¹ This study does not presume to answer this question. Was their Christian liberty virtually without limits (so C. Hodge, F. Godet, A. Robertson & A. Plummer, W. Orr & J. Walther, G. Fee; cf. 6.12; 8.9; 9.19; 10.23)? Did they seek sexual release outside of marriage because they sought to maintain so-called ‘spiritual (i.e., celibate) marriages’ (A. Schlatter, G. Fee; cf. 1 Cor 7.3–5)? Did they consider deeds of the body morally irrelevant (C. K. Barrett, H. Conzelmann, G. Fee, J. Murphy-O'Connor, W. Meeks) or, at least, relatively unimportant? Was this because their eschatology was so ‘over-realized’ that matters of this age went unmonitored and unrestrained (cf. Thiselton, A., ‘Realized Eschatology at Corinth’, NTS 24 [1978] 510–26)?CrossRefGoogle Scholar Or were they simply too slow to identify and reject this very popular component of their pagan culture (Calvin)? For whatever reasons, some Corinthians failed to see that sexual immorality was fundamentally incompatible with their commitment to Christ.

² For this paper, we divide the text of v. 18 into three parts:

(a) Φεύγετε τὴν πορνεαν.

(b) πᾶν ἀμάρτημα ő ἐἀνποιήση ἄνθρωπος ἐκτòς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν.

(c) ό δἐ πορνεύων είς τò ἴδιον σῶμα άμαρτάνει.

³ Perhaps the comments of Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. gave rise to this view: ‘The Corinthian freethinkers probably used this argument also, and perhaps availed themselves of our Lord's words, Mark vii. 18.’ The Life and Epistles of Saint Paul (Hartford: S. S. Scranton, 1900) 435.Google Scholar The current popularity of the ‘slogan’ view is illustrated by T. Radcliffe's observation: ‘All New Testament scholars agree that much of 1 Cor 6.12–20 is Paul quoting from the Corinthians, but unfortunately they cannot agree where to put the quotation marks!’ ‘“Glorify God in Your Bodies”: 1 Corinthians 6,12–20 as a Sexual Ethic’, New Blackfriars 67 (793/4, 1986) 306.Google Scholar A recent voice to join the chorus belongs to Omanson, Roger, ‘Acknowledging Paul's Quotations’, BT 43 (2, 1992) 201–13,Google Scholar who endorses fully the earlier work of Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6.12–20’, CBQ 40 (1978) 391–6.Google Scholar

⁴ Among those who have sorted through the interpretive options, see esp. Gundry, R., Sôma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976) 70–5;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFee, G., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 261;Google Scholar and Byrne, B., ‘Sinning against One's Own Body: Paul's Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Cor.6:18’, CBQ 45 (4, 1983) 608–16.Google Scholar Still helpful is Godet, F., Commentaire sur la Première Épître aux Corinthiens (1st ed. 1886; 2nd ed.; Neuchâtel: Éditions de I'Imprimerie Nouvelle L.-A. Monnier, 1965) 284–6.Google Scholar

⁵ In Proverbs and Sirach, sexual sin is denounced not only as foolish but also as leading to public shame (Prov 5.10; 6.33; Sir 23.26; 47.19–20), punishment (Prov 6.29, 34–5; Sir 23.21, 24–5), and even destruction (Prov 2.18–19; 5.4–6, 9,11, 23; 7.22–7; Sir 9.9; 23.16–17; 26.22).

⁶ Virtually all who reject the Corinthian slogan view concur. J. Ruef is an exception; he rejects the slogan view but sees ‘no justification in the Greek text for the word other’. But his alternative is simply untenable: every sin ‘leads to a degree of ostracism’ from the body (i.e., the community) and sexual sin is also a sin against one's physical body. Paul's First Letter to Corinth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 50.Google Scholar

⁷ Matt 12.31 has πᾶσα άμαρτία καÌ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ή δἐ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. Superficially, the second clause contradicts the first: if any sin will be forgiven, this includes blasphemy of the Spirit. But the reader simply knows to treat this one specific sin as an exception to the rule. Similarly, Mark 12.44 and 14.29.

⁸ BDF §480 (1). Cf. also §306 (5): ‘ἃλλ ος, is sometimes omitted where we would add “other”’, and examples cited. Similarly, Gundry adds that ‘the adversative de can naturally signify an exceptive contrast and thus justify the interpolation of “other” in the general statement’ (Sôma, 73–4).

