Revisión de la misión y los objetivos de ASOMUSACEA

First Corinthians fits Paul’s pattern of introducing the key themes of his letter in the

opening address and thanksgiving or prayer.3

Already in this introductory section, 1:1-9, Paul’s strategy for identity construction is clear, as I will show below. Then, in 1:10, Paul

turns from the thanksgiving period to the body of his letter.4

Scholars have long viewed 1 Cor 1:10 as the thesis statement for 1 Cor 1:1-4:21. But most commentators now endorse

Margaret Mitchell’s case that 1 Cor 1:10 is the thesis statement for the entire epistle.5

It reads:

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions

among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. Mitchell’s rhetorical analysis, in turn, stands on the shoulders of Gerd Theissen’s groundbreaking research into the social matrix against which 1 Corinthians ought be

3

Peter T. O'Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49;

Leiden: Brill, 1977), esp. 107-37.

4

Jack T. Sanders, "The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the

Letters of the Pauline Corpus," JBL 81 (1962): 348.

5

Mitchell, Reconciliation. Cf. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 111; Dale B. Martin, The

Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); Raymond F. Collins and

Daniel J. Harrington, First Corinthians (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999), 13, 69;

Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 94-97; Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 611 n. 56; Hays, First Corinthians, 21.

read.6

By correlating social history of ancient Corinth with careful attention to the text of Paul’s epistle for clues to social dynamics, Theissen established that status distinctions between members of the Corinthian congregations fueled the conflicts Paul addresses. While Theissen’s reconstruction has been subjected to critique in some of its details, his basic approach of reading Paul’s pastoral concerns in the epistle as reflecting their

broader social context has become ubiquitous in Corinthian scholarship.7

Dependence on and difference with insights from Theissen and his descendents will be evident below in the treatment of particular passages in the epistle. But I will take it as established by Mitchell, Theissen and scholars following them that 1 Corinthians is Paul’s unified and sustained plea for an end to factionalism that derived from extra-ecclesial status and the

social dynamics of ancient Corinth.8

6

Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (trans.

John H. Schütz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).

7

Beyond the standard commentaries, which show dependence on the approaches pioneered by Theissen, numerous studies have carried his work forward; cf. Horrell,

Social Ethos; Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001); John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT,

1992); Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-

Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (AGJU 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill,

1993); Martin, Body; Meeks, First Urban.

8

Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Studies of the New Testament and Its

World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), has brought a helpful caution against the anachronistic imposition of modern capitalistic economic assumptions, such as the concept of a middle-class, often implicit in the so-called “new consensus” inaugurated by Theissen. In particular, he reminds NT scholars of the harsh economic realities for the vast majority of society under the Roman Empire and the near impossibility of improving

one’s economic situation (cf. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 88-120). Meggitt

advocates judicious correction for the elite bias of most Greco-Roman sources and a more careful reading of the NT data regarding the economic level of Paul and his congregations. However, Meggitt’s homogenizing characterization of 99% of the Empire’s population as locked in undifferentiated poverty also fails to do justice to the ancient evidence, including the Pauline epistles, for socially significant gradations of wealth among the poor masses. Furthermore, inasmuch as Meggitt’s critique focuses solely on economic status, it leaves untouched the more complex assessment of multi- variant social status as practiced by Theissen, Meeks, Mitchell, Martin, etc. This thesis depends not on particular economic locations of Corintihan church members so much as

This is not to say, however, that we may confidently corelate the various issues raised in the letter with the parties named in 1 Cor 1:12. Nor is it the case that we may

consistently line up the positions of Corinthian social groups known from other sources than Paul on each of the issues addressed in the letter. Varying degrees of clarity on the social dynamics are possible for each of the issues addressed in epistle, so particular assignments must be carefully gauged in each instance. Mitchell soberly summarizes the situation:

It is the complexity of the different lines of influence that makes an assignment of the various positions on issues to specific factions so difficult. Just as not all facets of the Corinthian situation can be

completely resolved on the basis of the Jew/Gentile differences, so too the rich/poor dichotomy cannot explain all the positions. The varieties of factors, social, economic, ethnic, geographical, religious, even gender and marital status, cut across the members of the community. No one factor can account for the spectrum of groupings thus produced, as even

Theissen concedes: “thus the bases for the conflict at the Lord’s supper are neither purely material nor purely theological. Above all, they are social, the problems of a socially stratified community” . . . While I agree that economic factors fomented the factionalism at Corinth, as so often in history, it is important to note that Paul does not himself explicitly

describe the conflict in those terms (as is done, for example, in 1 Clem.

38:2).9

What is widely affirmed is that Roman Corinth was a highly stratified and agonistic society and that the pervasive pursuit of status according to a matrix of social valuations was dividing the church. Further, examination of several of the points of tension in the on the view that various aspects of extra-ecclesial social status were causing the division within the church that Paul redresses. Cf. John M. G. Barclay “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen,” JSNT 26 (2004): 365-66; Steven J. Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus,” JSNT 26 (2004): 339-58; Bengt Holmberg, “The Methods of Historical Reconstruction in the Scholarly

‘Recovery’ of Corinthian Christianity” in Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the

Pauline Church (ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster

John Knox, 2004), 261-64; Dale B. Martin, “Review of Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty

and Survival,” JSNT 24, (2001): 53-56; Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure of Pauline

Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival,” JSNT

24 (2001): 72-75; idem, “Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks

on J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival” (JSNT 25 (2003): 371-91.

9

church will show, with David Horrell, that “[t]he behaviour of the socially prominent

members of the community seems to have caused problems, at least in Paul’s view.”10

Such a finding sheds further light on the relevance of the formulaic social pairings in 12:13 to the body metaphor Paul develops in 1 Cor 12. His expectation that all give greater honor to those without honor (12:23-24) amounts to an inversion of social competition in their environment and a counter to the status differential implicit in the dichotomies of the formula. In fact, Paul’s strategy in 1 Cor 12 accords with his approach to each of the problems he engages in the letter. Repeatedly, he injects the logic of the cross as undermining the valuations of society (e.g. 1 Cor 1:18-31; 2:1-8). Thus, his mention of social status categories in the midst of his treatise on “spiritual gifts,” far from

being an ad hominem argument or tangential allusion, reveals explicitly the social status

concerns permeating the Corinthian congregations and Paul’s epistolary response.