readily known to both brothers and thus can be introduced with the shorthand + genitive. In Sb 12086 a certain Alexandra writes to her father Eutropius with assorted business news. Her letter does not answer a letter from him. She writes to tell him that she has carried out his instruc tions, which were apparently oral (see [ = ] in line 7). In line 11 she begins: ..., and proceeds to tell her father of the attempts she and her brother Theopompus
80 In the text as we have it some lines are, however, missing, yet the common explanation formula , !V appears in line 1 (cf Amh 2 133, 5-6) 81 We have seen (above) the formula with proper names in literary letters (cf 1 C o r 16 12) For other instances of (or or ) with a proper n a m e in papyrus letters see, e g , B G U 417, 15, 1206, 6, 1207, 7, Sb 2, 33, 6794 ( = Zen -P 88), 1, 7180, 1, 12694, 15, P M i c h 8 475, 12, cf also PYale 42, 32, POxy 294, 24 (discussed below), 531, 4-5 ( ...), for instances where a person is referred to with this formula, but not by their proper n a m e 82 Surely one can refer to an individual in a letter without having been asked about them first' 83 P O x y 113, 3, cf B G U 450, 17 , 84 cf Sb 12183, 5 ( = ) This papyrus is very fragmentary No words of writing or letters are present (but see in line 3)
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
247
have made to open the grain storehouse. T h e topic of the storehouse is known to her father, so she can introduce it with the formula . In Sb 9654B, the formula (without a conjunction) is used to introduce a topic indisputably not from a previous letter. Heracleides writes to Tourbon, chiding him for not having written (line 5). At line 13 he introduces the topic of goosefeed in a familiar fashion: The complete sentence (lines 1318) reads: , , [] ("concerning the goosefeed, I learned today, and until now it has not come up, but you didn't care, as you didn't write to me about t h i s ! " ) . In several letters the () formula introduces the main epistolary subject, 8 5 as in Zen.-P. 12, which reads: . [ ... "Attinas to Zenon, greetings. Concerning the wages which are for Hermippus " Hermippus' wages, and all the circumstances surrounding them, are presumably known to Zenon so that they can be introduced with the formula. There is no mention of prior correspondence in this brief letter. 8 6 The topic is known to author and recipient from their common experience as employer and laborer (one need not postulate a previous letter to account for this use of the for mula). T h e same formula is used, again directly after the epistolary salutation and greeting, in P.-Zen. 99 ( = Sb 6814), 1: [] [] " concerning the disputed vineyards " T h e correspondents presumably know which vineyards are meant. Two final examples demonstrate yet again that in private letters is not restricted to the answering of epistolary questions. Nechthosiris writes to Leon his brother, first complaining that he has received no letters from him. 8 7 Nechthosiris then reports that
85 O n e should also note the use of to summarize the contents of a letter for its docketing and filing, as a use similar to the titles and subtitles of literary works (see P.-Zen. 7 verso, 9 verso, 15, 17, 34, 49; P.Cairo.Zen. 59202 = M . David and B. A. van Groningen, Papyrological Primer [Leiden: Brill, 1965], # 6 1 ) . For this practice, see White, Light From Ancient Letters, pp. 216-17. In some cases, on the letter itself, is found to introduce comments, presumably afterthoughts, in the margins, as in P M i c h . 292 and Sb 10724. 86 cf Zen.-P. 78 ( = Sb 6784), 6: [] ' , (here the topic arose from other correspondence). 87 Sb 9259 = PYale 42, line 5: .
