SECCION SEXTA DE LA REVISIÓN Y FISCALIZACIÓN DEL ESTADO

i. Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Questions relating to Paul's understanding of history are inevitably linked to his use and understanding of the Old Testament. The Hebrew Scriptures are, after all, historical records, offering a narrative of sorts beginning with the creation of the world, and detailing God's interaction with his chosen people. They are also more than mere history, being shaped by the conviction that God acts purposively across history, intervening in human affairs. For anyone whose thought is shaped by it, scripture provides a framework for understanding history. Indeed, a quick glance at Paul's letters indicates that scripture plays an important role in his theology, and in the way he argues. Given that Paul was a zealous Jew, trained as a

117

Pharisee, this should not come as a surprise.369 The interpretation of scripture is central to several of Paul's most significant arguments, with scriptural quotations inserted at strategic points. Even when scripture is not explicitly referred to through quotation, Paul's writing remains deeply imbued with scriptural tones; it is natural for Paul to form and express his opinions in language that is grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures. As Richard Hays puts it:

The vocabulary and cadences of Scripture - particularly of the LXX - are imprinted deeply on Paul’s mind, and the great stories of Israel continue to serve for him as a fund of symbols and metaphors that condition his perception of the world, of God’s promised deliverance of his people and of his own identity and calling. His faith, in short is one whose articulation is inevitably intertextual in character.370

Nonetheless, while it is relatively uncontroversial to claim that Paul's relationship with scripture shapes his epistles, what is less clear are the precise terms of this relationship. Is Paul's faith one that is rooted in scripture, which provides the ideas, symbols and

parameters with which to understand the Christ-event and the experience of the church, or is Paul's faith primarily anchored in his experience, meaning that scripture must be reinterpreted in a way that makes it compatible with this experience?371 Does Paul base many of his

arguments on scripture because it remains his conviction that scripture retains a crucial role in the present, and for the new people of God, or is he forced to engage pragmatically with scripture to counteract the arguments of his opponents?

1 Corinthians 10:1-13 is a text which relies heavily on scripture, as Paul exhorts the Corinthians by using examples from Israel's history. By studying this argument, it becomes apparent that while Paul uses scripture for rhetorical purposes,372 he does not simply mine it

369 _{Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: New York: T&T Clark}

International, 2004), 1-3, places Paul alongside other Jewish readers who ‘participate in an ongoing conversation about how to read the Torah and the prophets.’ For Watson, Paul’s theological positions are not derived independently from his experience of Christ, and then applied to scripture; rather, his ‘so-called “view of the law” is nothing other than his reading of a text; his “theology of justification” is in reality a scriptural hermeneutic.’ The same might be said for his understanding of history.

370 _{Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University}

Press, 1989), 16.

371 _{This recalls the epistemological questions raised in chapter 4. Does Paul’s knowledge of}

God begin with the Christ-event and work backwards through scripture, or begin with scripture as the basis of understanding the Christ-event?

372 _{Margaret Mitchell, Paul, The Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics}

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 16, describes the Corinthian letters as 'a correspondence course in practical, indeed tactical, hermeneutics.'

118

for useful proof-texts to support his argument, and then employ them cynically to win an argument in his favour.373 The way in which he uses scripture in this text relies on deeply held theological convictions, relating to God's consistency and faithfulness, and to Paul's own understanding of history, in particular the significance of the time in which he and the

Corinthians lived.

