Corinthian Slogans i n i Cor6:12-20

JEROME MURPHY-O'CONNOR, O.P.

Ecole Biblique 91019 Jerusalem Israel

THE INTERPRETATION of 1 Corinthians is greatly conditioned by the exegete's assessment of the situation at Corinth, because Paul's words can mean different things when read against various backgrounds. Hence the need to determine as objectively as possible the positions adopted by the Corinthians. In any such investigation pride of place must be given to citations of Corinthian statements which occur occasionally in the Apostle's argumentation. The purpose of the present note is to focus attention on two such statements which occur in the difficult passage 1 Cor 6:12-20. In 1934 E.-B. Alio calculated that there were between 20 and 30 explanations of the statement "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against his own body" (1 Cor 6:18). The contemporary situation is no better with the commentators who attribute it to Paul divided into those who take him seriously and those who refuse to do so. The former generate a labyrinth of subtle distinctions designed to justify the idea that fornication is essentially different from any other sort of sin. The latter cannot see Paul in such scholastic reasoning and so postulate a laxity of expression which permits them to say what they will. As early as 1874, however, W. J. Conybears and J. S. Howson suggested that the assertion "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body" should be ascribed to the Corinthians and not to Paul.1 The
1

The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (New York: Scribner, 1874) 2. 43.

391

392 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 40,1978 influence of a puritanical morality may explain why this hypothesis won no acceptance. An inspired statement that appeared to stress the unique evil of fornication was too valuable an ally to lose. Some eighty years later C. F. D. Moule in the context of a discussion on diatribe and implied dialogue in NT Greek independently made the same suggestion.2 Apparently unaware of Moule's proposal, R. M. Grant felt constrained to postulate the same hypothesis. 3 Neither of these authors appears totally convinced; their formulations are characterized by extreme diffidence. For Grant it merely seems to come from Paul's opponents, while Moule thinks that it is possibly worth considering. Such reserve, particularly when coupled with the absence of any positive arguments, may have something to do with the fact that the hypothesis has had virtually no impact. The vast majority of commentators do not even mention it. To the best of my knowledge, only three commentators accept it, 4 and only two have taken the trouble to formulate a refutation. C. K. Barrett finds Moule's explanation attractive. The latter had claimed that the slogan meant: " n o sin can affect a man's true 'body': physical lust cannot touch the secure 'personality' of the initiated." 5 Bar rett, however, finds that it is not entirely satisfying "because Paul's reply seems to accept the general proposition, and make an exception to it (cf. vv 12-13), which leaves us with the original problem." 6 This is not in fact the case, because the ho de introducing 18c is parallel to the to de intro ducing 13c which, as we shall see, is a flat negation of the preceding phrase. R. H. Gundry also rejects Moule's formulation of the hypothesis ar guing (a) that it is unjustifiable to give soma the meaning 'personality,' and (b) that
2

An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1953) 196-

97.
3 "Hellenistic Elements in I Corinthians," Early Christian Origins. Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughby (ed. A. Wikgren; Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961)64, n. 19. 4 L. Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Tyndale NT Commentaries; London: Tyndale, 1958) 103; F. C. Grant, The New Testament: The Letters and the Revela tion to John (Nelsons Bible Commentary; New York: Nelson, 1962) 7, 86; R. Kempthorne, "Incest and the Body of Christ: A Study of I Corinthians VI. 12-20," NTS 14 (1967-68) 572. The last mentioned author, however, gives the slogan an aberrant twist by postulating that it was used by the Corinthians to justify their acceptance of the incestuous man (1 Corinthians 5); since his stepmother was not a Christian his sin was outside the Body, i.e., did not affect the church. 5 Idiom Book, 196-97. 6 A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Blacks NT Commentaries; London: Black, 1968)150.

