I'd be interested to hear what people think of Volker Gäckle's recent and extensive study on the 'strong' and the 'weak' in Corinth and Rome (Die Starken und die Schwachen). It has been received well even by Gäckle's 1 Corinthians 8-10 'sparring partner', Woyke (cf. Johannes Woyke, "Das Bekenntnis zum einzig allwirksamen Gott und Herrn und die Dämonisierung von Fremdkulten: Monolatrischer und polylatrischer Monotheismus in 1. Korinther 8 und 10," in Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich. Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen, J Rüpke [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 101)
Based upon an examination of the likely Corinthian slogans and citations found in 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1, the concepts and vocabulary found therein, and the semantic field of ἀσθεν- ('weak'), Gäckle proposes a compelling portrait of the 'strong'. The description of a group as 'weak' by another is based upon 'kognitiv-rationalen edukativen und psychisch-emotionalen Kategorien' (108). He thus argues that the 'strong' are notably concerned about cognitive categories. 'Ebenso wie in 1Kor 8 liegt der Schwerpunkt der Diskussion in 1Kor 1-4 auf der Frage nach der Bedeutung von Wissen und Erkenntnis' (200). Indeed, he shows in detail that there are many examples in ancient literature of the pejorative characterisation of another group as ἀσθενής by a cognitively focused group (cf. 1 Cor. 4:10; 8:7, 9, 10; 9:22; 12:22). Gäckle writes:
‚Wie fast alle korinthischen Zitate und Begriffe lässt auch dieses Zitat ['Wir haben Erkenntnis'] ein aristokratisches Bewusstsein durchscheinen, das sich auf eine intellektuelle Welt- und Gotteserkenntnis gründet ... Der Glaube der starken nahm seinen Ausgangspunkt bei der Suche nach dem intellektueller Gotteserkenntnis' (190. Cf. also 189, 200–204).
The Corinthian 'knowledge' involves elitist cognitive concerns, an Intellektualismus (201).
Hit or miss?
13 comments:
I can't read German so I'm not able to give you my opinion on what you're asking, but I can say this... The Unicode is wonderful! Welcome aboard! :^P
Yea, thanks Nick! Kudos in your direction!
Nick - Untranslated German is a way of scaring off die Schwachen, whose kognitiv-rationalen faculties don't cut it. :-)
Byron,
You said it! ;^P
Many early Christians did indeed believe that they had secret knowledge or 'gnosis' that other Christians lacked.
Gäckle might be right. I tend to see Paul's use of wisdom and knowledge as ad hoc because I see him attempting to take back the true meaning of these terms from the very early proto-gnostics and other mystery religions of the day and is explaining what true knowledge and wisdom are about - knowledge of God. so, Gäckle could be right in that the Corinthians saw knowledge as elitist and intellectualism and Paul was correcting this
Miss (if your summary is accurate and I've understood it correctly.)
Paul writes at the beginning of the section (8:1b-3), as a caveat to what follow (I take 1a to be a topical header which Paul is about to address but is pausing for a moment to try to head off a misunderstanding):
"We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up (i.e. makes arrogant), but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
"Therefore," Paul continues, restating his topical header again after the digression, "in regard to (or concerning) the eating of things sacrificed by idols: we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (idiomatically that idols are false gods) and that there is no God but one. For even if..." and so on through the beginning of his actual discussion.
(That translation was provided from the prior version of the NASV. I haven't cross-checked it yet, being busy today, but nothing jumps out at me from experience as being a likely mistranslation. Nor from the larger context would I acknowledge that Paul is quoting his opponents anywhere here.)
The introductory qualification was intended to be a self-critical defuser: we know but we must also remember that knowledge puff up and we should be concerned with love first.
Paul's concern about "the strong" here is that they should not be arrogant about what they know, and should be careful not to let their freedom lead their weaker brethren into sin or misunderstanding about what the strong really believe.
(Incidentally, from local contexts I understand Paul to be talking about the pagans here by "the weak"; though as I've extensively commented elsewhere in previous weeks, I think "the weak" in context of Romans 14 is about Christians with a pagan background. Elsewhere in Paul "the weak" would be non-Christian Jews. However, I could about as easily accept that "the weak" in 1Cor8 are new Christians with a pagan background.)
The whole chapter is pretty clearly geared toward protecting "the weak" from "the strong" (the latter category including Paul himself); and the opening caveat fits into this concept.
This isn't about elitist cognitive concerns; or insofar as it is, Paul is flatly against them.
