^{page 351 note 1} The historical reconstruction suggested here was first worked out in a seminar under Professor J. Louis Martyn. I wish to express my thanks to him and to Professor Nils Alstrup Dahl for their criticisms of this paper. I remain responsible, of course, for the hypotheses advanced.

^{page 351 note 2} On general background see Delling, G., Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe (Stuttgart, 1913),Google Scholar a book in which Delling presents excellent background material but, since he fails to consider the Corinthians' position in I Cor. vii, sometimes attributes their position to Paul; L. Bieler, ΘΕΙΟΣ ANHP (Wien, 1935), I, 60–73; Heussi, K., Der Ursprung des Mönchtums (Tübingen, 1936);Google ScholarStrathmann, H. and Keseling, P., ‘Askese II (christlich)’, R.A.C. I, Sp. 758–95;Google ScholarChadwick, H., ‘enkrateia’, R.A.C. V, Sp. 343–65;Google ScholarFord, J. Massingberd, A Trilogy on Wisdom and Celibacy, vol. IV in the Cardinal O'Hara Series (Notre Dame, 1967);Google ScholarLohse, H., Askese und Mönchtum in der Antike und in der alten Kirche (Müchen, 1969);Google ScholarWilly, Rordorf, ‘Marriage in the New Testament and in the early Church,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XX (1969), 193–210.Google Scholar For the ‘Greek’ origin of the earliest Christian asceticism see Reitzenstein, R., Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig, 1906),Google Scholar S. 94 ff. for the neopythagorean ideal: Leipoldt, J., Griechische Philosophie und Frühchristliche Askese (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Leipizg, Band 106, Heft 4)(Ost-Berlin, 1961)Google Scholar, and the review by Dihle, A. in Gnomon XXXIV (1962), 452–7.Google Scholar For the ‘Jewish’ origin of Christian asceticism see Peterson, E., ‘Einige Beobachtungen zu den Anfängen der christlichen Askese’, Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis (Freiburg, 1959), S. 209–20;Google ScholarQuispel, G., ‘The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Maccarius’, Vigiliae Christiane XVIII (1964), 226–35;Google Scholaridem, ‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’, The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed by J. P. Hyatt (New York, 1965), pp. 252–71;Google Scholar and the important article by Georg, Kretschmar, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung früchristlicher Askese,’ Z. Th.K. LXI (1964), 27–67Google Scholar (he concludes, S. 65: ‘Der eigentliche geschichtliche Ursprung der christlichen Askese im syrisch-palästinensischen Raum liegt denn in dem Versuch, Den Ruf Jesu zur Nachfolge und seine Jüngerbelehrung in eine christliche Lebensordnung umzuprägen.’). For an exegesis of the NT texts see von Campenhausen, H. F., ‘Die Askese im Urchristentum’, Tradition und Heligkeit und Leban. Kräfte der Kirchengeschichte (Tubingen, 1960),Google Scholar S. 114–56. On I Cor. vii see Doughty, D. J., Heiligkeit und Freiheit. Eine Exegetische Untersuchung der Anwendung des paulinischen Freiheitsgedankens in I Kor. 7 (Göttingen Dissertation, 1965),Google Scholar a good work because the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians is clearly presented.

^{page 351 note 3} Cf. Tacitus, , Annals III, 25Google Scholar and Rudolf, Rohm, The Institute of Roman Law, tr. by James, Ledlie (Oxford, 1892), p. 384;Google ScholarPat, Harrell, Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church (Austin, 1967), p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 1} Quispel, ‘Gnosticism’, p. 255; Lane, William L., ‘I Tim. iv. 1–3. An Early Instance of overrealized Eschatology?,’ N.T.S. XI (1965), 164–7.Google ScholarJulius, Schniewind, ‘Die Leugner der Auferstehung in Korinth’, Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1952), p. 114,Google Scholar proposed that I Cor. XV. 12 (‘there is no resurrection of the dead’) should be understood as an inference from the position attacked in II Tim. ii. 18. (‘the resurrection in past already’).

^{page 352 note 2} Quispel, loc. cit.