248
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
he has received oral news from Protolaus about Leon's affairs ( ; line 11). Twice in his letter, which then clearly responds only to oral news, Nechthosiris uses the formula: ' ... " a n d concerning my affairs . . . " (line 22) and 88 ( = ) " a n d concerning your brother . . . " (line 32). Neither can refer to a written inquiry, as we have seen. The topics either were raised with Nechthosiris by the envoy Protolaus, or are introduced by Nechthosiris himself. The formula tells us only that Nechthosiris expects Leon to easily know to what he refers (what affairs, which brother). In POxy. 294, Sarapion writes home from Alexandria because he has heard that while he has been away his house was searched. H e writes to confirm this oral report. Near the end of the letter is the enigmatic phrase: [] ... ( " a n d concerning the bald man . . . " ) . Since there has been no prior letter, this cannot be a response to an inquiry, but instead is a subject which Sarapion brings up using the formula to switch topics. Presumably the addressee knows which bald man is m e a n t ! 8 9 We may conclude from these examples 9 0 that in private documentary letters the formula is not restricted to the answering of written questions. Next we shall look at papyrus letters which (like 1 Corinthians) mention a previous letter from the recipient, to see if in those letters always undeniably introduces a topic from that previous let ter. In Sb 2 (from 117 C.E.), the author quotes a previous letter from the person he addresses (Paulus): [] , "You wrote to me saying, 'if you are able, sail back! ' ' ' (line 6) In the lines which follow he details the misfortunes and miseries which have prevented him from sailing to Paulus. H e also recounts that a certain Demetrius has arrived (line 29), and found him in tears. A new topic is introduced in line 33: . .. There is nothing to indicate that Ptollarion was mentioned in the previous letter from Paulus. Since, as we have
T h e reconstruction here following White, Light from Ancient Letters, 55 G Milligan interprets this as " a facetious reference to certain friends" (Selec tions from the Greek Papyri [Cambridge University Press, 1912], 34) 90 Of many other examples, see Harr 104, 10, 105, 6, B G U 93, 5, 601, 18, 822, 6, 884, 21, 885, 7, Sb 679, 1 and 5, 6720, 3, 7258, 9, 7562, 22, 7660, 14, 7743, 16, 8006, 14, 11148, 24, 11429, 14, 11622, 5 and 6, 11853, 3 and 5, 12084, 11, 12107, 26, 12202, 2, 12620, 2, PRyl 2 229, 12, P A m h 2 133, 4, 5 and 14, 135, 17
89
88
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
249
seen, -l genitive is commonly used in letters to refer to persons known to both parties, there is no reason to presume that Paulus' letter contained a request for information about Ptollarion. It is of course possible that it did, but that is certainly not necessary to account for the formula. T h e topic may have arisen from conversa tions with Demetrius, or (more likely) it is the author's special con 91 cern. In several cases () refers to a topic raised by the letter writer him/herself. 92 In Sb 6823 a certain Capito writes to Teres about the building (or rebuilding) of a house. In part he responds to a letter from Teres, as he says [ = ] , " a n d concerning what you commanded me through the earlier letter, you will find it d o n e " (line 13). Toward the end of the letter he introduces a new topic with our for mula: .../'and concerning the terrace . . . . " Does the use of this formula prove that Capito is responding to an inquiry from one of Teres' letters? It appears not, since Capito writes: , [ ] , ... [] " a n d concerning the terrace, what it seems to you, write me ... for the place needs ( o n e ) " (lines 22-26). T h e topic of the terrace, known to both writer and addressee, is in this case introduced by the writer to give further information ( " t h e place needs o n e " ) , and to request Teres' opinion. T h u s even in a letter which refers to previous letters, need not necessarily refer to a topic from one of those letters. 9 3 A final example is provided by B G U 417, a letter from Dioskorus to his son. After the salutation Dioskorus begins: ... "concerning what you wrote . . . . " In the rest of the letter,
He brings Ptollarion up to complain about his behavior (see line 34 and following). 92 e.g., Sb 12694, 15: ( . In this letter the author has announced the arrival of Satrius with the 24 drachmas (lines 1 and 9) but men tions no letter. This formula in line 15 is not a response to an inquiry, but is itself a request for information. See also POxy. 133, which refers to a letter from the recipient (line 9), and a previous one from the sender (line 19 .) and concludes: ). 93 For further examples, see POxy. 1220, lines 9, 12 and 24, where the first two undeniably refer to a previous letter, but the third is ambiguous; P. Ryl. 2.229; and PEleph. 13,5 and 6 (and the comment by S. Witkowski on the formula in regard to this letter in his collection [Epistulae Privatae Graecae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1911 2 ), p. 43].
