1 Corinthians 2.1-3.3: 1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. 6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him." 10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ. 3.1 And [καί] I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
I am genuinely interested in feedback on his argument. I am of two minds, and frankly have not decided how meritorious his case is.
He begins by observing that the pronouns change from first person singular ("I") to a rather anonymous first person plural ("we") at 2.6, then back to the singular at 3.1. By itself, however, I am not sure this argument holds any water, since 2 Corinthians 11 goes back and forth between the singular and the plural several times. So does 1 Corinthians 9.1-5 once, from singular to plural. 1 Corinthians 1.18-31 is a pocket of first person plurals nestled in between first person singulars (1.4-17; 2.1-5); Walker discusses this last example, since it is in the immediate context of our disputed passage, but I am not sure I really buy into the distinction he sees between that switch and the one at hand.
Walker goes on to observe that the tenses change from aorist (past tense) to present at precisely the same time. In conjunction with the change of pronouns, this argument may carry more weight, as it casts 2.6-16 in a different light than its context:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 132: The immediately preceding and following verses represent 'the living forms of an epistolary discourse with the Corinthian community'. On the contrary, 2.6-16 consists of 'the a-historical assertions of the "we" about their pneumatic status'. Indeed, Widmann suggests that 'the self-affirmations of the pneumatics [in 2.6-16] belong to the same type of pneumatic eulogy with which 1 John debates.' In short, the smoothly connected autobiographical summary of 2.1-5, 3.1-4, is interrupted by 2.6-16 with its panegyric to Wisdom and its possessors.
The spiritual language with which 2.6-16 speaks is so distinctive and so charged that scholars often argue that Paul has taken over the language of his opponents in Corinth, to which Walker responds:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 134: Yet another contextual consideration is suggested by Murphy- O'Connor's view that in 1 Cor. 2.6-16 'Paul deliberately takes over the terminology and ideas of his adversaries.' I find this view highly problematic. As Conzelmann has noted, the passage, taken on its own terms, is not really polemical in nature: the 'we' in 2.6-16 are the pneumatics as opposed to 'the powers of this world' and the non-pneumatics, and 'the character of direct polemic against the Corinthians attaches to the "we" only through its being placed between 2.1-5 and 3.Iff.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 135: To carry the point a step further, it is far from clear to me why Paul would at this point choose to adopt in polemical fashion the terminology and ideas of 'opponents'. Indeed, he has yet to intimate that there are any 'opponents' as such. In 1.10-11 he indicates that the source of the difficulty in Corinth is 'dissensions' or 'quarreling among you' (not between Paul and his opponents), and he returns to the same idea at 3.3 ('jealousy and strife among you'). Only at 1.17 does he first suggest that 'wisdom' might be a part of the problem, and even here there is no mention of 'opponents'.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 135: To carry the point a step further, it is far from clear to me why Paul would at this point choose to adopt in polemical fashion the terminology and ideas of 'opponents'. Indeed, he has yet to intimate that there are any 'opponents' as such. In 1.10-11 he indicates that the source of the difficulty in Corinth is 'dissensions' or 'quarreling among you' (not between Paul and his opponents), and he returns to the same idea at 3.3 ('jealousy and strife among you'). Only at 1.17 does he first suggest that 'wisdom' might be a part of the problem, and even here there is no mention of 'opponents'.
It is true that in 2.1-5 Paul seems to eschew wisdom entirely before embracing it in 2.6-16. This rhetorical strategy requires some explanation, and Walker does not buy the usual offerings.
Next comes a contextual consideration:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 136: Observing the apparent logical contrast between 2.6-16 and 3.1-4, the RSV translates the καί in κἀγώ as 'but' and a number of other versions simply leave it untranslated. The NRSV and some other versions, however, correctly render the καί as 'and'. The removal of 2.6-16, of course, would eliminate the contrast between 2.6-16 and 3.1-4 and thus call for the correct translation of καί as 'and'.
And we always need our arguments from vocabulary:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 137-138: Further support for regarding 1 Cor. 2.6-16 as an interpolation is based on linguistic peculiarities of the passage. Most of these have been set forth by Ellis and Widmann. Ellis notes the following phrases not found elsewhere in Paul's letters: οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (vv. 6, 8), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (v. 7), ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης (v. 8), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (v. 11), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου ( v. 12), τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (v. 12), ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (v. 14), and νοῦς Χριστοῦ (v. 16). To these can be added οἱ τέλειοι (v. 6) and τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεου (v. 10). Ellis also notes one word not found elsewhere in Paul's letters — διδακτός (v. 13) — another is the adverb πνευματικῶς (v. 14).