^{page 352 note 3} Cf.Hurd, John Coolidge Jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (New York, 1965), pp. 62–3.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 4} Walter, Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 198 ff.,Google Scholar misunderstands I Cor. vii when he denies that ascetic tendencies were present (a denial which results from his thesis that Paul everywhere in I Cor. opposes libertinistic gnostics). A spiritualsitic world view could become either ascetic (I Cor. vii) or libertinistic (I Cor. V, vi, X) in gnostic circles; see Jonas, H., Gnosis und spätantiker Geist (F.R.L.A.N.T., N.F. 33 and 45) (Göttingen, 1934, 1954), I, 233 ff., 313 ff.,Google Scholar II, 34; Schlier, H., ‘Das Denken der frühchristlichen Gnosis’, NT Studien für R. Bultmann (Z.N.W. Beiheft 21) (Berlin, 1954), S. 67–82;Google ScholarChadwick, H., ‘All Things to All Men (I Cor. ix. 22),’ N.T.S. I (1955), 269–70.Google Scholar That asceticism remained a strong influence in Corinth may be concluded from I Clement 38. 2 (cf. 35. 2 and 48. 5) and Dionysius’ (bishop of Corinth c.a.d. 170) letter to Pinytus of Cnossus in Crete (cf. Eusebius, , Eccl Hist. IV. 7–8).Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 5} James, Robinson, ‘Basic Shifts in German Theology,’ Interpretation, XVI (1962), 82–6;Google Scholar and ‘Kerygma and History in the New Testament’, in the Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. by H.P. Hyatt (London, 1965), pp. 127–31.Google Scholar Now see the discussion by Heinz, Wolfgang Kuhn, ‘Der irdische Jesus bei Paulus,’ Z. Th. K. LXVII (1970), 308 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 6} Ibid. (‘Basic Shifts’), pp. 85–6. His suggested interpretation (p. 83) of various sayings and events in Q against the background of Sophia speculations is very suggestive.

^{page 353 note 1} Ibid. p. 84. That Sophia was also a christological title for Paul's opponents in I Cor. is argued by Ulrich, Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu I Kor. 1 und 2 (Tübingen, 1959), S. 68, 73, 202;Google Scholar and on wisdom in Q cf. S. 163, 197–8.

^{page 353 note 2} Robinson, , ‘Kerygma and History’, p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 3} Ibid. p. 129.

^{page 353 note 4} The following observations are dependent on Quentin Quesnell, ‘Made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 19; 12)’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXX (July 1968), 344–6.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 5} Ibid. p. 344. On Luke's asceticism cf. von Campenhausen, op. cit. (cf. p. 351 n. 2), pp. 124–7, 138.

^{page 353 note 6} Ibid. On Luke xiv. 26 see Ford, op. cit. (cf. p. 351 n. 2), pp. 34, 51–2, 100, who points to the close parallel in Philo, Vit. Cont. 18 ff. and Lev. R. 19. I.

^{page 353 note 7} Quesnell here assumes that Matt. xxii. 1–10 is a parallel passage, which would mean that the material belongs to Q. That assumption could be questioned.

^{page 354 note 1} Ibid. On Luke xiv. 26 see Ford, op. cit. (cf. p. 351 n. 2), pp. 34, 51–2, 100, who points to the close parallel in Philo, Vit. Cont. 18 ff. and Lev. R. 19. I.

^{page 354 note 2} Ibid. p. 345; but cf. Luke xiv. 8.

^{page 354 note 3} On Luke xx. 34–6 see Cross, F. M. Jr, The Ancient Library of Qumran (London, 1958), pp. 56 ff., 71 ff., and esp. 73 f.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 4} Man is like the animals in that he eats, drinks, copulates, and eliminates; see Jacob, Jervell, Image Die (Göttingen, 1960), S. 86Google Scholar for references. The same idea is found in Stoic sources; see Epictetus, , Discourses I. vi, 13 ff.Google Scholar But the angels in heaven neither eat nor drink nor have sexual intercourse not die. Cf. Billerbeck, , Kommentar, S. 891.Google Scholar This makes the Corinthians' claim to ‘speak in the tongues…of angels’ (I Cor. xiii.I) striking. For references to ascetics living the life of angels and speaking tongues of angels while praising God, see Frank, P. Suso, Agr;ΓΓΕΔΙΚΟΣ ΒΙΟΣ. Begriffsanalytische und begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ‘engelgleichen Leben’ im frühen Mönchtum (Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 26) (Münster, 1964), S. 178–9, 184, 186, 189, 192.Google Scholar He cites the Test. of Job xlviii. 3; l. 1–2 (recently ed. by S. P. Brock).