91
250
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
4- genitive is used as an introductory formula four times. 9 4 One might assume that each topic under () was contained in the son's letter, but a closer look at the letter reveals that the father writes about his choice of topics in his responding letter. At the beginning Dioskorus refers to the son's letter, as we have seen, and says that he is mindful of the things about which he wrote, but con tinues: " b u t I ask you to put away all the lofty things , . . . " 9 5 H e rebukes his son for neglecting the important things of their vineyard, which Dioskorus brings up one by one (the sweet grapes, a certain Heraklas, the sour grapes, and "all things"), repeatedly urging ("let it be of concern to y o u ! " ) . Dioskorus deliberately deals in his letter with the topics of his choice ("repeatedly I write to you about the same things!").96 Even though the epistolary author mentions the receipt of a letter from his son, he crafts his own letter of response including his choice of topics, often introducting them with . Thus the list of things beginning with do not necessarily correspond to the son's letter (and in fact probably do not). From this investigation of the use of in private documen tary letters 9 7 we may conclude: 1. that is not solely an answering formula, because it is used to introduce topics in letters which make no mention of previous letters or explicitly state that there has been no letter; and 2. that even in letters where a previous letter is mentioned, topics introduced with need not have come from that letter.
94 (line 8), (line 15), [] (line 22), and (line 26) T h e preposition is used 8 more times in this one letter 95 ', ( B G U 417, 2) 96 B G U 417, 26, cf Ime 22 97 Edicts in letter form also contain the formula For example, Claudius' Letter to the Alexandrines, P L o n d 1912, contains the formula in lines 52 and 66 These passages were cited as " a n exact parallel" to Paul's use of in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians by W M a n s o n , Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed M Black (Philadelphia Westminster Press, 1962), 275 Claudius' letter, it should be noted, is in response to both oral and written communication (lines 20-21) See also Marcus Aurelius' letter to the Koinon of Asia which states (a topic which he brings up) (The text is from Euseb EH 4 13, cited from L C L vol on M a r c u s Aurelius ed and tr by C R Haines, " N o t e on C h r i s t i a n s " ) See also the Edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander (Sb 8444, 62 [cf lines 19, 29-30, 44])
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
251
In the New Testament the formula is not restricted to the 98 Pauline corpus. Only one study has been done on the for mula in the New Testament, that of C. E. Faw, who cited Mk. 12:26; 1 3 : 3 2 " ; J n . 16:11 and Acts 21:25 as New Testament uses of the formula outside of the Pauline letters. H e concluded on the basis of these texts:
(1) that is a formula of reply to specific questions or problems, especially where there is a series of such, (2) m series of replies it is properly used to introduce those from the second point onward, (3) in Pauline usage it is confined to the answering of specific questions or problems brought u p in letters from the chur ches to which he is writing 10
We shall begin by assessing Faw's first two conclusions which refer to all New Testament uses. As noted above, Faw's investiga tion suffers from a small sample as it is restricted to the New Testa ment. O u r analysis of the formula in ancient texts has demon strated that it is not restricted to replies to questions, casting serious doubt on his first conclusion. Nevertheless, even these New Testa ment texts do not unambiguously support Faw's contentions; all New Testament uses of the formula conform to my definition of as a topic marker introducing a readily-known subject. J n . 16:11 must be disqualified from consideration because there the answers the in 16:9, 1 0 1 and with it goes Faw's second conclusion. 1 0 2 In Acts 21:25 the phrase ... introduces a new topic after the speakers have focussed on the Jews who have believed (21:20). The formula does not signal a reply to any spoken or written question, and the order of topics results from the speakers' own rhetorical pur 103 poses. Because the subject of Gentile Christians is readily under stood by the audience, it can be introduced with .