I COR 6:12-20 393 the libertines at Corinth would hardly have divorced all sins from the physical body. Since they would rather have put sin on the side of the physical body and dissociated the true (consisting in the spirit) from the body with its sin, a slogan from them would more naturally have read, 'Every sin . . . is outside the spirit. ' . . . So long as any remnant of physicality remains in soma, the libertines could not have used the term for the true self in a slogan designed to 7 separate the true self from the sins of its unessential physique. The validity of Gundry's first point is, in my opinion, beyond dispute. His careful analysis of all the available evidence demonstrates that the holistic definition of soma, first proposed by J. Weiss in his commentary on 1 Cor 6:13 and given the status of common currency by R. Bultmann and J. A. T. Robinson, is not demanded by any text. Every passage in which the term appears is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation in which soma carries its normal physical connotation. In consequence, it must be admitted that Moule's interpretation of the Corinthian slogan is no longer tenable. In his second point, however, Gundry goes on to deny the very existence of the slogan, but here his argument is wide of the mark be cause, instead of concentrating on the slogan in itself, he has permitted himself to be hypnotized by Moule's suggestion regarding the purpose of the slogan. He says, in effect, that if the libertines had Moule's purpose in mind they would have expressed themselves otherwise. No doubt, but what reason is there to think that they had such a purpose in mind at all? If we take the statement "Every sin which a man may commit is out side the body" at its face value, the most natural meaning is that the body has nothing to do with sin. The physical body is morally irrelevant for sin takes place on an entirely different level of one's being. In the words of R. M. Grant, "Motives, not actions, are important."8 Thus understood, the statement could only come from someone who gave primary impor tance to the preservation of a spiritual commitment, and for whom the feeling of being true to that commitment carried greater weight than any objective contradiction between theory and practice. Tensions would be much less likely to arise, of course, if the body (essentially related to action) were ruled to be irrelevant in principle. For Paul, on the contrary, action was the only sphere in which commitment became real (e.g. Rom 6:19; 12:1-2; Gal 6:2). This last point goes some way towards proving that 1 Cor 6:18b was a Corinthian slogan, but a complete demonstration demands verification of the assumption that the Corinthians considered the body morally irrelevant.
Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1976) 74. 8 "Hellenistic Elements," 64, n. 19.
7

(SNTSMS 29;

394 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 40,1978

W I T H I N this same pericope we encounter another Corinthian slogan which has a prima facie right to be considered the essential argument. There is general agreement that the phrase "Foods are for the belly and the belly for foods" (v 13a) is to be attributed to the Corinthians. Opinion, however, is divided with regards to the words which follow, "but God will destroy both one and the other" (v 13b). The majority take this statement to be the beginning of Paul's reaction to the slogan just cited.9 This, however, necessarily involves imputing to Paul an inept contrast which does not serve his argument, and implies a distinction between soma and koilia which Gundry's study has shown to be untenable. 10 Moreover, while Paul can use katarge in the sense it has in 13b (e.g. 1 Cor 13:8-11; 15:24-26), he never does so in the same type of context. The existential use in Rom 6:6, which is the closest parallel, formally underlines the difference. Hence, with greater probability, a number of scholars maintain that "but God will de stroy both one and the other" formed part of the Corinthian slogan. ' ' This hypothesis enables us to account for the proliferation of the par ticle de in vv 13-14 because it becomes clear that Paul has taken the struc ture of the slogan as the basis of his response: ,2

Corinthians ta bromata te koili kai h koilia tois brmasin ho de theos kai tauten kai tauta katargsei

Paul to de soma . . . t kyri kai ho kyrios t smati ho de theos kai ton kyrion geiren kai hmas exegerei

There are too many links to be attributed to chance, and the intentionality of the parallelism is confirmed by the appearance of the phrase kai ho kyrios t smati. Many commentators (e.g. Barrett, Conzelmann, Lietzmann-Kmmel, Orr-Walther, Spicq) make no attempt to explain it. Such discretion is at first a disappointment, but a survey of the proposed explanations makes it appear a virtue, because they must be classified as unin9 To the list of scholars provided by J. C. Hurd, Jr. (The Origin of I Corinthians [London: SPCK, 1965] 68) can be added more recent studies, e.g. E. Gttgemanns, Der leidende Apostle und sein Herr (FRLANT 90; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 229; H. Conzelmann, / Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 110. 10 Soma in Biblical Theology, 55-56. 1 ' A. Wikenhauser, Die Kirche als der mystische Leib Christi nach dem Apostel Paulus (Mnster: Aschendorf, 1937) 103; W. Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (FRLANT 66; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956) 196; C. K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 146. 12 The parallelism is noted by C. H. Giblin, (In Hope of God's Glory. Pauline Theological Perspectives [New York: Herder, 1970] 143) but he fails to exploit it because he attributes 13b to Paul.

