1 Cor - Concerning Peri De

7/30/2019 1 Cor - Concerning Peri De

1/29

Novum Testamentum XXXI, 3 (1989)

C O N C E R N I N G I N 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 ("and 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 na tu re 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 composit ion 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

1For a list ofscholars who "call attention to the significance ofthis 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


2/29

230 M A R G A R E T M . M I T C H E L L

so-called Antwortbrief,3

by which Paul responds, point by point, to

the Corinthians' letter to him which he mentions in 7:1 (

).4

The formula is thus a central component of

almost all partition theories of 1 Corin th ian s .5

T he 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 E nd e des Briefes

verschiedentlich Bezug n i m m t auf schri ft lich e Anfragen der K o r m t h e r 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 um den Brief, zud e m ja 16, 1-12 m it Sich erh eit zahl t Es ist zu er wa rt en ,

6dass Pis die Beantwor

tu n g des Briefes ohn e grossere Abschweifun gen dur chf uhr t Das s er das im Sin nehatte, geh t au s de m 7,1 he rv or , d as n ich t n u r die bis 7,24folgenden Ausfuhrungen berschreibt, sondern anders als die spaterenberschriften au f smtliche Anfragen des Gemeindebriefes blickt 7

For these reasons Schmithals concluded that 1 Cor. 1:1-6:1; 7:1-

9:23; 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, "Der 1Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung," ZNW60 (1969) 219-43, 241 , and has beentaken up in subsequent partition theories (see Selhn, pp 2965-68 for a list)

4For the various partition theories of 1 Corinthians with complete

bibliography, see M erklein, " D i e Ein heitlichkeit des ersten K or in th erbriefes ,"ZNW 75 (1984) 153-83, pp 154-56 (see especiall y 153 1) an d Se lhn , pp2965-68, now out of date but with helpful charts of the earlier theories is Hurd,pp 43-47

5See the summary statement on the role of in partition theories by

Mer klein , 162 " I n dieser Hinsicht gibt es denn auch kaum einen Dissens unterden Teil ung shy poth ese n " H e notes that am on g the parti tion theorists it is onlyJ Hring {La Premiere Eptre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens, CNT 7 [Pans Delachaux& Niestl, 1949]) and E Dinkier ("Kori nthe rbnefe ," RGG3 IV, 1960, cols 17-24)

who do not put all sections beginning with in the sam e letter Di nk ie r'stheory (in dependence upon Bultmann) does not keep these sections togetherdes pite t he fact t ha t he points to the significance of the repetit ion of the formu la


3/29

CONCERNING IN 1 CORINTHIANS 231

divide 1 Co ri nt hi an s 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 Corin thian s. 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 urd 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 "ar ou se d, even an gry, ''

but when he replies to written information (the Corinthians' letter),

his tone is "calm and balanced."1 1

Hurd reconstructs the Corin-

9So also Sch enk, pp 224-25, A Suh l, Paulus und seine Briefe (Gtersloh Gerd

Mo hn , 1975), pp 204-5, R Jewet t, " T h e Redaction of 1 Cor inthians and theTrajectory of the Pauline School, " JAAR 46/4 Suppl (1978) 398-444, pp 396-98, - J Klauck, Herrenmahl undhellenistischerKult, NT A bh s 15 ( M u ns t er Aschen-

dorff, 1982), 241 an d passim, R Pesch, Paulus ringt um die Lebensform der Kirche

Vier Briefe an die Gemeinde Gottes in Korinth, Herd erbu che rei 1291 (Freiburg, Basel,

Wien H e r d e r , 1986), pp 88-97, 191-246, cf the re ma rk s ofJ Weiss which have

been influential for these scholars (Der erste Korintherbrief, K E K 7, 9th ed [Got-t ingen Vandenhoeck & R u prech t , 1910], pp x l n a n d l 6 9 ) C Senft acknowledgesthe weakness of the argument by appeal to the form ( La Premiere Epure de

Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens, C N T deuxime srie 7 [Neuch te l/Pans Delachaux &

Niest l, 1979) 'Tnd ic e formel qui lui seul ne serait pas trs significatif " (p19) Yet on the further gro unds of " le style thologique" Senft assigns all the sections beginning with to his letter C, "rponses", anyway