⁹ Contra, e.g., R. Kempthorne who contends that the absence, in the Greek text, of ‘other’ is evidence in support of the Corinthian slogan view. ‘Incest and the Body of Christ: a study of 1 Cor. VI.12–20’, NTS 14 (1967–1968) 571.Google Scholar Similarly, Miguens, M., ‘Christ's “Member” and Sex’, The Thomist 39 (1975) 39;Google Scholar and Murphy-O'Connor, J. (‘Slogans’, 392):Google Scholar ‘the ho de introducing v 18c is parallel to the to de introducing v 13c which, as we shall see, is a flat negation of the preceding phrase’.

¹⁰ Of course, not everyone who finds a ‘slogan’ in 18b argues primarily from syntax. Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1959) 196,Google Scholar appeals to logical difficulties in the passage, proposing the slogan view in order to avoid having Paul pronounce fornication ‘to be essentially different ’ from any other sort of sin’. On the other hand, for J. Murphy-O'Connor, there is a tension between the devaluation of the bodily domain implied by 18b and Paul's characteristic assessment of bodily actions as ‘the only sphere in which commitment became real’ (‘Slogans’, 393–4). Both Moule and Murphy-O'Connor can also appeal to the presence of other Corinthian slogans earlier in the pericope (6.12, 13). Nevertheless, without any marker to signal the presence of slogan in v. 18, this view should be adopted only as a last resort.

¹¹ Cf. Bauer, Walter, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (New York: W. de Gruyter, 1988)Google Scholar s.v. άμαράνω 4.b. Paul only uses it here and at 1 Cor 8.12a, b. Elsewhere in the NT, only in the Gospels and Acts: Matt 18.15?, 21; Luke 15.18, 21; 17.4; Acts 25.8. But this idiom is very well established in the LXX: Gen 20.6, 9; 43.9; 44.32; Exod 10.16; 1 Sam 2.25; 15.18; 19.4a, b, 5; 24.12(11); 1 Esdras 1.24(22); 6.15(14); 8.92(89); Jdt 5.20; 11.10; Prov 8.36; 20.2; Sir 7.7; 10.29; 19.4; Ep Jer 14(12); Ezek 35.6; 2 Mace 7.18. In the LXX, the same idea is conveyed by άμαράάνω plus a dative (e.g. Judg 10.10; 2 Chron 6.22; Jer 14.7, and 22 more), although this idiom would have been confusing in 1 Cor 6.18. With so consistent a pattern in the LXX, appeals to Rabbinic Hebrew expressions, or (‘sin with/in the body’), seem potentially misleading. (See discussion in Gundry, R., Sōma, 70, 73, 94–5;Google ScholarRobertson, A. & Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians [2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914] 127;Google ScholarBultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament 1 [New York: Scribner's Sons, 1951] 195.)Google Scholar A related idea is suggested by άμαρτάνειν ἐνώπιον or (ο ἓναντι έναντίον) plus gen. (‘to sin before someone’; Luke 15.18, 21; Exod 32.33; Lev 4.2; Num 32.23, etc.), but this idiom will not work in 6.18c.

¹² Cf. Snaith, J. G., Ecclesiasticus (The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the NEB; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1974) 58.Google Scholar

¹³ Following the text of A. Rahlfs. Cf. Sir 23.23; 26.11 and the NEB: ‘to sin is to do an injury to yourself. But είς ψυχἠν αὐτοῦ could also be construed with the subject: ‘the one who sins against his life commits an offence’ (cf. Sir 9.13; 23.11), which provides a closer formal parallel to Prov 20.2 and Sir 10.29. The text of P. Skehan is closer to this alternative: ‘and he who strays after them sins against his own life’. Skehan, P. & Di Lella, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 288–9.Google Scholar Further discussion of this text occurs below, n. 60.

¹⁴ Cf. Prov 2.16–19; 5.3–23; 6.23–35; 7.6–27; Sir 9.1–9; 23.16–27; 25.2; 26.22; 41.17–22; 47.19.