Rather than providing an exhaustive commentary on this passage, the approach taken in this chapter will be to give an outline of Paul's argument, and then to focus on a selection of phrases and themes which have particular significance for understanding Paul's view of history. As is typical with Paul, 1 Cor. 10:1-13 raises as many questions as it answers, and so this chapter will conclude by highlighting some of these questions, and considering how they might relate to other significant Pauline texts.

ii. The Structure and Origin of 1 Cor. 10:1-13

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, Paul engages with the Old Testament in an innovative way, deploying his own interpretation of the wilderness narratives as important evidence to support his exhortations. This section is one piece of a larger argument spanning chapters 8-10, primarily concerning the question of food offered to idols.374 There are several interesting features of this section of the argument, but the rhetorical structure is quite simple. The section opens with an introductory formula, 'I do not want you to be unaware,' (10:1)

variations of which Paul uses on a number of occasions to indicate that he is about to deliver a significant message.375 In verses 1-4, Paul describes the Israelites’ experience in the desert using sacramental language that draws comparison with the Corinthians’ experience,

detailing the ways in which they were blessed by God. Despite their privileges, they

disobeyed God and incurred his displeasure. In verse 6, Paul makes his point clear, stressing that the things he is describing occurred for the benefit of those, like the Corinthians, who are living at the ends of the ages. For the Corinthians, falling under God’s judgment remains a real possibility, despite the blessed and privileged position that they find themselves in. The Israelites shared similar blessings and privileges, but this did not prevent them from falling under judgment. The Israelites put Christ to the test and suffered the consequences; the same

373 _{Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 3, argues that ‘Paul cites individual texts not}

in an ad hoc manner but on the basis of a radical construal of the narrative shape of the Pentateuch as a whole.’

374 _{On the structure and coherence of Paul’s argument, see J. Delobel, ‘Coherence and}

Relevance of 1 Cor. 8-10’ in R. Bieringer ed. The Corinthian Correspondence, (Leuven: University Press, 1996), 177-190.

119

might happen to the Corinthians (10:9-10). To ignore such a warning would be foolish, and would be to reject the warnings given by God in scripture (10:11). The section is completed with the reassurance that God will not test the Corinthians beyond what they can bear (10:13).

Paul's argument is built on a historical analogy, as he compares the Israelites' experience with the Corinthians'. He does so in two ways. The first is implicit, in his

description of Israel's wilderness wanderings. Some of the details are lifted straight from the scriptural narrative with no new interpretation, such as Israel passing through the sea; others are reinterpreted by Paul in distinctive ways. He claims that they were 'baptized into Moses' (10:2), and that they ate 'spiritual food' (10:3), and drank 'spiritual drink’ (10:4), allusions to the sacramental bread and wine subsequently referred to in chapters 10 and 11. Perhaps the most startling claim is that the rock which they drank from 'was Christ’ (10:4) The

background to this claim will be considered in more depth below, but it is worth noting here that invoking the name of Christ at this point helps to cement the analogy between the Israelites and the Corinthians. Paul makes the comparison explicit by declaring that 'these things happened as examples for us.'376

While the argument as a whole is rooted in scripture, there is only one quotation, from Ex. 32:6 (v.7). Paul does, however, have a wider range of scriptural texts in mind. Meeks identifies Num. 14:20-35 as the basic text,377 while Collier suggests that Numbers 11 is of particular importance, with the quotation from Exodus 32 serving 'midrashically as Numbers 11 writ small' through the linguistic connection between the two texts.378 Paul's reference to the twenty-three thousand who died (10:8) seems to be a reference to Num. 25:9, although there the number is twenty-four thousand. Paul may simply have misremembered the number, or there could be a conflation with Num. 26:62.379 The quotation Paul chooses, which states that Israel ate and then 'rose up to play' (Ex. 32:6), does not immediately appear to be an obvious choice. However, the verb παίζειν, particularly when read alongside Gen. 21:9, is to

376 _{See below for discussion of the meaning of τύποι, translated here as 'examples'.}

377 _{Wayne A. Meeks, '"And Rose Up To Play": Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-}

22', JSNT 16 (1982), 64-78, at 69.

378 _{Gary D. Collier, ''That We Might Not Crave Evil': The Structure and Argument of 1}

Corinthians 10:1-13' in JSNT 17.55 (1995), 55-75, at 72.

379 _{See William Baird, '1 Corinthians' in Interpretation 44.3 (1990), 286-29. B.J. Koet, ‘The}

Old Testament Background to 1 Cor 10, 7-8’ in R. Bieringer ed., The Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: University Press, 1996), 607-615, argues that Paul intentionally alludes to both Ex. 32:38 and Num. 25:9.