10 Since the advent of part ition theories of 1 Corinthians (the first to gainserious attent ion were the suggestions of Weiss, pp xl-xhn), the part ition theoriesthemselves have been debated, e g , by Kummel, but the unity of 1 Corinthianshas more often been conceded (Conzelmann, Barrett) or assumed (Bornkamm),than defended in a systematic trea tment Two recent studies have argued for theuni ty of the letter Merkle in' s "D ie Einheitlichkeit des ersten Kor int herbri efe s"and D Lu hr ma nn , "Freundschaftsbrief trotz Span nun gen Zu Gat tun g und Auf

bau des Ersten Konntherbnefs," in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des NeuenTestaments, F S H Greeven, BZ NW 47, ed W Schrge (Berlin & NY de Gruyt er,

kl i d f d h i f i hi b d i


4/29


thians' letter referred to in 7:1 (and correspondingly Pa ul 's

responses to their letter) from the sections beginning with .

As we shall see, eac h of the passages thus introduced in 1 Cori nthi ans appears to

consist of an answer to a quest ion or questions asked Paul by the Cori nthi ans 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 Church1 2

H . Conzelmann, who also considers 1 Corinthians to be a single

letter,1 3

is perhaps even more adamant than Hurd about the infor

mat ion to be gleaned from Paul's repeated use of the formula:

Dort [K ap 5] war nicht sicher festzustellen, ob es sich um mundliche oder

schriftliche Nac hr ic hten han del t Von 7,1 an stehen wir eme Strecke weit auf

sicherem Boden Pa ulus antwortet direkt auf schriftlich gestellte Fragen Diese

bilde n offenbar den Leitfaden durch den hier beginnenden Bnefteil Die Antwor t

wird jeweils mit eingeleitet 25, 8,1, 12,1 , vgl auc h 16,1 121 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

observation1 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 particu lar, 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

Corin th ian s ' letter.1 6

2. the inverse assumption that Paul would only introduce a topic

1 2 64


5/29


broached by the Corinthians in their letter to him with .

1 7

3. the further assumption that Paul responds with point

by point, in its order, to the Corinthians' letter.1 8

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

funct ion.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.

I l l

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

1 7e.g., Conzelmann, p. 221: "Es 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

"This allusion immediatelysuggests 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).1 8 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


6/29

234 MAR GAR ET M. MIT CHEL L

letters), is simply a topic marker, a shorthand way of introducing

the next subject of discussion.20

Although this formula can be used

in response to information received by letter, it is surely notrestricted

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 authorand 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 oneof a number of such topic-changing formulae which an ancient

auth or 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, mea ni ng ' 'concern

ing" or "with reference t o " .2 2

In the Koine period is often syn

onymous with with the genit ive.2 3

However, it is not solely the

2 0The function of as an intr odu cto ry formula ha s been previously note d,

for example, by J L Whi te " with the genitive is often shor than d in pri vat e

conversation for 't o a subject ment ion ed in previ ous communicat ion' ' ' (The Form

and Function of the Body of the GreekLetter A Study of the Letter-Body in Non-LiteraryPapyri and in Paul the Apostle, SB LD S 2 [Missoula, M T Society of Biblical

Literature, 1972], 31) See also Whit e' s Light From Ancient Letters (PhiladelphiaFortress Press, 1986), 208, J Sande rs, " T h e Tra nsit ion from Op en in g

Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus," JBL 81(1962) 348-62, 350 3, an d Betz, 90 in regar d to lite rary letters " I n anc ient

letters, it was customary to introduce the subject matter by means of the preposition ('r eg ard ing the ma tt er of ') "

2 1See Berg er' s analysis "T yp is ch ist die Re de von Sen den un d Emp

fangen un d die Bez ugn ahme auf and ere Kor resp ond enz , dabei ist + G enitiv

auf Dinge bezogen, die in frherer Korrespondenz erwhnt wurden"("Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament" ANRWll, 25 2, 1031-1432, 1331) Ber ger 's c omme nt advan ces the discussion because he opens the real m


7/29


lexical mean ing of the word which constitutes the form found

throughout 1 Cor inthians. The primary characteristic of this for

mula is syntactical and stylisticthe phrase is pulled to the

front of the sentence for emphasis.2 4

with the genitive pulled to

the front of the sentence is found in both absolute and gram

matically connected constructions.2 5

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.

The final element in the formula is the conjunction .2 6

One

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 formula.

