Entes que promueven la formación permanente

Three points of concern about Walker’s interpretation deserve close attention. First, the shift to first person plural in 2.6-16 is admittedly abrupt and this section does contain material that appears to detract from Paul’s

1969), 70-72; W. O. Walker, ‘1 Corinthians 2.6-16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation,’ JSNT 47 (1992): 75-94.

4 See e.g. Welborn, ‘On the Discord in Corinth,’ 104-06; Cousar, ‘1 Corinthians 2:1-13,’ 170-73; Sterling, ‘ “Wisdom Among the Perfect”,’ 367-70. Scholarship of the mid- to late-19^th century seems either unaware of or unconcerned by this apparent conflict, for it is not mentioned as an interpretative problem (although cf. Hodge, First Epistle, 33). A few recent interpreters have also exhibited minimal concern—see e.g. Polhill, who says nothing about it (‘The Wisdom of God,’ 331-33; cf. also V. P. Branick, ‘Apocalyptic Paul,’ CBQ 47.4 [1985]: 671; J. F. Smit,

‘Epideictic Rhetoric in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 1–4,’ Bib 84 (2003): 192-94; D.

Lioy, ‘Divine Wisdom versus Human Wisdom: An Exegetical-Theological Analysis of 1

Corinthians 1:10–2:16,’ Cons 8 [2009]: 51-56); Lampe refers to it but immediately dismisses it as a mistaken conclusion (‘Theological Wisdom,’ 127-28).

5 Cf. Schmithals, Theology, 121.

6 Cf. Willis, ‘ “The Mind of Christ”,’ 110.

7 Walker, ‘1 Corinthians 2.6-16,’ 81-86.

8 Walker, ‘1 Corinthians 2.6-16,’ 83.

recollection of his Corinthian ministry. However, the abrupt shift in person is not unusual for Paul; in 2 Corinthians he makes a similar shift ten times in the first nine chapters alone.⁹ Moreover, since scholars now generally agree that 2 Cor 1–9 constitutes a single literary unit from Paul’s hand,¹⁰ and further agree that nothing in 2 Cor 1–9 suggests an interpolation;¹¹ there is no reasonable ground to assume that such shifts necessarily create disruptions in the overall argument.¹² The same reasoning applies to 1 Corinthians.

Scholars agree that (at the very least) 1 Cor 1–4 represents a single logical (or rhetorical) argument, and that no textual evidence exists for an interpolation within those chapters;¹³ thus, other solutions must be offered for why the shift in person occurs where it does in the argument. Three options commonly are given: 1) evidence of joint authorship, or collaboration with the co-senders of

9 For the first person plural, see 1.3-14, 18-22; 2.14–7.2, 13–8.7, 16-24. For the first person singular, see 1.15-17, 23–2.13; 7.3-12; 8.8-15; 9.1-15.

10 I am leaving to one side the debate over whether or not 2 Cor 1–7 and 8–9 represent two of the three stages of writing 2 Corinthians. For those arguing for a literary unity of 2 Cor 1–9, from Paul’s hand (whether in stages or not), see e.g. P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), xxii; J. Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin: R. B. Sweet Co., 1970), 14-15; J. M. Scott, 2 Corinthians (Peabody:

Hendrickson, 1998), 4-5; D. E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 38-44; J. Lambrecht, Second Corinthians (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 9; D. R. Hall, The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 113-23; Harris, Second Epistle, 8-51; F. G. Carver, 2 Corinthians: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2009), 44-45.

11 While a handful of recent scholars still contend that 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 represents an interpolation—e.g. M. M. Mitchell, ‘The Corinthian Correspondence and the Birth of Pauline Hermeneutics,’ in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall (eds. T. J. Burke and J. K. Elliott; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 27; M. L.

Minor, 2 Corinthians (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2009), 15, 131-32; cf. M. Thrall, 2 Corinthians 1–7 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 12, 32-36—this is not the majority view (see e.g. those listed in n.10 above. Cf. also, J. Lambrecht, ‘The Fragment 2 Cor vi 14–vii 1: A Plea for Its Authenticity,’

in Studies on 2 Corinthians [eds. R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994], 531-49).

12 Lambrecht concludes: ‘No break in the narrative or argument, no change in the

vocabulary or tone appears to be so great that the parts could not have stood originally, one next to the other, in a single letter’ (Second Corinthians, 9).

13 Walker acknowledges this fact when he states: ‘So far as I can ascertain, such direct text-critical evidence does not exist with regard to 1 Cor 2.6-16’—i.e. direct evidence that would suggest an interpolation (‘1 Corinthians 2.6-16,’ 80—emphasis original). He also acknowledges that the ‘[i]ndirect text-critical evidence’ (80—emphasis original) does not appear to support the idea of an interpolation. The two criteria he give related to this indirect evidence are: 1) the presence of insignificant textual problems surrounding the passage in question, and/or 2) the lack of reference from post-apostolic writers to the specific passage. ‘The former suggests the possibility of attempts by different scribes to smooth out otherwise awkward transitions between original and interpolated materials; the latter that the passage in question was unknown to one or more early church writers (presumably because it was absent from their texts)’ (ibid).

the text, where such individuals contribute to that portion of the argument;¹⁴ 2) the use of an authorial ‘we’, where Paul speaks on behalf of the co-senders, thus maintaining primary authorship;¹⁵ or 3) emphasis on a particular point, either for the sake of establishing consistency in the apostolic witness or for marking a contrast between the apostles and their opponents.¹⁶

Second, as intimated above, virtually all scholars acknowledge the literary integrity of 1 Corinthians as a whole;¹⁷ to argue otherwise is to do so on

precarious grounds. Even those who advocate partition theories for the

composition of the letter nevertheless recognise the integrity with regard to the specific rhetorical units.¹⁸ For example, Schmithals, who contends for several stages of redaction in the Corinthian correspondence, affirms an unquestioned integrity for 1 Cor 1.10–3.23.¹⁹ Moreover, Schmithals sees no disruption in Paul’s argument beginning with 2.6, although he does acknowledge a significant shift beginning with that verse, and concludes: ‘The contradiction can be

resolved if one determines that Paul was previously speaking [in 2.1-5] of missionary preaching and the ground of faith, but now [in 2.6–3.4] he is speaking about the message to those who stand firmly on this ground, and this is indeed probably what Paul meant.’²⁰ While Schmithals’ conclusion places the emphasis on a slightly different aspect of Paul’s argument than the one argued here, it nevertheless serves as an example of how to deal with the apparent conflicts in the text without arguing for an interpolation. I will return to this point of the discussion momentarily.

14 See E. Verhoef, ‘The Senders of the Letters to the Corinthians and the Use of “I” and

“We”,’ in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 417-25.

15 See esp. Kaiser, ‘A Neglected Text in Biblology Discussions: 1 Corinthians 2:6-16,’ WTJ 43.2 (1981): 311. This type of claim is often made in response to the first option, which leaves open the possibility of Paul not being the sole (or, primary) author of the text. The need for such an argument appears to be for the sake of maintaining apostolic, and inspired authorship. Cf.

also Fee, First Epistle, 101 n.13.

16 See e.g. R. W. Funk, ‘Word and World in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16,’ in Language,

Hermeneutics and the Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 275-305.

17 This is primarily due to Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation; cf. also Dunn, 1 Corinthians, 24-25; Collins, First Corinthians, xiii, 6, 10; Furnish, Theology of the First Letter, 12, 15-18.

18 This is especially the case with regard to 1 Cor 1–4. See e.g. Rylands, Critical Analysis, 115-16; Hurd, Origin of 1 Corinthians, 43-47, 68-71, 86-89, 131-142; de Boer, ‘1 Corinthians,’

229-45.

19 Schmithals, Theology, 121; cf. idem, Gnosticism in Corinth, 90-91, where he places the terminus of the passage at 4.21.

20 Schmithals, Theology, 128.

In the light of the second concern, I now consider the third: while seeming to digress from the remarks about his apostolic preaching, especially the role of the Spirit in that preaching, the content of 2.6-16 is in fact

foundational for Paul’s understanding of the importance and implications of that role.²¹ I agree with Walker on the presence of historical links between 2.1-5 and 3.1-4, however I differ with regard to the specificity of those links. Paul’s focus in 3.1-4 is only secondarily concerned with his initial visit; the primary issue is the Corinthians’ status at the time of writing, and that issue is essentially described as spiritual immaturity. If Paul speaks positively of the Spirit’s role in the initial proclamation of the gospel (2.4-5), and if he speaks negatively about the Corinthians’ current, spiritual immaturity (3.1-4), then the cause for the negative remarks must be explained.

The simplest explanation is that Paul envisages a series of events where the opposite result would have occurred—i.e. that the Corinthians would not be spiritually immature but mature. If 2.6-16 is extracted from Paul’s argument, as Walker suggests, then a proper understanding of how the Spirit’s relationship to the gospel and how believers become spiritually mature as a result of belief in the gospel message is left unexplained. Moreover, to extract 2.6-16 from 2.1–3.4 would diminish the force of the point made in 3.1 where the Corinthians are labelled nhvpioV. Similarly, removing 2.6-16 from the argument would leave the parallelism of nhvpioV and savrkinoV in 3.1 ambiguous and random. However, retaining 2.6-16 shows the negativity of 3.1 as a contrast to the expectations of 2.6, and it provides the necessary balance to the parallelism of nhvpioV and tevleioV, savrkinoV and pneumatikovV.²² More importantly, with 2.6-16 remaining original to Paul’s argument, the necessity of the Spirit’s role in what is to occur in the life of a believer, in the light of the gospel, comes immediately to the fore.