In Contrast, however, Billerbeck, op. cit. I, 887 ff., notes that although most people believed in the resurrection in the time of the Old Synagogue, the believed that married life would be practised in the same way after resurrection as at present. He says that there is only one late reference which states that sexual intercourse would be forbidden after resurrection (Midr. Ps. 146·4 [268a]). In the light of the material presented below (pp. 355 ff.), it is important that this reference discusses the giving of the law on Sinai. The passage has been translated by Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms, vol. XIII in Yale Judaica Series (New Haven, 1959), II, 366;Google Scholar ‘On the day that the Holy one, blessed be He, revealed Himself on Mount Sinai to give the Torah to the children of Isreal, He forbade intercourse of three days, as it is said, “Be ready against the third day; come not at your wives” (Exod. xix. 15). Now since God, when he revealed Himself for only one day, forbade intercouse for three days, in the time-to-come, when the presence of God dwells continuously in Israel's midst, will not intercourse be entirely forbidden?’

^{page 354 note 5} Quesnell, loc. cit.

^{page 354 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 355 note 1} Cf. the important discussion of Kretschmar, op. cit. (cited above, p. 351 n. 2), passim on Matthew, but esp. pp. 54 ff. on Matt. xix.

^{page 355 note 2} Quesnell, op. cit. p. 345 n. 14.

^{page 355 note 3} Ferdinand, Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London, 1969), pp. 31–3,Google Scholar Luke xvii. 26 f. as one of the few authentic Son of Man sayings.

^{page 355 note 4} Philo, , Questions and Answers on Genesis II, 49,Google Scholar tr. from the ancient Armenian version of the original Greek by Ralph, Marchus in Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge Mass. 1961).Google Scholar This passage in referred to and discussed by Goodenough, E. R., By Light Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935), p. 134Google Scholar and Lewis, Jack P., A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christians Literature (Leiden, 1968), p. 39Google Scholar n. 6 (cf. p. 53 n. I; p. 144 with n. 10; and p. 163), which reads: ‘This Haggadah was known to Philo (Q. G. ii. 41); some rabbis: Gen. R. 31: 2; Tamm. I. 6; T. B. Sanh. 108b; Pirke de R Elieser 23; and to a large group of church fathers: Origen, Selecta in Gen. 53 (PG 12. 105); Julius Africanus, Chron. 4 (PG 10. 58); Hippol. Arabic Frag. To pent. II, Gen. 7; 6 (GCS I. 2. 88); John of Damascus, De fide orth. 4:24 (PG 94. 1207c); Hilary, Tract. myst. i. 13 (SC 19. 101).’ Cf. also Apoc. of Paul 50 and Tert. Monog. 4 as well as Louis, Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadephia, 1909–38), I, 164;Google Scholar 166 nn. 51 and 54 and Ford, op. cit. pp. 198–9 (= N.T.S. XI, 4 (1965), 334–5.

For a good evaluation of the use of Philo as a source cf. Meeks, Wayne A, The Prophet-King; Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. XIV) (Leiden, 1967), pp. 101–2.Google Scholar While modern studies have demonstrated that Philo did not know the oral Torah (halakah) so central to Pharisaic Judaism, he did know some of the haggadic traditions which have found their way into later midrashim, for example the tradition about Noah cited above; cf. further parallels in Edmund Stein, Philo und der Midrasch; Philos Childerung der Gestalten der Pentateuch verglichen mit der des Midrasch, Festgabe für Karl Budde (B.Z.A.W. XVII) (Giessen, 1930). The main problem, of course, in the use of Philo in to discern when he is original, when representative. I, with Meeks, follow the conclusions of E. R. Goodenough (cited above), who argues that Philo, in the basic structure of his allegory, is representative. Goodenough, op. cit. pp. 180–1, notes that ‘Philo himself could hardly have developed this great allegory de nove, and then broken it up into the myriad incidental allusions and fragments that be offers’. Goodenough backs up his argument that Philo represents a substantial movement by collecting paralles: Ibid. pp. 265–369 and also Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York, 1953–64),Google Scholar 12 vols, passim, especially vols. IX–XI which deal with the Dura Synagogue frescoes, and further IX, 197–226, 110–23; X, 105–39 on Moses Cf. further (esp. on Moses) Georg, Kretschmar, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen jüdischer und christlicher Kunst in der Antike’, Abraham unser Vater, Festschrift für Otto Michel, hrsg. Betz, von O, Hengel, M., Schmidt, P (Leiden, 1963), S. 295–319.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 1} Goodenough, , By Light Light, pp. 121, 126 and 128.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} Ibid. p. 129.

^{page 356 note 3} Ibid. p. 131 cf. pp. 133–5.

