Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:42:54.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Fresh Look at I Corinthians 6. 16 f.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

J. I. Miller
J. I. Miller
Affiliation:
Suffolk, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , October 1980 , pp. 125 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 73 f.Google Scholar

2 As one whose primary interest in the NT field is textual criticism, I am thankful that the Passage under discussion contains no variants to invalidate (or reinforce) my arguments. Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953), pp. 126 and 195Google Scholar, refers only to the doubtful ñ at the beginning of v. 16.

3 Contra Robinson, J. A. T., The Body (London, 1957), 52 f.Google ScholarPubMed, who at least implies, without actually stating, that Gen. 2. 24 LXX reads κολληθήσεтαι. Meuzelaar, J. J., Das Leib des Messias: eine exegetische Studie über den Gedanken vom Leib Christi in den Paulusbriefen (Assen, 1961)Google Scholar is a valuable corrective here, esp. pp. 145 ff., where the German an der Dirne hängt and am Herrn hängt suggests conclusions similar to, if not identical with those presented here: p. 145 n. 2 contains an excellent summary of scholarly opinion at the time when his monograph was written.

4 We may surely regard the variants κολλόμενοι read by G and καλλόμενοι by F as scribal errors.

5 T. W.N.T. s.v. κολλάω: very few non-biblical parallels are mentioned, all from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

6 See Elliott, J. K., ‘Phrynichus' Influence on the Textual Tradition of the New Testament,’ Z.N.W. 63 (1972), 133–8Google Scholar, and ‘Moeris and the Textual Tradition of the Greek New Testament,’ Nov. T. (suppl.) 44 (1976), 144–52.Google Scholar

7 T.W.N.T. ad loc.

8 So, for instance, Thrall, M. E., ‘Christ crucified or second Adam?’ in Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S. (eds), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1973), p. 147Google Scholar, whose conclusions are impeccable if inadequate.

9 Moule, op. cit. p. 74.

10 This interpretation is designed to be complementary rather than antithetical to that of Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit (London, 1975), pp. 323 and 446Google Scholar n. 106; the stern warning given in this last reference is most valuable.

11 English translation of 2nd edition (London, 1962), p. 46Google Scholar. Note the difference in versenumbering (Héring's 6. 18a we would normally read as 6. 17b).