Though maybe that was Gäckle's point, too, and I misunderstood your summary. (If so, my bad, move along, nothing to see here. {g})
JRP
OK Byron, I asked for that!!
Steven, I would not disagree, and many of them lived in Corinth!
Brain:
"I tend to see Paul's use of wisdom and knowledge as ad hoc because I see him attempting to take back the true meaning of these terms from the very early proto-gnostics and other mystery religions of the day and is explaining what true knowledge and wisdom are about - knowledge of God"
Thanks. I found that helpful.
Hi Jason, I comment below:
Right, Jason. Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
“Therefore," Paul continues, restating his topical header again after the digression”
I don’t believe 8:1-3 forms a digression. It is Paul’s subject. 8:4a is formulated as an aspect within that wider discussion. As to the eating of ... what is stated in 8:1a. Note to the linking ouv in 8:4a.
That we are dealing with Corinthian citations is supported by the repetition of the ὅτι in 8:4b, and the parallel with the ὅτι in 8:1 which very probably evidences a citation-correction structure. To site from a footnote in my work on this, Cf. the massive majority of scholars on this: David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 364, and the references in 366 n.6; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (2) (Zürich: Benziger, 1995), 220–21; Fotopoulos, Food, 209–11; Gäckle, Die Starken und die Schwachen, 37–41; Wendell Lee Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth : The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 67–70, 83–84; B. Witherington, III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 188; G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), 362; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 2006), 439; Otfried Hofius, “‘Einer ist Gott - Einer ist Herr’. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Bekenntnisses 1.Kor 8,6,” in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für Erich Gräßer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, eds Martin Evang, Erich Gräßer, and Helmut Merklein, Michael Wolter (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 99; Johannes Woyke, Götter, “Götzen”, Götterbilder: Aspekte einer paulinischen “Theologie der Religionen” (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 203–4; Thiselton, Corinthians, 630, etc.
Speaking with you, i.e. that any citations are doubted, see Joop F. M. Smit, “About the Idol Offerings”: Rhetoric, Social Context, and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1–11:1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), e.g. 73 n.25.
“Paul's concern about "the strong" here is that they should not be arrogant about what they know, and should be careful not to let their freedom lead their weaker brethren into sin or misunderstanding about what the strong really believe.”
I see things slightly differently. It is not just that the gnosis of the ‘knowledgeable’ is arrogant, it is not the ‘necessary knowing’ either – which Paul details in 8:3, and echoes in 8:6. But I’ll leave my comments on that until a later date!
“This isn't about elitist cognitive concerns; or insofar as it is, Paul is flatly against them”
Ah, now I get you! Yes, Paul is against them. And Gäckle would agree!
Hi Jason,
Thanks so much for your great comment: "But he is about to correct the people he agrees with."
I think therein is the clue to the subtelty of the passage at a syntactical level. Paul agrees with them at one level, but not at another. Their "knowledge", which puffs up, can ultimately lead to "sin agaist Christ" (8:12), and idolatry (10:1-22). This is why 8:1-3 is so central, from a hermeneutical perspective, for Paul's entire argument in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1
Chris,
Yeppy yep. {g}
JRP
Incidentally, here's the remark Johannes Woyke 1 Cor dropped into your "Monotheism" thread from late Oct 2007. (He added the comment last week on the 28th.)
.......[Johannes' comment follows]
Hi Chris,
thanks for discussing my views!
I know: My style is difficult to read even for Germans (part of it is due to the subject matter, I believe or at least hope so ;-)
So I need to clarify my position on 1Cor 8:6! Primarily in focus is the "archontological" aspect, i.e. the question of who has divine power to create, save, and bring eschatological justice. Paul confesses just this: "In face of the many who are called gods, only one is [true] God; in face of the many who are called lords, only one is [true] Lord, and I have good reasons to confess thus. Okay, many gods and lords are being acknowledges and venerated. But on a closer look, there is only One, from whom and by whom and to whom are all things and who therefore deserves to be worshipped, namely the Father and Jesus Christ."
And since the "strong" in Corinth believe (either from popular Stoicism or from the mysteries of Isis or Serapis), that the One can be worshipped also by way of the many, Paul in 1Cor 10:19-20 demonizes the "many gods and lords" of 1Cor 8:5 in order to show that they are incompatible with the One, who alone is God and Lord.
Maybe my article in J. Rüpke (ed.), Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen, Tübingen 2007, p.87-112 is a little clearer on the matter.
Greetings!
Johannes Woyke
Thanks, Jason!
Post a Comment