¹⁵ Paul prefers σμαῶ (91 times, out of 142 in NT) to ψυχή (only 13 times, out of 103 in NT), whereas the LXX prefers ψυχή (more than 900x) over σμαῶ (136x). Cf. Stacey, W. D., The Pauline View of Man (London: Macmillan, 1956) 181.Google Scholar

¹⁶ E.g., Miguens, M., ‘Christ's “Member1”’, 39.Google Scholar

¹⁷ So, tentatively, Gundry, R., Sōma, 73.Google Scholar Cf. Fee, G., First Corinthians, 261, n. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Neither do the different verbs in 18b and 18c (ὲστιν, άμαρτάνει) provide the key. The sense would not be substantially altered if 6.18b read ‘when a man sins, he sins outside the body’. Since 18b began with άμάρτημα, Paul simply avoids the cognate verb in the same clause; in 18c, since the sin is defined as πορνεύειν, he returns to a form of άμαρτάνει for the main verbal idea.

¹⁹ See above, n. 11, and Robertson, A. & Plummer, A., 1 Corinthians, 127–8.Google ScholarContra Orr, W. and Walther, J., 1 Corinthians (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 198, 200;Google ScholarGundry, R., Sōma, 73.Google Scholar

²⁰ This adverb occurs 8 times in the NT and 26 times in the LXX (although not all are textually certain). A survey of these occurrences shows that it may function as a preposition or as a substantive, and functions in several different ways:

(1) Exceptive = unless, except; not found in LXX; in NT, followed by a pleonastic εί μή: 1 Cor 14.5; 15.2; 1 Tim 5.19.

(2) Exclusive = not including, not counting, except, apart from, as well as, besides, over and above; Acts 26.22; 1 Cor 15.27; Judg 8.26 [ms B]; 20.15 [ms B; A has χωρίς]; 3 Kings 5.3; 10.13; 1 Chron 29.3; 2 Chron 9.12; 17.19; Bel 10 [Theod.; ms Ahas χωρίς;].

(3) Ablative = apart from, free from; 2 Macc 11.25.

(4) Locative = outside, located outside, subst.: the outside; Matt 23.26; 2 Cor 12.2; Exod 9.33; 2 Chron 23.14 (LXX); Sir prol. 5; Bel 14.

²¹ Theology, 1.194.

²² It occurs at 6.13c, d, 15,16,18a, b, 19, 20. This frequency is matched or surpassed in only two other NT passages, both in 1 Corinthians: 18 times in 12.12–27; 9 times in 15.35–44.

²³ Perhaps evidence that a Corinthian ‘slogan’ lies behind 13a, b. See J. Murphy-O'Connor, ‘Slogans’, and Fee, G., First Corinthians, 254ff.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Bultmann, R., Theology, 1.192–203.Google Scholar So also Robinson, J. A. T., The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: SCM, 1952) 28–9;Google ScholarBest, E., One Body in Christ (London: SPCK, 1955) 74ff;Google ScholarMoule, C. F. D., Idiom Book, 196–7;Google ScholarWibbing, S., ‘σῶμα’, in Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 1.234–5;Google Scholaret al. For a thorough critique, see Gundry, R., Sōma, esp. pp. 3–8, 51–80 and 184–97.Google Scholar Note also Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘Slogans’, 393;Google ScholarKäsemann, E., Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 129, 132;Google Scholar and Byrne, B., ‘Sinning’, 612.Google Scholar

²⁵ This focus persists even when, in some contexts, the physical body represents or implies the entire person, ft. Gundry, (Sōma, 79–80)Google Scholar helpfully concludes: ‘sōma refers to the physical body in its proper and intended union with the soul/spirit. The body and its counterpart are portrayed as united but distinct – and separable, though unnaturally and unwantedly separated. The sōma may represent the whole person simply because the sōma lives in union with the soul/spirit. But sōma does not mean ‘whole person’, because its use is designed to call attention to the physical object which is the body of the person rather than to the whole personality. Where used of whole people, sōma directs attention to their bodies, not to the wholeness of their being.’

²⁶ We might call this an instance of semantic neutralization wherein objective differences between the meanings of σῶμαand σάρξ are temporarily suspended, for the purposes of the argument. Cf. Silva, M., Biblical Words and Their Meanings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 165–6.Google Scholar

²⁷ Kempthorne's view (‘Incest’), that Paul intends a play on words in 6.18c, and means that the sin is against the man's body and also Christ's body, the church, musters virtually no contextual support, and depends upon an impossible reading of ἵδιος (his own). See below, n. 29, and Fee, G., First Corinthians, 256, n. 34 and 261, n. 56.Google Scholar

²⁸ E. Käsemann defined the body as that which enables communication, relationship and self-surrender. Cf. Essays, 133; