Why would 1 Corinthians be a composite text?

[gmx]

It has been asserted that 1 Corinthians is a composite text potentially featuring multiple stages of development and redaction.

• was there ever a genuine letter from Paul in Ephesus to the Church in Corinth?
• if not, what was the incentive for the formative church to forge such a letter?
• what are the various independent theological threads that are identifiable within 1 Corinthians, and how did they come to be woven into the only extant version?

[Ulan]

It has been asserted that 1 Corinthians is a composite text potentially featuring multiple stages of development and redaction.

• was there ever a genuine letter from Paul in Ephesus to the Church in Corinth?
• if not, what was the incentive for the formative church to forge such a letter?
• what are the various independent theological threads that are identifiable within 1 Corinthians, and how did they come to be woven into the only extant version?

Regarding 1Cor, it is rather obvious that the letter comes from a constant back and forth of messengers, if you want to go with the conservative explanation. The actual letters were small, they were sent, answers and new questions came back, these were answered by Paul again, and so on. Which means that the question for a "genuine letter" is kind of beside the point. It's still genuine if it's a compilation of genuine parts. By the way - and this touches on your second question - according to the model proposed by David Trobisch, it was Paul himself who produced the first letter compilation, consisting of Romans, 1Cor, 2Cor and Galatians, as kind of his heritage, a distillation of his theology. The next step by his immediate followers would have been to add additional genuine letters to his own collection after Paul's death. Pseudoepigraphic letters would be the next step. The pastorals would be the last step to make Pauline theology somehow fit with that of the gospels.

Regarding the independent theological threads, that's listed in every introduction to the NT. As the letter doesn't have any common thread that goes from the beginning to the end, it's rather easy to split it up.

If you refer to which different letters were identified, good introductions list those, too. The reconstructions differ depending on the NT scholar. 2-3 letters is quite a common suggestion, Schmithals with a suggestion of 13 letters for both Corinthians is a bit of an outlier. The mention of different people in the beginning and the end of the letter is usually one of the starting points behind the splits. 1Cor 1:1-4:21 are often considered to be a single letter, with 4:14-21 being the first end, etc. The detail is quite elaborate in those splitting hypotheses. One example by J. Weiss: Letter A: 10:1-23, 6:12-20, 9:24-27, 11:2-34, 16:7b-9, 2Cor6:14-7:1; Letter B: 7:1-8:13, 13, 10:24-11:1, 9:1-23, 12, 14, 15, 16:1a-7a, 10-14, 21-24; Letter C: 1:1-6:11

There are lots of similar suggestions around. All of this is unrelated to the two generally accepted interpolations (1Cor 6:14, 14:33b-36).

[Mattrmalcolm]

If you're interested, I spent a whole chapter dealing with arguments for 1 Corinthians being a composite text in my 2013 monograph Paul and the Rgetoric of Reversal: The Impact of Paul's Gospel on His Macro-Rhetoric. The rest of the book considers the question of the letter's theme/s. The strongest arguments for compilation are those by Schmithals and by Jewett. Jewett in particular considers that the redaction was a conservative political move, framing the earlier Paul's more radical impulses with his later more institutionalising impulses. Given that Clement seems to use a recognisable canonical 1 Cor in 96CE, Jewett thinks this must have happened in the early 90s.

I find this implausible - but you can see a lot more detail in the book.
Yours, Matthew

[Secret Alias]

We have real academics in the house! Welcome Matthew

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org ... t-of-pauls

[Secret Alias]

Why not start with bringing forward anothet 16 chapter letter with no discernable thread of logic running through it outside of Christianity. All early Christian literature that survived has been reworked. As real as reality TV

[spin]

two generally accepted interpolations (1Cor 6:14...).

(I didn't know that 1 Cor 6:14 was generally accepted. I do know a lot of people have written rejections of the interpolation, usually ignoring the reasoning for it and pointing to other justifications for keeping the verse as original. Who comes out in favor of the interpolation?)

[Mattrmalcolm]

Yes, discerning a thread of logic running through 1 Cor is difficult (although so is finding an equivalently redacted letter!). There have certainly been many across history who have found logic in it as a unity. The problem is that unity is in the eye of the culture. And Paul has a peculiarly configured sub-culture: Hebrew of Hebrews, Roman citizen, Greek epistolarist, Christian apostle. My own view is that taking these things into account helps explain much in his letters, including issues of macro-structure. I have attempted to describe and lightly evaluate all of the recent accounts of the flow of this letter (including redaction theories) in an article published earlier this year: 'The Structure and Theme of First Corinthians in Recent Scholarship.' It may be of some interest.

I do think 6:14 creates difficult tensions with 1 Cor 15 - why would he mention resurrection without qualification at this point if he has to argue for it later on? But I do think there are some ways forward. One crucial difference is that in 1 Cor 15 it is always 'resurrection of the dead' - whereas in 1 Cor 6 it is resurrection of 'us.' To me this is worth pondering. I know that a massive dissertation on the reception history of 1 Cor 6 has just been successfully completed through a Dutch university (in English). This work is astonishingly thorough, so will be worth considering when it becomes available.

[Ulan]

two generally accepted interpolations (1Cor 6:14...).

(I didn't know that 1 Cor 6:14 was generally accepted. I do know a lot of people have written rejections of the interpolation, usually ignoring the reasoning for it and pointing to other justifications for keeping the verse as original. Who comes out in favor of the interpolation?)

Maybe, I should change that to "possible". As for who is coming out in favor of it, there is for example U. Schnelle (1Kor 6,14 - eine nachpaulinische Glosse, NT 25 (1983), 217-219). U. Schnelle is also the author of a standard introduction to the NT for German theologians, which means it's listed there (p. 85 in the 8th ed.), with solid reasoning. He also mentions J. Murphy-O'Connor, Interpolations in 1Corinthians, CBQ 48 (1986), 81-84, though he doesn't specifically say whether the latter accepts it or not, and I did not specifically check this one.

[Ulan]

I do think 6:14 creates difficult tensions with 1 Cor 15 - why would he mention resurrection without qualification at this point if he has to argue for it later on? But I do think there are some ways forward. One crucial difference is that in 1 Cor 15 it is always 'resurrection of the dead' - whereas in 1 Cor 6 it is resurrection of 'us.' To me this is worth pondering. I know that a massive dissertation on the reception history of 1 Cor 6 has just been successfully completed through a Dutch university (in English). This work is astonishingly thorough, so will be worth considering when it becomes available.

The pronouns is what Schnelle uses as main point for an interpolation. The personal pronoun in 6:14 includes Paul in the number of those who would be dead prior to the parousia, while chapter 15 includes Paul among those who would still be alive at that time.

[Charles Wilson]

1Corinthians 1: 10 - 18 (RSV):

[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
...
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
[18] For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I believe that this section is a rewrite of Tacitus, Histories, Book 4. where Mucianus takes Imperial Power into his own hands and murders Calpunius Galerianus. There is a Chain of Reasoning that leads through Acts 6 to this point. Verses 17 - 18 are the mandatory obfuscations to hide intent, as in GJohn where a Time Marker is given of 46 years and someone has to add that "...He was talking about his body...".

So...Yes, 1 Corinthians is a composite text.

CW