2 9We have noted that the chief characteristic of the formula

is the emphatic word order with the phrase pulled to the front

2 4As noted in the lxica See Mou lto n and Milhgan, 504, BA GD , s

1 h, H Riesenfeld, TDNT 6 532 5

B A GD s 1 h, citing 1 Cor 7 1, 8 1, 16 1, 12 as absolute and 7 25 ,

8 4, 12 1 (1 Thess 4 9, 5 1) as inst ances where the phrase construes with a ver b(cf also the vi at 16 12) It should be noted that is found wi th a wide var iety

of verbs of bot h oral and wri tten communi ca tio n (see the list in BAG D s l a )

O n the absolute usage cf C F G He in nc i, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus

an die Konnthier (Berl in W He rt z, 1880), 60 n 22 6

Robertson and Plummer see two distinct functions for the and the

(First Epistle ofSt Paul to the Corinthians, I CC [NY Charle s Sc nb ne r' s Sons, 1925],

259, cf 132)2 7

BAGD s , cites 1 Co r 7 1,8 1, 12 1 an d 16 1 und er the descrip tion " i n

lists of similar things , to bri ng about a clearer sepa rati on betw the thing s l is ted "

(1 c) Since 7 25 and 16 12 ar e not listed th ere (th e in 16 12 is called " a tra nsitional particle pure and simple, without any contrast intended," 2) one must con


8/29


of the sentence, and thus in most Greek sentences near some con

junction.

The formula3 0

in 1 Cor. 7 :1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 therefore

consists of three3 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 wherethe 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 not hing

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.

The 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

The

topics which are the object of the preposition may or may not

3 0O n e might ask if is indeed a "f o r mu l a " as Hu r d and others have

called it (p 74, cf Bruce, 66, San de rs, 350 3) Co nz el ma nn refers to it

as a "s t yl e" of answerin g questions (" im Stil der Antwort auf An fra gen " 248),Selhn " d e r Stichwort-referierenden We n d u n g " (p 2943), and Barrett more

generally " a similarform of words" (p 154) White has differentiated "f o rm u la e"

an d "non-formulaic transitional devices" under which he classes with the

genitive ( The Body of the Greek Letter, 31 an d passim) While White has retained

these categorie s in subsequen t work (see the different te rms an d subcategorie s

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 or mu la " for the introdu ctory phrase which has

the three elements here defined3 1

T o which we can add a four th, negativ e crite rion the does not a nswera preceding

3 2But priority will be given to occurrences of the exact formula


9/29


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 7Again 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 underconsideration (their death, their age, e tc . ) .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

To cite a conspicuous example, in Ps-Demosthenes Or. 7,

the formula six times introduces the next subject of

3 4Such as , , (cf 1 Cor 11:18), ,

(cf 1 Cor 11:34), and the common summariz ing formulae and

.3 5

The work is set up with an epistolary opening, but this is probablya 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 ( ...).3 6

(2.1424); (2.1424; with ace);

(2.1425); (26.1435);

(38.1446); (38.1446). (Text LCL edition, ed. . Rackham.)

3 7See e g in 6 1427; 23 1434; 24 1435; 25 1435;


10/29


discourse.4 0

Thus is also used in rhetorical texts as one

(a m on g ma ny ) me an s by which to move on to the next subject. Th is4

"shorthand" use of + the genitive is well attested in its use as

one of the most common title or subtitle formulae4 1

for ancient

Greek letters, speeches and treatises as, for example, Demosthenes'

E p. 1 , or Aristotle's .

Th er ef or e, the ph ras e is found in Gree k lite rary texts of

varied g e n r e4 2

and date4 3

to introduce the reader, in a shorthand

way, to the next topic of discussion. In such works is clearlynot restricted to answe ring writte n 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 var ie ty of forms used to pro cee d 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 especiallypertinent to our

4 07 14, 18, 30, 33, 36, 39 T h e conc ent rat ion of use of this one formula is one

a r g u m e n t (of many) for doubting that the work was composed by the stylistDe mosthe ne s (it is attr ibu ted to Heg esipp us) See F Blass's co mmen t " U m e in eengere Verbindung der Abschnitte kmmert sich dieser Redner nicht, die meistenfangen einfrmig mit a n " (Die attische Beredsamkeit [Hildesheim GeorgO lm s, 1962], vol I II , pt 2, 144 cf alre ady D Dem 13) This speech takesu p topics known from a letter and from oral reports, using to introduce

either (and subjects mentioned in both)4 1This is easily confirmed by glancing at the list of works Diogenes Laertius

gives for each ph ilos oph er (e g , Aristotle m 5 22-27, Th eo ph ra st us in 5 42-50 an dthr oughout the work, where , begins a title more frequently than any otherterm) is also used for subtitles, as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Holtz has pointed to this usage in Test XII as parallel to Paul's in 1Thess 4 9 (Der erste Brief an die Thessalomcher, E K K [Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukir-chener Verlag, 198 6], 172 n 146)

4 2See also the mysteries inscription from Andania (Ditt Syll

3736 lines 1

[reconstructed], 45 , 78, 84 [with accus ativ e] ) Th is text is cited as a para llel to

m 1 Cor inth ians by Moult on-M ilhg an, 504, BA GD s 1 h T h e form u l a is also found in a will re co rd ed by D L ( ,5 72) Th b h d h l i l I hi i l


11/29


invest igation of 1 Corint hians. 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

The Platonic Epistles,47

in particular Ep. 2, 12 and 13, provide

very important parallels to the use of in 1 Corinthians. InPlatonic Epistle 2

4 8Plato writes to Dionysius of Syracuse. The let

ter begins with a record of an oral report (" " I

heard from Archedemus"; 310B),4 9

but later in the letter reference

4 5White rightly concludes somewhat more reservedly than the scholars we con

sidered above, but even his view ma y over state the case " () with the

genitive case often signals a reply to som eth ing which the recip ient has wri tten O n

occasion, the letter writer uses the construction to refer to something which hehimself had previously written" (Light from Ancient Letters, 208, em ph ) cf

211 " T h i s phr ase ( ) usually indicates that the letter writer is replying to

some inq uir y of the re ci pi en t" (e mp h ) In fact in ma ny letters it is not possible

for us to determine the source of the topic, as we shall see below4 6

Th e his tory of scho larship on anc ient epis tolary classification is vast and

div ided Th is work follows the br oa d categories of * ' Private or Documentary Let

te rs " and "Li te ra ry Let te rs " as set out by D E Aune, The New Testament in its

Literary Environment, Libr ary of Early Chris tianit y, vol 8 (Philadel phia

Westminster, 1987), pp 158-72 (bibli ography pp 180-82) For summaries of the

deb ate and bib liog raph y see, in addi tion to Au ne, Vielha uer, pp 58-66, S Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity, vol

5 (Philadelp hia Westm inister , 1986), White , Lightfrom Ancient Letters, pp 221-244 7

Th e Gr eek text here followed is Plato Epistulae, ed J Moore -Blun t (Leipzig

Te ub ner , 1985) Th e translations are my own4 8

Th is work is of doubtful au then tici ty (see L Edelstein, Plato's Seventh Letter

[Lei den Brill, 1966], pp 134-38 an d the works cited ther e) , bu t tha t should not

affect the wor k's formal characteri stics If ina uth ent ic, the letter dates later th an

the historica l Pla to an d thu s closer to the first cen tury C E (T he aut ho r of these

letters will be referred to here as Plato for the sake of clarity )4 9

cf 312 D It beco mes clear from the letter tha t Ar ch ede mu s has been sent asan envo y to inqu ir e of Plato in reg ard to specific ma tt er s (

312D f 313D) A h d ill i t b t b k t Di i


12/29

240 MAR GAR ET M. M I T C H E L L

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.

The 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 Arch edemus.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 preposition5 1

: .. . " a n d con

cerning Lysicleides ..." In both of these cases the prepositional

phrase serves to int roduce a topic which is readily recognized byboth 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

5 0313C and 314E

5 1cf 1 Co r 16 12 The formula is co mm on with prop er names also in the

papyri (see below) The reason is that the persons so named are known to bothpar ties and can be referred to in sho rthan d Th er e is no reason to supp ose these

instances are in response to a direct inquiry about these persons by Dionysius (but


13/29


shared experiences and contacts between sender and recipient.

5 3

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 fortesting assumptions about

because this letter is repeated byDiogenes 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 lettersare fictitious,

55seen together they give us some sense of the

epistolary protocol which some later writer followed. Archyt as' let

ter to Plato first reports the receipt of a letter from Plato and an oral

report by the envoy Lamiscus, both telling ofPlato's recovery from

an illness (D.L. 8.4.80). T h e verynext line of the letter begins

( " a n d concerning the memoranda . . . " ) .5 6

Again, there is no way to tell if the topic ofthe was contained in Plato's previous letter,

5 7Lamiscus' report, orboth, 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 C or 7:1 ( ' , ...

' ' a n d with respect to the me mor an da before me, concerning which

5 3In 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 hisrecipientto 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, andnot merely an epistolary addressee.]

5 4( d )


14/29


you wrote . . .,' ) .

5 8Here 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 memoranda).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 thesentence shows: , '

" a n d concerning the custody we both

agree, so it is by no means necessary to give instructions".6 0

Fro m the juxtaposition of both of these letters we can say with

certainty that does not refer to the previous let

ter. The context from which this topic is so readily known to both

a u t ho r and recipient cannot be definitely reconstructed. The use ofthe 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 ofthe teacher Helicon, the sending of general merchandise, and a


15/29


discussion of the financial affairs of both Plato and Dionysius.6 1

T h e epistolary context includes several previous communications

between the two: a letter (or letters)6 2

from Dionysius referred to

by the specific formula we saw in Ep. 12 (

... "and concerning what you were writing to me to

send off to you . . . " ) ,6 3

oral communication from the envoy Lep-

tines (361B), prior conversations,6 4

and even future letters.6 5

The

formula is used three times in this letter:

... "and concerning what you were writing to me . . . " (361 A); ... "and 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). The plants may or

may not have been mentioned in one of Dionysius' letters to

Pla t o .6 6

In regard to the third instance of in this letter, it is

clear that this topic is brought up by Plato, notin response to a ques

tion from Dionysius: "And 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 ha nd that you remember (it), but nevertheless,

6 1Edelstein argue s for the inauth enti city of this epistle as well, on the grounds

that it is inconsistent with the genuine Ep. 7 (pp. 131-33). The 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 Com-

pletes, Vol. 13, pt. 1 [Paris: Socit d'Edition, 1926], pp. lxxi-lxxv).62 Note the Imperfect tense of in 361 A.6 3

361A; cf 1 Co r 7:1 and the same formula in Ju l ia n Ep 29 411B


16/29

244 MARG ARET M. MITCH ELL

have (it) in mind and turn your thoughts (to i t ) . "6 7

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

that the letter is by Plato (cf 363E).6 8

Thus 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 inter-

relatedness of oral and written reports, and noted the methodo

logical difficulties in distinguishing between them. The order oftopics 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 letters7 0

introduces the next topic for consideration, which may have been

mentioned in a prior correspondence but need not have been. Theformula 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.71

The formula is

found throughout these texts.7 2

First we shall look at parallels to 1 Cor. 7:1,

6 7 ,

, , ^ , 3636 8

As with 2 Thessalonians, this emphasis on authenticity in the letter itself is

taken as an indication that it is spurious (see Soui lh, p lxxiv)69

Uses of are frequent in this letter to introduce a new topic, sometimes

in com bin ati on with a nothe r int rod uct ory formula (see 361 C, 362A, C, and E)7 0 For other examples, see D Ep ad Ammaeum 1 730, ad Pompeium 766,

Apoll of T yana Ep 14, Socrat Ep 7 3 (cf 7 1), 27 5 (

) P D E i T 9 J l i E 4 384D 29 41 IB S l h


17/29


... ,

7 3

This extended formula is a specific way to refer to topicsbroached in a prior letter (as we have seen above), as in BGU 417,

2: ... .7 4

It is also used to refer to the writer 's own

past letter: ... " a n d concerning what

I wrote to you before .. .. ' '7 5

This introductory formula is not used

solely with the verb , but is also used to refer to topics aris ing

from oral commu nique s, as in Sb 9017, 17:

... "c on ce rn in g 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 me".7 7

The 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 alwaysan "a ns weri ng fo rmul a. " For example, in BG U 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 remonst rate him for

encourag ing his son Sarapas to join the army, and to inform him

that Sarapas has gone to the camp. This letter does not answer a

7 3Commentators 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])7 4

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).7 5Sb 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


18/29

246 MA RG A RET M. MI TCH ELL

previous letter, as none is mentioned.8 0

here serves to intro

duce the next topic of conversation, a person readily known to the

addressee (he is father to at least one of the two).8 1

The same use

is made of the formula in BGU 246: ... (line 13) and

... (line 17). In the reconstructed papyrus there

is no mention of a previous letter which this answers, and there is

no need to postulate one.8 2

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 Her-

mione, 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 [ = ]

... '' concerni ng the bulls " The bulls are a topic

readily known to both brothers8 4

and thus can be introduced with

the sho rthand + 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

t ions, 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

8 0In the text as we have it some lines are, however, missing, yet the common

expl anat io n fo rmula , !V appe ars in line 1 (cf Am h 2 133,

5-6)8 1We have seen (above) the formula with pr op er na me s in lite rary letters

(cf 1 Cor 16 12) Fo r other instances of (or or ) with a pr op er


19/29


have made to open the grain storehouse. The topic of thestorehouse 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 13-

18) 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 this ! ") .

In several letters the () formula introduces the main

epistolary subject,85

as in Zen.-P. 12, which reads:

. [ ... "Attinas to Zenon,

greetings. Concerning the wages which are for Hermi pp us "

H e r m i p p u s ' 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

mul a) . The same formula is used, again directly after the epistolary

salutat ion and greeting, in P.-Zen. 99 ( = Sb 6814), 1:

[] [] " concerning the disputed

vineyards " The 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

8 5One should also note the use of to summarize the contents of a letter for


20/29


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: '

... "and concerning my affairs . . . " (line 22) and

( = )8 8

"and 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. He writes to confirm this oral report. Near

the end of the letter is the enigmatic phrase: []

... ("and 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 examples9 0

that in private

documentary letters the formula is not restricted to the

answering of writ ten 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 letterfrom 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. He

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


21/29


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. The topic may have arisen from conversa

tions with Demetrius, or (more likely) it is the author's special con

c e r n .9 1

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 [ = ]

, "and concerning what you commanded

me through the earlier letter, you will find it done" (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 aninquiry from one of Teres' letters? It appears not, since Capito

writes: , [ ] , ... []

"and concerning the terrace, what it seems to you,

write me ... for the place needs ( o n e ) " (lines 22-26). The topic of

the terrace, known to both writer and addressee, is in this case

introduced by the writer to give further information ("the place

needs o n e " ) , and to request Teres' opinion. Thus 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 BGU 417, a letter from Dioskorus

to his son. After the salutation Dioskorus begins:

... "concerning what you wrote ...." In the rest of the letter,

9 1

He brings Ptollarion up to complain about his behavior (see line 34 andfollowing).

9 2e g Sb 12694 15: ( In this letter the author


22/29


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: "but I ask you to put away all the lofty things ,..."9 5

He

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 ou ! " ) . Dioskorus

deliberately deals in his letter with the topics of his choice

("r epe atedl y I write to you aboutthe 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 beginningwith do not necessarily correspond to the son's letter (and in

fact probably do not) .

F r om this investigation of the use of in private documen

tary letters9 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.

9 4 (line 8), (line 15), []

(line 22), and (line 26) The prepo sition is used 8

more times in this one letter9 5

',

( B G U 417, 2)9 6BGU 417, 26, cf Ime 22

9 7Edicts in letter form also contain the formula For example Cl au di us '


23/29


In the New Testament the formula is not restricted to thePauline corpus.9 8

Only one study has been done on the for

mula in the New Testament, that of C. E. Faw, who cited Mk.

12:26; 13:32"; Jn. 16:11 and Acts 21:25 as New Testament uses

of the formula outside of the Pauline letters. He concluded on the

basis of these texts:

(1) that is a for mul a of reply to specific questions or pr oblems, 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 theanswering of specific questions or problems brought up in letters from the chur

ches to which he is writing10

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

men t . Our analysis of the formula in ancient texts has demon

strated that it is not restricted to replies to questions, casting seriousdoubt on his first conclusion. Nevertheless, even these New Testa

men t 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 considerat ion 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

poses.1 0 3

Because the subject of Gentile Christians is readily under

stood by the audience, it can be introduced with .

9 8This section will of necessity be brief, consisting mainly of a critique of Faw's

conclusions Space preclud es a full analysis , b ut it should be not ed tha t the for

mu la also occurs in Early C hr is tian Li tera ture (e g , Did 7 1, 9 1, 2, 3,


24/29


Faw un de rs ta nd s M k. 12:26 ( ...) an d 13:32( . .. ) to be ex am pl es 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

J e su s ' s respon se which b eg ins

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 controversystories), for th at was d ifferent: ; (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 ques tion . But this does not do justic e to the com plexity

of the tradition-history and present structure of Mk. 13. The

disciples' question in 13:4 (likely a redactional phrase to contex-

tualize pre-existent apocalyptic material1 0 5

) is a two-fold qu es tio n:" w h e n will these things be?" and "what is the sign?" Dieter

Lhrmann'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 "when will these things be ? " thus con

tradicting 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

Lhrmann's analysis suggests,10 7 but nevertheless Mk 13:32 can

not be understood as "Jesus' second answer to the disciples regard-

Mohr (Siebeck), 19722], 131) It is Lu ke 's way of ad di ng a new topic (the decr eeof the Je ru sa le m C oun cil ) ont o a different discussion

1 0 4 See R Bult ma nn, Die Geschichte dersynoptischen Tradition, F R L A N T n s 12(Gottingen Va n den ho eck & Ruprecht, 1957

3), pp 39-56 (p 42 on M k 12 26) See


25/29


ing the end of the age."1 0 8

The formula in M k 13:32 serves

to introduce (or in its context, to re-emphasize1 0 9

) the topic of

discussion.1 1 0

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 concludethat 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 t u rn to Paul's use ofthe formula , and Fa w's thirdconclusion. 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

1 0 8Faw, 221

1 0 9Perhaps similar to 1 Cor 8 4 (and cf 1 Thess 5 1)

1 1 0Bultmann argued that perhaps 13 30 and 32 comprise the end of an

independent Jewish apocalypse (p 130) Marxsen is unsure of the tradition-

history of 13 32 (p 109)1 1 1

cf the Zenon letters above where immediatelyintroduces the topic of the

letter1 1 2

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

ll l " b t 1 Th 1 1 2 12 4 3 5 28 d hi C i thi L tt (


26/29


the use of in 1 Thessalonians alone provides no evidence of

a previous letter from the Thessalonians, as the formula is well-

attested 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

P aul 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

. Our investigation of the use and me an in g 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 part ition theories of 1 Corinthians 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.

The 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 u p with can not be definitely proven to have

f th C i thi ' l tt th thi t l


27/29


de ma nd, without justification, that Paul respond in a woodenstyleusing only one introductory formula to refer to epistolary topics.

1 1 6But

on formal grounds there is no reason to assume that other introduc

tory formulae1 1 7

in 1 Cori nt hi an s 7-16 (such as

... in 10:1 and ... in 15:1) introduce sections

from another letter.

2. H u r d ' s argume nt for the unity of 1 Cori nthians depends up on

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 urd ' 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. Ou r comparative analysis has demonstrate d

that the formula cannot give the definite information which

H u r d wants to derive from itthe source of the topic between theepistolary partners . We have also noted that often envoys who

bring letters play a role in supplementing the contents of those let

ters. Th 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 u po n the radical separation of

the two which Hurd makes. Hurd'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

Corin th, 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 Cor

(1 11, 7 1, 16 17, see Schenk, 237 " di e dn e im I Co r ge nan nte n Inf or man den

auc h die Ver anla ssu ng fur drei verschi edene Schrei ben des PI gewesen si nd ")

O u r study of ancient letters casts doubt on this presuppposition too, many letters


28/29

256 M A R G A R E T M M I T C H E L L

In 1 Cor 7:1, Paul undeniably refers to a letter from the Corinthians.

1 1 8He 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

Corin th ian s , 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 Apollos1 2 0

) is readily

known to both the Corinthians and Paul from some elementof their

shared experience.

4. The composition, structure and arrangeme nt of 1 Cor inthians

is determined by Paul's rhetorical purpose, and not by the Corinthians' 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 ofwhich he had been informed. Although that may be considerably

less information than scholars have presumed that they could glean

from its use, this prope r understanding of the formula

remains an important start ing point for the investigation of the

composition and rhetorical structure of the letter

1 1 8The extent ofthat reference could be one verse 7 1 or 7 1-24, or all of ch

7 Th is int erp ret atio n receives striking confirmation from Chry sost om "

' ... ,

. Sto . ' ,


29/29

^ 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 thecopyright 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 ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

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

Documents

1 Cor - Concerning Peri De