I COR 6:12-20 395 telligibly pretentious,13 or ingeniously imaginative,14 or intolerably pious.15 The sole alternative to such desperate expedients is the recognition that the phrase has a purely formal function.16 It exists only to balance the parallelism, and this is the only adequate explanation for its uniqueness in the Pauline corpus.17 The structure of the "dialogue" sets in relief the fundamental antithesiskatargsei-exegereiand, incidentally, provides a further argument in favor of the future reading as opposed to the present (exegeirei) and the aorist (exgeireri) which are also attested. Paul's obvious intention is to affirm what the Corinthians deny. We must presume, therefore, that the two verbs have the same object, for otherwise the two arguments would slip past without encountering each other. Hence, Paul must intend by hmas what the Corinthians intended by koilia, namely, the human person viewed precisely as corporeal (soma).16 The resurrection is adduced by Paul as proof of the value of corporeity. If the body is to be the object of a divine action, if it is to benefit by a display of divine power, it cannot be unimportant. Such emphasis permits one certain inference regarding the Corinthian attitude. They considered the body to be irrelevant. Since the statement "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body" is merely the transposition of this attitude into the moral sphere, there can be little doubt but that it also must be attributed to the Corinthians.
13 ". . . eine christologische Relation zwischen dem soma und dem kyrios besteht, die sowohl fur den Kyrios als auch fr das Menschsein so konstitutive ist, dass sei sogar umgekehrt werden kann: kai ho kyrios t smati" (E. Gttgemanns, Der leidende Apostel, 230). 14 "Thus Paul states the full import of his enigmatic phrase in 1 Cor 6.13: ho kyrios tq somati, 'the Lord for the body.' Into the body of the old world of sin and death enters the Prince of Life, Himself in a body of flesh, to redeem, quicken and transfigure it. , , (J. A. T. Robinson, The Body. A Study in Pauline Theology [SBT 5; London: SCM, 1952] 34). Similarly, though with greater restraint, A. Robertson and A. Plummer, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1911) 124. 15 "Et 'le Seigneur est pour lui' parce qu'il est le modle, le principe de vie surnaturelle qui peu peu le change en sa parfaite image; il est mme son aliment, vivifiant et transformateur et s. Cyrille voit dans cette phrase une allusion l'Eucharistie." (E.-B. Alio, I Corinthiens, 144). 16 So rightly E. Fuchs, "Die Herrschaft Christi. Zur Auslegung von 1 Kor 6,12-20." Neues Testament und christliche Existenz. Festschrift fr Herbert Braun (ed. H. D. Betz and L. Schottroff; Tbingen: Mohr, 1973) 188. 17 In view of the current consensus, it must be emphasized that soma means 'body' and not 'personality.' Hence, texts which suggest that Christ was for us are in no way parallel. 18 The use of the personal pronoun in place of the expected somata in 14 is the clas sical basis for the holistic definition of soma. But the use of the pronoun was probably dic tated by stylistic considerations, and R. H. Gundry has sanely pointed out that "The three ap pearances of soma before and after verse 14 should determine the nuance of the pronoun 'us' rather than vice versa". (Soma in Biblical Theology, 60).

396

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 40,1978

T H E FACT that the two slogans of vv 13ab and 18b demonstrate that, for the Corinthians, the body was beneath serious consideration, has ob vious importance for the exegesis of many sections of 1 Corinthians not least the important chapter in which Paul deals with those who say "that there is no resurrection from the dead" (15:12). Here, it is sufficient to note that 18b establishes the parameters within which the Corinthians must have understood the third slogan panta moi exestin (v 12). It is true only on the level of what is done in and through the body. Since no corpo real action has any importance, everything is permitted. 19 It cannot mean that the true Self of the initiated is totally secure, 20 because the possibility of sin is implied in 18b.
19 So most accurately C. K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 145. H. Conzelmann (1 Corin thians, 109) is in fact correct but provides no foundation. 20 As W. Schmithals seems to imply (Die Gnosis in Korinth, 194).

^ 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.