98 This section will of necessity be brief, consisting mainly of a critique of Faw's conclusions Space precludes a full analysis, but it should be noted that the for mula also occurs in Early Christian Literature (e g , Did 7 1, 9 1, 2, 3, 11 3, Ign Eph 2 11, Phil 11 1) 99 T h e M a t t h e a n parallels to the M a r k a n texts retain the ( M t 22 31, 24 36)
100
101
2 2 1
See note 31 above By my definition (per above) M t 6 28, Acts 26 2, Tit 3 8b, H e b 5 11 and 9 5b are also instances of the formula 102 T h e r e is nothing m M k 12 26 or 13 32 to substantiate the claim that introduces a second response O n e might bring 1 C o r 7 1 and Acts 26 2 as counterexamples 103 In this case, more likely the author's rhetorical purposes Conzelmann ascribes the verse to Lukan redaction (Die Apostelgeschichte, H N T vol 7 [Tubingen
252
MARGARET M. MITCHELL
Faw understands Mk. 12:26 ( ...) and 13:32 ( ...) to be examples of in response to questions, but in these cases his exegesis of the texts must be questioned. The controversy story in Mk. 12:18-27 is, true to form, occasioned by the Sadducees' question, but the part of Jesus's response which begins introduces the topic which Jesus introduces for the sake of his argu m e n t , 1 0 4 to be validated by a Scripture citation from Ex. 3:6. It is not a response to their question (characteristic of controversy stories), for that was different: ; (12:23). Faw traces the in Mk. 13:32 all the way back to the disciples' question in 13:4, in order to demonstrate that is a formula of reply to a question. But this does not do justice to the complexity of the tradition-history and present structure of Mk. 13. The disciples' question in 13:4 (likely a redactional phrase to contextualize pre-existent apocalyptic material 1 0 5 ) is a two-fold question: " w h e n will these things b e ? " and " w h a t is the sign?" Dieter L h r m a n n ' s analysis of the structure of Mk. 13 is grounded in these two questions; he considers vv 5-23 to be the response to the first question, and vv. 24-27 as the response to the second. 106 His literary analysis of Mk. 13 would put 13:32 fully nine verses beyond the answer to the question " w h e n will these things b e ? " thus contradicting Faw's conclusions. The question of the structure of the apocalyptic discourse in Mk. 13 and its relation to the questions of 13:4 is probably even more complicated and intertwined than L h r m a n n ' s analysis suggests, 107 but nevertheless Mk 13:32 cannot be understood as "Jesus' second answer to the disciples regard-
M o h r (Siebeck), 1972 2 ], 131) It is Luke's way of adding a new topic (the decree of the Jerusalem Council) onto a different discussion 104 See R Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, F R L A N T n s 12 (Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957 3 ), pp 39-56 (p 42 on Mk 12 26) See also 25, where Bultmann argues that 12 26ff is a later addition (a similarity with Acts 21 25) can be used to make additions to a text because it appropriately signals a new topic 105 See W Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, F R L A N T n s 49 (Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959 2 ), pp 101-28, especially 109 where he attributes 13 l-5a to M a r k Differently, R Pesch regards a question to be original to the pre-Markan tradition, but takes the doubling of the question , to be M a r k ' s addition (Das Markusevangehum, H T K [Freiburg, Basel, Wien Herder, 1977], vol II, pp 273-77) 106 Das Markusevangehum, H N T (Tubingen M o h r [Siebeck], 1987), 218 107 As Marxsen's work demonstrates (pp 101-28)
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
108
253
ing the end of the a g e . " T h e formula in M k 13:32 serves 109 to introduce (or in its context, to re-emphasize ) the topic of 110 discussion. It does not signal a reply and surely it is not the second such reply. Acts 26:2 ( ...) is a good counter example to Faw's conclusions about the use of [] in the New Testament. Here the formula [] serves, by way of shorthand, to introduce the topic of Paul's defense speech. It is not a reply to a question, and is the first point of consideration. 1 1 1 We conclude that the formula in each New Testament occurrence is con sistent with the definition of the formula which emerged from our analysis of the formula in Greek literary and epistolary texts. In disagreement with Faw's first and second conclusions, it is not solely a "formula of reply" and is not confined to the second point in a discourse. We now turn to Paul's use of the formula , and Faw's third conclusion. In 1 Thessalonians Paul uses it in 4:9 ( ...) and 5:1 ( ...). Some scholars have concluded from the use of this formula that Paul must be responding to a Thessalonian letter which contained these inquiries, 1 1 2 but other scholars have correctly held out against that hypothesis. 1 1 3 From this study we are now in a position to say that
Faw, 221 Perhaps similar to 1 Cor 8 4 (and cf 1 Thess 5 1) 110 Bultmann argued that perhaps 13 30 and 32 comprise the end of an independent Jewish apocalypse (p 130) Marxsen is unsure of the traditionhistory of 13 32 (p 109) 111 cf the Zenon letters above where immediately introduces the topic of the letter 112 See above, note 19 Appeal is normally made to 1 Corinthians for this view (see, e g , J E Frame, The Epistle of St Paul to the Thessalonians, ICC [NY Scribner's Sons, 1912], 157 and the scholars listed by Hurd, 64, n 2) Schenk argued for the partition of 1 Thess on the basis of the "Briefantwort parallele" between 1 Thess 1 1-2 12, 4 3-5 28 and his Corinthian Letter (pp 234-35) 113 e g , A Plummer, A Commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians (London Roxburghe House, 1918), 64, Rigaux, St Paul Les ptres aux Thessaloniciens (Pans LeCoffre, 1956), pp 55-56 and Holtz, 173 (see n 154 for other scholars who doubt the existence of a ' 'Thessalonian letter") Rigaux argues correctly that "il est impossible de distinguer avec certitude ce qui est rponse la lettre des Thessaloniciens et rponse au mmoire oral de Timothe" (p 56, the same impossibility exists for 1 Corinthians, see below) Despite their sound arguments and correct conclusions, it is interesting to note that both Rigaux and Holtz defend their position by arguing that the formula is used differently
109 108
254
MARGARET M.
MITCHELL
the use of in 1 Thessalonians alone provides no evidence of a previous letter from the Thessalonians, as the formula is wellattested in letters which do not respond to other letters. It is merely one way to introduce a new topic of discussion, and in itself gives us no information about the source ofthat topic. The topics which Paul introduces with the formula in 1 Thessalonians are either in response to the oral information brought by Timothy (3:1-6), or are topics which Paul himself wishes to introduce, or some combination of the two. 1 1 4 IV At the outset of this inquiry we uncovered three assumptions in scholarship on 1 Corinthians about the role and function of the for mula : 1. that each time is used it must refer to a topic contained in the Corinthians' letter of 7:1; 2. that Paul only introduces a topic from their letter with ; and 3. that Paul follows the order of topics of the Corinthian letter with the formula . O u r investigation of the use and meaning of in other Greek literary and epistolary texts leads us to conclude that nothing in the formula itself substantiates these assumptions. We shall conclude with four implications of these findings for the investigation of the composition of 1 Corinthians: 1. A central argument on which most partition theories of 1 Corin thians are based has been rebutted. The use of the formula in itself gives one no reason to doubt the integrity of the letter or to divide the letter according to its use. T h e partition theories presume that all of the sections in 1 Corin thians introduced with should be part of a single letter, because Paul would not interrupt his answers to written questions with discussion of topics from oral reports (e.g., 11:17ff.). If all topics brought up with can not be definitely proven to have come from the Corinthians' letter, then this argument loses 115 ground. More inportantly, partition theorists expect or even
in 1 Thessalonians than in 1 Corinthians M y thesis accounts for both Pauline let ters through a single theory of the significance of the formula 114 This interpretation solves the problem of Paul mentioning their request and then refusing to answer it (this is correctly understood as the rhetorical figure paraleipsis, so Holtz, 172) 115 Another presuposition behind these theories is that a letter should respond to one epistolary occasion ( e , a letter, a visit, etc ), so these theories line up dif-
CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS
255
demand, without justification, that Paul respond in a wooden style using only one introductory formula to refer to epistolary topics. 1 1 6 But on formal grounds there is no reason to assume that other introduc tory formulae 1 1 7 in 1 Corinthians 7-16 (such as ... in 10:1 and ... in 15:1) introduce sections from another letter. 2. H u r d ' s argument for the unity of 1 Corinthians depends upon assumptions about both the formula and our ability to distinguish between oral and written epistolary topics which are untenable. As a result it is not fully convincing. If is not solely a formula for answering written questions, then H u r d ' s exegesis of 1 Corinthians, based as it is upon the separation of Paul's responses to topics broached orally and in writ ten form, cannot hold. O u r comparative analysis has demonstrated that the formula cannot give the definite information which H u r d wants to derive from itthe source of the topic between the epistolary partners. We have also noted that often envoys who bring letters play a role in supplementing the contents of those let ters. T h e receipt of a letter thus frequently entails a combination of oral and written communicationso inextricably linked that there may be no justification for insisting upon the radical separation of the two which H u r d makes. H u r d ' s theory also suffers weakness, in my opinion, because it does not allow for any points of contact (even topical!) between the two sets of information received from Corinth, a possibility which is highly unlikely. 3. An analysis of the composition of 1 Corinthians cannot proceed from these three assumptions about the formula .