^{page 356 note 4} Paul could still have known the saying in Luke xvii, 27 as it appears in the next verse (v. 28), i.e. without the γαμέω–γαμ|зω terminology. Compare the verb άγοράзω in Luke xvii. 28 with Paul's use of it in I Cor. vii. 30c. Thus the Pauline and the Corinthian version of this saying may appear side by side in Luke xvii. 26 ff.

^{page 357 note 1} Richard, Kungelmann, ‘I Cor. 7: 36–38,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, x (1948), 69.Google Scholar Cf. Hurd, op. cit. pp. 159–61, 171 (cited p. 352 n. 3 above); Kümmel, W. G., ‘Verlobung und Heirat bei Paulus (I Kor. 7, 36–38)’ Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte (Marburg, 1965), pp. 320–2;Google Scholar and in general, see the excellent exegesis of Seboldt, R. H. A., ‘Spiritual Marriage in the Early Church; A Suggested Interpretation of I Cor. 7; 36–38,’ Concordia Theological Monthly, XXX (1959), 103–19 and 176–89.Google Scholar See also p. 359 n. 5 and p.362. n. I below.

^{page 357 note 2} Campenhausen, op. cit. pp. 144–6 (cited p. 351 n. 2 above). Cf. the observation of Moule, C. F. D., The Birth of the NT (London, 1966 ²), p. 144,Google Scholar which would connect I Cor. vii. 35, with Luke X. 39 ff. because of the common verb περισπάομαι.

^{page 357 note 3} Ibid. p. 145.

^{page 357 note 4} Ibid. p. 146. Paul actually gives two further reasons for asceticism. He appeals to his own prestige (vv. 7, 17, 25b, 40b) and he makes the assertion that this is a ‘happier’ life (v. 40b).

^{page 358 note 1} This is compared to the Stoic attitude by Braun, H., ‘Die Indifferenz gegenüber der Welt bei Paulus und Epiktet,’ Gesammelte Studien… (1967), pp. 159–67.Google Scholar The connection between Paul's view of marriage and that of Epictetus is denied by Schrage, W., ‘Die Stellung zur Welt bei Paulus, Epiktet und in der Apokalyptik,’ Z.Th.K. LXI (1964), 138 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 358 note 3} Campenhausen (op. cit. p. 140) also notes that when Paul insists that a man becomes ‘one’ with p prostitute (I Cor. vi. 13, 15 f.), he quotes that same OT passage Jesus used of marriage (Mark x. 8 parr.).

^{page 358 note 4} Siegfried, Schulz, ‘Die Decke des Moses,’ Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), I.Google Scholar Cf. Dieter, Georgi, Die gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Assen, 1964), S. 247, 278.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 5} Schulz, op. cit. p. 4; Georgi, op. cit. 259; van Unnik, W. C., ‘“With unveiled face”, an exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii. 12–18‘, Novum Testamentum, VI (1963), 161Google Scholar n. 3.

^{page 359 note 1} This word is used twenty-four times in I and II Cor.

^{page 359 note 2} Philo begins his Life of Moses by saying (i. I); ‘I purpose to write the Life of Moses…I hope to bring the story of this greatest and most perfect of men (άνδρός τά πάντα μεγίστου κα| τελιοτάτου) to the knowledge of such as deserve not to remain in ignorance of it.’ Wilckens, op. cit. pp. 53 ff., fails to discuss the term τέλειος in Philo. Cf. the use of τέλειος in I Cor. ii. 6; xiii. 10; xiv. 20; Phil. iii. 11, 12, 15.

^{page 359 note 3} Of fifty occurrences of σοΦζ in the New Testament, seventeen occur in I Cor.

^{page 359 note 4} Cf. I Cor. vii. 14, 34.

^{page 359 note 5} I Thess. iv. 4–5, ‘that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and τιμή not in πάθει of lust…’. This was written from Corinth by Paul when he first preached in that city. Cf. the good exegesis of this passage in relation I Cor. vii by Doughty, op. cit. pp. 154–6, 175–6, 200 (cited p. 351 n. 2 above). Cf.II Tim. ii. 20–2 and Col. iii. 5.

^{page 359 note 6} Cf. I Cor. vii.

^{page 359 note 7} Cf.I. Cor. xi–xiv and p. 364 n. 2 below. On Moses as an ecstatic prophet in Philo, cf. Meeks, op. cit. pp. 125 ff. (cited p. 355 n. 4 above).

^{page 359 note 8} The Corinthians thought they were as strong as Moses but Paul disagreed (I Cor. i. 25, 27; iv. 10, x; II Cor. x.10).

^{page 359 note 9} Cf. II Cor. iii.

^{page 359 note 10} Philo Moses II. 66–70 in Loeb Classical Library, tr. by F. W. Colson (Cambridge, Mass 1935). The passage is discussed by Georgi, op. cit. p. 259 (cf. pp. 160–3), but he does not mention the asceticism. Cf. also Meeks, op. cit. pp. 110–11, 117; he notes (p. 128) that ‘the way Philo introduces the statement (of Moses’ asceticism) into his discussion of Moses’ preparation for his ascent of Sinai in the capacity of high priest shows that he is introducing a familiar tradition’ Stein, op. cit. pp. 45–7, discussed parallels in the Midrashim, and Ford, op. cit. pp. 198–9 (= N.T.S. XI, 4 (1965), 334–5), notes some rabbinic passages. On Sinai, Moses ‘becomes a virgin’ (Philo, Quaest. in Ex. II. 3); cf. Baer, R. A. Jr, Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female (Harvard dissertation, 1965), pp. 84 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 1} Meeks, op. cit. p. 207, asserts: ‘From the time when God first spoke to Moses, according to the unanimous view of the haggada, Moses withdrew from cohabitation with his wife’ (my italics) and he refers to Renée, Bloch, ‘Quelques aspects de la Figure de moïse dans la Traditon Rabbinique’, Moïse, l'homme d'alliance, ed. Cazelles, H.et al. (special issue of Cahiers Sioniens; Paris: Desclée et Cie, 1955), p. 127Google Scholar n. 4.

^{page 360 note 2} Judah, Goldin (tr.), The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, vol. XIII in Yale Judaica Series (New Haven, 1955), ch. 2 (pp. 18–19;Google Scholar cf. ch. 9). Goldin notes (p. xxi) that ‘no authority quoted in ARN is later than the Tannaite period’ and that the earliest part has ‘a date as early as the first century’.

^{page 360 note 3} It is translated by Ginzberg, op. cit. II, 316. Scholem, Scholem G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London, 1955), pp. 49, 199, f., 266 f.Google Scholar Meeks, op. cit. p. 208 n. I, suggests the comparison of Philo's notion of Moses’ (and the Patriarchs') marriage with Sophia, as interpreted by Goodenough, op. cit. pp. 22 f., 157–60, 164, 201. This occurs in early Christian tradition in Didache xi. 11; see Schlier, H., Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Tübingen, 1930), pp. 68–9;Google Scholar Campenhausen, op cit. p. 149 n. 192 (cited p. 351 n. 2 above); Adam, A., ‘Erwägungen zur Herkunft der Didache,’ Z.K.G. LXVIII (1957), 20–1;Google Scholar pace Kümmel, op. cit. p. 312 n. 9 (cited p. 357 n. I above).

^{page 360 note 4} Cf. further Ginzberg, op. cit. II, 287; p. 289 n. 80; III, 394–5; Isidore, Singer (ed.), The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1902–1906), IX, 48Google Scholar (article on ‘Moses’) and V, 226 (article on ‘Essenes’). Some of the pasages noted are: Shabbath 87a; Pesahim 87b; Sifre Num. 99; Deut. r. XI, 10; Apocalypse of John xiv. 4 (!); Enoch lxxxiii. 2 (a passage not to be dated later than 161 B.C.).

^{page 360 note 5} Betz, O., ‘The eschatological Interpretation of the Sinai-Tradition in Qumran and in the New Testament,’ Revue de Qumrán, numéro 21, VI (1967), 89–107, esp. pp. 93–4.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 6} Philo, Moses, I. 158 f., cited by Georgi, op. cit. p. 160; cf. further Ibid. pp. 160–2, 261–2, and Goodenough, op. cit. p. 136. For Georgi's treatment of Moses as a θείος άνήρ, cf. op. cit. pp. 145 ff., 192 ff., 231, 258 ff., 290 and 301.

^{page 361 note 1} In fact, the passage quoted above Moses' ascent on Sinai (Philo, , Moses II. 66–70)Google Scholar is introduced by a long discussion of Noah the flood (Ibid. II. 53, 59–65)! Cf. Goodenough, op. cit. p. 188 for a discussion of this. The two stories are connected by the law and convenant themes.