120

be taken as a reference to Israel's subsequent sin, and idolatry in particular.380 This provides Paul with a useful connection between eating and idolatry, which suits the present context.

Several commentators have raised the possibility that 1 Cor. 10:1-13 could have its origins in a pre-Pauline tradition, either Jewish or Christian, which Paul adapts and inserts into his argument to strengthen his case against the eating of idol food. Meeks points out the similarities between this pericope and texts such as Ps. 106 and Neh. 9:9-37, where a similar structure is used for confession, and Hos. 13.4-8 and Amos 2:9-16; 3:2, where it is used for admonition. Like 1 Cor. 10:1-13, these texts detail Israel's time in the wilderness,

emphasising the blessings that they received, and then go on to describe how some of the Israelites fell into sin, and idolatry in particular. Meeks suggests that 1 Cor. 10:1-13 does not fit entirely smoothly into Paul's wider argument, and that this can be explained by positing that Paul incorporates a previously composed literary unit. One feature of this pericope which supports its independent literary history is its symmetrical structure, with a fivefold repetition of 'all' who were blessed followed by a fivefold repetition of 'some' who sinned.381 Meeks also suggests that verses 6 and 11 form an inclusio.382

Likewise, Collier suggests that 10:1-13 can easily stand on its own as 'a focussed statement against falling prey to the temptation of selfish craving, with a concluding

exhortation centred in the faithfulness of God', which naturally raises the possibility that the pericope may have originally been an independent text, or part of a different larger text.383 This is definitely plausible, although if 1 Cor. 10:1-13 is taken from a pre-Christian text, then Paul has certainly made some significant alterations to it, most notably the Christological references and the use of Christian sacramental language and imagery. It is also possible, of course, that Paul could be using a pre-existing Christian tradition, but no such traditions are available to us, and even if Paul does borrow heavily from a pre-existing text, he has still selected these elements himself, and altered them to fit his argument.

Setting aside the question of the literary history of this text, another important question remains. Why does Paul choose to persuade the Corinthians using this particular argument, and this particular scriptural tradition? In Galatians 4, for example, Paul engages in lengthy scriptural debate over the significance of Abraham. In that case, however, it seems

380 _{Meeks, ‘And Rose Up To Play,’ 69. Both the Genesis Rabbah 53:11and the Palestinian} Targum on Gen 21:9 suggest that Ishmael's sin was idolatry.

381 _{This symmetry is not perfect, however. While there are fives uses of πάντες, there are only}

four uses of τινες, with Meeks suggesting κἀκεῖνοι as the fifth example of 'some.' See Meeks, ‘And Rose Up To Play,’ 75, footnote 4.

382 _{Meeks, ‘And Rose Up To Play,’ 65.}

121

likely that he is prompted to do so by his opponents’ use of scriptural arguments, using the story of Abraham in their attempts to persuade the Galatians to accept circumcision. The situation was different in Corinth. Paul was writing to a predominantly Gentile congregation, where Judaizing was not an issue. That he freely chooses to employ an argument based on scripture - including some extra-biblical tradition on the side384 _{- indicates that the}

Corinthians had been educated to some extent in the scriptures, presumably by Paul himself, and that they recognised it as an authoritative source.385 _{It is also indicative of Paul's wider} attitude towards the role and significance of scripture, an attitude perhaps best encapsulated by Paul's reference to the Israelites as 'our fathers' (10:1). This could be explained away as a remnant of the tradition Paul is employing, but it seems implausible that Paul would include such a theologically loaded claim if he did not agree with it.386 By writing to a Gentile

congregation and casually stating that they are the descendants of the Israelites, Paul indicates that he sees real continuity between the people of Israel and the church of Jesus Christ. This provides theological justification and motivation for trying to persuade the church with arguments based on Israel's scriptures, because it means they are the Corinthians' scriptures too.