I have an opinion on the question Ben asks here, including a later development. As time allows, I would like to respond in that other thread. However, there is an ancillary issue here that may help to shed some light on this question.Ben C. Smith wrote:1 Corinthians 1.12: 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I [am] of Apollos,” and “I [am] of Cephas,” and “I [am] of Christ.”
Notice: not, "I am of Jesus Christ," but "I am of Christ."
1 Corinthians 12.3: Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Are there some Christ devotees here who reject any connection to a personage named Jesus?
What did Paul mean by, "Jesus is accursed (anathema, ἀνάθεμα)" --- and more importantly --- what did the Corinthians mean by the phrase? Did they intend the same meaning?
As Ben implies with his question, and I agree, it was some among the Corinthians who had said, "Jesus is accursed (anathema)". In 1 Corinthians 12:3, Paul was just responding to their statement. Based on Paul’s use of the term anathema in other parts of his letters (Galatians 1:8 and 1:9, 1 Corinthians 16:22, and Romans 9:3) --- all with a very negative connotation --- I think it very unlikely that Paul himself would initiate the phrase, even if just making a contrasting argument.
So what might the Corinthians have meant by the phrase?
Blame it on Herem ---
I think this issue is a good case-in-point for the limitations and problems encountered with translations.
The Greek ἀνάθεμα (anathema), the noun Paul used, is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew חֵ֫רֶם (herem). The Hebrew herem carried a complex of meanings in the Jewish scriptures. To save time, here is an excerpt from “Bible Study Tools” that does a reasonable job of characterizing the term herem in the scriptures ---
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/anathema/
In the LXX. the form anathema is generally used as the rendering of the Hebrew word herem , derived from a verb which means (1) to consecrate or devote; and (2) to exterminate. Any object so devoted to the Lord could not be redeemed ( Numbers 18:14 ; Leviticus 27:28 Leviticus 27:29 ); and hence the idea of exterminating connected with the word. The Hebrew verb (haram) is frequently used of the extermination of idolatrous nations. It had a wide range of application. The anathema_ or _herem was a person or thing irrevocably devoted to God ( Leviticus 27:21 Leviticus 27:28 ); and "none devoted shall be ransomed. He shall surely be put to death" ( 27:29 ). The word therefore carried the idea of devoted to destruction ( Numbers 21:2 Numbers 21:3 ; Joshua 6:17 ); and hence generally it meant a thing accursed. In Deuteronomy 7:26 an idol is called a herem = anathema , a thing accursed
The problem is that, as far as I know, no single Greek term --- including ἀνάθεμα (anathema) --- adequately carried the same range of meanings as the Hebrew herem.
It seems likely that Paul’s intention was strongly shaded by the negative connotations he found in the LXX because Paul’s five uses of the singular noun ἀνάθεμα (anathema) were negative. However, in gLuke 21:5 one finds this ---
And as some were speaking about the temple, that it was adorned with goodly stones and consecrated gifts (ἀναθήμασιν), He said …
Καί τινων λεγόντων περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ὅτι λίθοις καλοῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασιν κεκόσμηται, εἶπεν
Καί τινων λεγόντων περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ὅτι λίθοις καλοῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασιν κεκόσμηται, εἶπεν
Other than the noun being in the dative plural here, this is the same noun Paul used and is translated here as “consecrated gifts” --- without a negative connotation here at all. Well, that is, the same noun Paul used except for one letter --- in most MSS here the word is spelled with a ή instead of an ε following the θ. But several other MSS of Luke have the very same spelling of the noun that Paul used. Why the difference in spelling, and why the very different translation compared to Paul?
The difference in spelling is due to some MSS of gLuke using the Attic form of the noun (ἀναθήμα---), but other MSS using the Hellenistic (Koine) form (ἀνάθεμα---) like Paul did. It’s the same word. The Koine spelling of the word was likely original in Luke, with the Attic spelling found in some MSS a result of scribal “correction”. 1/
With either spelling, the use of the word in gLuke as something like “consecrated gifts” was considered entirely appropriate. The very same Koine spelling of the noun that Paul used in a very negative sense is found in the plural in 2 Maccabees 2:13 (ἀναθεμά---) and is translated as “holy gifts” or “offerings”.
It wasn’t the spelling of the root noun that determined the meaning. Even in the LXX, the Attic spelling of anathema is found once, and in the same sentence as the Koine spelling, both with a seemingly negative sense (Deuteronomy 7:26).
A negative meaning for the noun ἀνάθεμα is not found earlier than the LXX, and the occurrence of the term in a negative sense outside of Judeo-Christian literature is both rare and late. 2/
It seems the Greek term anathema --- as a result of the use in the LXX to translate the Hebrew herem --- picked up a different, more negative connotation not typically associated with the term in most other Greek usage. A connotation that still shades the meaning of the word today.
Here’s the LSJ entry for the Koine spelling of the noun that Paul used ---
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... )na%2Fqema
ἀνάθεμα , poet. ἄνθεμα , ατος, τό, (ἀνατίθημι) properly,
A.like ἀνάθημα, anything dedicated, Theoc.Ep.13.2, AP6.162 (Mel.), CIG2693d (Mylasa), al., Phld.Mus.p.85 K.
2. anything devoted to evil, an accursed thing, LXX Le.27.28, De.7.26, 13.17, al.; of persons. Ep.Rom.9.3, 1 Ep.Cor.12.3, etc.
II. curse, Tab.Defix.Aud.41 B (Megara, i/ii A. D.), cf. sq.
A.like ἀνάθημα, anything dedicated, Theoc.Ep.13.2, AP6.162 (Mel.), CIG2693d (Mylasa), al., Phld.Mus.p.85 K.
2. anything devoted to evil, an accursed thing, LXX Le.27.28, De.7.26, 13.17, al.; of persons. Ep.Rom.9.3, 1 Ep.Cor.12.3, etc.
II. curse, Tab.Defix.Aud.41 B (Megara, i/ii A. D.), cf. sq.
The negative connotation here is only associated with the usages in the LXX and the NT (but not gLuke). That is, with only one exception in near contemporaneous writings --- the usage “II. curse” found in the Magara curse tablet, a 1st or 2nd century CE artifact found in Macedonia. However, according to Deissmann, the use of anathema in this curse tablet was possibly influenced by Greek Jews and that, “technical expressions in magic are of all places the most likely in which to assume that the international language had been influenced by Judaism’.3/ Pardee, in her essay in footnote 2/, supports and elaborates on that possibility.
Note --- “A.like ἀνάθημα” --- this is the Attic spelling of the noun --- the LSJ entry for that is ----
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... r=a)na#lex
ἀνάθημα , ατος, τό, (ἀνατίθημι)
A. that which is set up: hence, like ἄγαλμα, votive offering set up in a temple, Hdt.1.14,92, S.Ant.286, etc.; “ἀ. ἐκ λειτουργιῶν” Lys.26.4.
2. used by Hom. only in first sense of ἄγαλμα, delight, ornament, “μολπή τ᾽ ὀρχηστύς τε: τὰ γάρ τ᾽ ἀναθήματα δαιτός” Od.1.152, cf. 21.430, IG14.1390; τοῖς τεκοῦσιν ἀνάθημα βιότου, of children, E.Fr.518, cf. Pl.Hp.Mi.364b; to help deserving poverty is “βασιλικοῦ πλούτου ἀ. καὶ κατασκεύασμα λαμπρότατον” D.H.19.14.
A. that which is set up: hence, like ἄγαλμα, votive offering set up in a temple, Hdt.1.14,92, S.Ant.286, etc.; “ἀ. ἐκ λειτουργιῶν” Lys.26.4.
2. used by Hom. only in first sense of ἄγαλμα, delight, ornament, “μολπή τ᾽ ὀρχηστύς τε: τὰ γάρ τ᾽ ἀναθήματα δαιτός” Od.1.152, cf. 21.430, IG14.1390; τοῖς τεκοῦσιν ἀνάθημα βιότου, of children, E.Fr.518, cf. Pl.Hp.Mi.364b; to help deserving poverty is “βασιλικοῦ πλούτου ἀ. καὶ κατασκεύασμα λαμπρότατον” D.H.19.14.
The definition of the noun here corresponds to the usages in gLuke and 2 Maccabees. It is very likely that the Corinthians used the term in this more typical way from their Greek culture. In that usage, by saying Jesus is anathema, their intended meaning may have been something like this ---
Jesus, by his sacrifice, was like an offering to God. --- Or ---
The interpretation that I prefer (and relevant to Ben’s question) is based on the concept popular in Greek culture at the time that the body was a temporary prison of sorts and only upon death was the immortal spirit within released. The Corinthians --- making a distinction between the bodily nature of Jesus and the spiritual nature of the Christ --- were saying that the body of Jesus had served its purpose like a votive offering hung on the wall of a temple. The discarded body did not warrant any devotion, but rather it was only the freed spirit that was important.
A clash of cultures was manifest in various ways when Paul met the Corinthians. And here --- shaded by his intimate knowledge of the LXX and hearing a report that some of the Corinthians were saying that “Jesus is anathema” --- Paul likely took it quite differently than intended.
robert j
1/ J.K. Elliot, Essays and Studies in New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 75.
2/ Nancy Pardee, in, The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, and Transmission, edited by Clayton N. Jefford, p. 168.
3/ Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East --- the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, p. 92-93 (p. 95-96 in some editions). [note: beware, I've seen another writer mis-charcterize Diessmann here]