Walker also draws attention on page 138, continuing to cite Widmann, to the "use of 'solemn mystery-language' to characterize Christian proclamation rather than Paul's usual kerygmatic, eschatological terminology," the "portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion not in kerygmatic terms but rather as a crime perpetrated by οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου," the "'completely unique development of the word-group πνεῦμα, πνευματικός,' in which πνεῦμα serves not, as for Paul, 'as a designation for the heilsgeschichtlich presence of Christ in the community' but rather 'as organ of knowledge and... as divine self-consciousness,'" and the "non-Pauline use of 'the dualistic anthropological conceptual pair Psychic-Pneumatic, originating from Gnostic speech,' to differentiate humankind into two classes of people." Still following Widmann, he remarks in a footnote that this latter distinction (psychic/pneumatic) is also present in 1 Corinthians 15.44b-48, but notes that Widmann tags that passage as a possible interpolation, as well, probably by the same interpolator. I have deliberately omitted one particular item from Walker's list, to wit, the presence of an apocryphal citation in verse 9; I see no reason to assume that an interpolator would appeal to an apocryphon but that Paul would not.
He continues:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 140: Finally, it must be noted that much of the terminology (as well as much of the ideational content) in 2.6-16 is remarkably similar to what is found later in Gnosticism.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 140: Schmithals notes that 'there suddenly appears [in 1 Cor. 2.6-3.1] a doctrine of wisdom which — formally, at any rate — is genuinely Gnostic and against which in the preceding section Paul emphatically set himself. Indeed, 'what is found in 2.6—3.1 could be the precise exposition of a Gnostic'.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 141-142: Widmann cites eight significant ideational differences between 1 Cor. 2.6-16 and its immediate context...:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 140: Schmithals notes that 'there suddenly appears [in 1 Cor. 2.6-3.1] a doctrine of wisdom which — formally, at any rate — is genuinely Gnostic and against which in the preceding section Paul emphatically set himself. Indeed, 'what is found in 2.6—3.1 could be the precise exposition of a Gnostic'.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 141-142: Widmann cites eight significant ideational differences between 1 Cor. 2.6-16 and its immediate context...:
- Christian speech is viewed as the mysterious hidden divine Wisdom or 'the deep things of God' rather than as the openly proclaimed word of the cross.
- Crucifixion is seen as an act committed in ignorance by 'archons of this aeon' rather than as the 'ground of salvation established by God in Christ'.
- A positive evaluation of wisdom is made rather than rejecting wisdom and, paradoxically, identifying the preaching of the cross as wisdom.
- A maturity of pneumatics is exalted rather than such 'maturity' being depicted as arrogance and the inferior position and earthly weakness of both preachers and members of the community being emphasized.
- A distinction between psychics and pneumatics is made, both with predetermined destinies, rather than between Jews and Greeks, both with equal need of and access to salvation in Christ.
- An elaborate understanding is shown of the Spirit as the means of access to 'the depths of God' and supernatural wisdom rather than more primitively as the 'strange miraculous power' and eschatological gift work in the 'difficult, weak, all-too-human task of mission' and the 'daily practice of faith'.
- Preaching is understood as 'esoteric mystery-speech' rather than as the community's intelligible human 'missionary and catechetical work'.
- An attitude of 'superiority over all criticism' is displayed rather than the realization of being weak, fearful, earthly beings, far from self-honor, far from the goal, and 'therefore ready to submit to every criticism'.
Possibly the strongest argument, relatively speaking, is that the kind of language found in 2.6-16 is more typical of the pseudo-Pauline epistles than of the rest of Paul:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 143-144: A final point regarding ideational considerations in 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is suggested by Conzelmann, who notes that the passage contains "traces of a certain theological schema, the revelation schema: the 'mystery' had been decreed by God from eternal ages, but remained hidden, and now is revealed." According to Conzelmann, this schema, "in its established form," first is found in the deutero-Pauline epistles "and their neighborhood." Arguing that the schema "is not gnostically conceived" and that it "evolved within the internal life of the Pauline school," Conzelmann then suggests that "Paul himself is here [in 1 Cor. 2.6-16] developing the beginnings of the schema which was then further developed by his disciples." My own judgment is that Conzelmann's earlier point should be pursued to its logical conclusion: with only two possible exceptions, the schema appears only in the pseudo-Pauline, never in the Pauline, writings. The two possible exceptions are Rom. 16.25-27 (widely regarded as an interpolation) and 1 Cor. 2.6-16 (the passage under present consideration). I regard this as a strong indication of non-Pauline, and indeed post-Pauline, authorship of the latter.
Finally, it is always good to suggest why someone may have interpolated a passage:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 145: As regards the situation and the motivation underlying the possible interpolation, ...my own guess is that the verses would most likely have been added after Paul's death, when the prevalence and popularity of Gnostic-like notions of 'wisdom' made it desirable (at least to someone) to bring Paul into the fold of the "pneumatikoi."
Obviously it is not possible for me to include every single sentence of his overall argument, which takes up 20 pages of the book. But I hope I have captured the most important of his various points.
Again, I am not sure what to make of it yet. The kind of mystery language used does seem to reflect some of the pseudo-Paulines more than it does most of the rest of Paul; I can provisionally agree with that. It actually bothers me a bit that Walker would include the apocryphal quotation in 2.9 as an argument against Paul having written the passage, since I am not sure how he knows that Paul would not do such a thing; is Walker protecting Paul from charges of compromising the canon of scripture? Surely not... but is he?
Thoughts?
Ben.