ferent letter fragments with each of the possible epistolary occasions of 1 C o r (1 11, 7 1, 16 17, see Schenk, 237 " d i e d n e im I Cor genannten Informanden auch die Veranlassung fur drei verschiedene Schreiben des PI gewesen s i n d " ) O u r study of ancient letters casts doubt on this presuppposition too, m a n y letters respond to both oral and written information 116 It is interesting that scholars who remove 10 1-22 from the Antwortbrief because they separate out all sections not u n d e r from that letter do not find the same variation of introductory formulae ( , , ) in 1 Thessalonians grounds for dividing that letter there (e g , Schenk, pp 242-43) 117 Introductory formulae have been classified by scholars over the last few decades (see J L White, " I n t r o d u c t o r y Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Let t e r , " JBL 90 [1971] 91-97, Y Mullins, "Disclosure A Literary Form in the New T e s t a m e n t , " NovT [1964] 44-50, idem, " F o r m u l a s in New Testament Epistles," JBL 91 [1972] 380-90)
256
MARGARET M
MITCHELL
In 1 Cor 7:1, Paul undeniably refers to a letter from the Corin thians. 1 1 8 H e refers to oral communication in 1:11 and 11:18 (cf 5:1 ; 16:17). The topics which he raises by means of the formula (in 7:25ff.) may or may not have been mentioned by the Corin thians in their letter Topics introduced in other ways also may or may not have been mentioned in the Corinthians' letter. 1 1 9 We can not be more definite than this about the source of the topics in 1 Corinthians, as the use of particular formulae in itself cannot produce the certainty which scholars have sought in their exegesis of this letter. What we can say definitely is that each of the topics Paul introduces with the formula (virgins, idol meat, spiritual people/things, the collection and Apollos 1 2 0 ) is readily known to both the Corinthians and Paul from some element of their
shared experience.
4. T h e composition, structure and arrangement of 1 Corinthians is determined by Paul's rhetorical purpose, and not by the Corin thians' letter. does provide a clue to the composition of 1 Corinthians in that it is one of the ways in which Paul introduces the topic of the next argument or sub-argument Despite the fact that in itself can tell us nothing of the source or order of these topics, it is our most important clue to understand how Paul, on his own terms, chose to respond to the multi-faceted situation at Corinth of which he had been informed. Although that may be considerably less information than scholars have presumed that they could glean from its use, this proper understanding of the formula remains an important starting point for the investigation of the composition and rhetorical structure of the letter
T h e extent o f t h a t reference could be one verse 7 1 or 7 1-24, or all of ch 7 This interpretation receives striking confirmation from Chrysostom " ' ... , . Sto . ' , ', ', (Horn in Epist ad Cor , A r g u m e n t u m 2-3 [Migne, PG 61 12]) 119 It is important to emphasize that this investigation does not prove that the topics u n d e r were not mentioned in the Corinthian letter, but merely that they need not have been to have been so introduced 120 YY e h a v e s e e n that t h e formula commonly used with proper names in literary and private letters, and when so used there is no cause for presuming a prior inquiry about that person This is important in the case of Apollos O n e cannot conclude by the formula that the Corinthians had asked if Apollos would come (contra Weiss, 384, Robertson and Plummer, 392, Barrett, 321, Fee, 823) For the same usage in E C L see Ign Eph 2 1, Phil 11 1, cf Did 11 3
118
^ 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.