^{page 362 note 1} In view of Paul's general stress on man's ‘weakness’ over against the Corinthians’ stress on their ‘strength’, it follows naturally that Paul would strees man's lack of ‘self-control’ sexually (I Cor. vii. 5, 9, 36) over against some Corinthian couples’ attempt to live in intimate but sexless marriage (I Cor. vii. 36–8)! See p. 359 n. 8 above.

^{page 362 note 2} Wilckens, op. cit. pp. 214 ff., and esp. 219.

^{page 362 note 3} Georgi, op. cit. pp. 288 n. 5; cf. pp. 286 ff.

^{page 362 note 4} Wilckens, op. cit. (p. 353 n. i above), pp. 3, 212, thinks that Paul addresses ‘gnostics’ in both letters, but his suggestion, even for I Cor., has met severe criticism. See Pruemm, K., ‘Zur neutestamentlichen Gnosis-Problematic. Gnostischer Hintergrund und Lehreinschlag in den beiden Eingangskapitedln von I Kor.?,’ Zeit. Kath. Theol. LXXXVII (1965), 399–442Google Scholar and LXXXVIII (1966), 1–50; also Scroggs, R., ‘Paul: ΣΟφΟΣ and ΠΝΕΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ,’ N.T.S. XIV (1967), 33–55;Google Scholar and especially Briger Albert Pearson, The ΠΝΕΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ-ψΓκΙΚΟΣ Terminology in I Corinthians. A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard, 1968).

^{page 362 note 5} Georgi, op. cit. p. 220; cf. pp. 13 ff., 285 and 301 ff. Helmut, Koester, ‘ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ. The Origin and Natures of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity,’ H.T.R. LVIII (1965), 310–13,Google Scholar agrees. Cf. further Friedruch, G., ‘Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief’, Abraham Unser Vater, Festschrift für Otto Michel (Leiden, 1963), pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 6} Georgi, op. cit. p. 285. But for an understanding of I Cor. xii. 3 which undercuts this distinction, see Pearson, B., ‘Did the Gnostics Curse Jesus?,’ J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 301–5.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 7} Georgi, op. cit. p. 303.

^{page 363 note 1} Georgi, D., ‘Der Kampf um die reine Lehre im Urchristentum als Auseinandersetzung um das rechte Verständnis der an Israel ergangenen Offenbarung Gottes’, Antijüdaismus im Neuen Testament?, herausg. von. W. P. Eckert, P. Levinson, und M. Stöhr (1967), pp. 83–7.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 2} Ibid. p. 83. But he still (p. 83 n. 3) insists that the ‘Schriftgnosis’ present in I Cor. differed from the ‘Allegorese der jüdischen Apologetik’ in II Cor.

^{page 363 note 3} The Hebrew MT has ‘form’ (הנומת) but the LXX text introduces the word ‘glory’ (δόξα).

^{page 363 note 4} See Billerbeck, III, 452 and Kittel, K., ‘αίνιγμα,’ T.D.N.T. I, 178–80.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 5} The participle κατοπτριзόμενοι in II Cor. iii. 18. means ‘view through a mirror’, not ‘reflect’, according to most recent interpreters, e.g. Hugedé, N., La Métaphore du miroir dans less épîtres de SaintPaul (1957), pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar and Kittel, R., ‘κατοπτρ|зομαι,’ T.D.N.T. II, 696Google Scholar ff. The ‘mirror’ into which the opponents looked was the Torah; see Georgi, op. cit. pp. 272–3, who cites Philo, De Cita Cont. 78.

^{page 363 note 6} Cf. G. Kittel, loc. cit. and Johannes, Behm, ‘Das Bildwort vom Spiegel, I Korinther 13: 12’, Reinholds-Seeberg Festschrift (Leipzig, 1929), I, 315, 323, 337, 340–2.Google Scholar That ch. xiii is Pauline has recently been defended by Conzelmann, H., ‘Paulus und die Weisheit,’ N.T.S. XII, 4 (1965–6), 241.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 1} Behm, op. cit. p. 323.

^{page 364 note 2} See Meeks, Wayne A., ‘Moses as God and King,’, Religions in Antiquity, Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough, ed. by Neusner, J. (Leiden, 1968), pp. 354 ff.Google Scholar, especially pp. 361–5.

^{page 364 note 3} Jacob, Jervell, Imago Dei (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 68, 107 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 4} Ibid. pp. 309–12.

^{page 364 note 5} Cf. Ibid. pp. 292 ff.

^{page 364 note 6} Cf. Ibid. pp. 31 ff., 100.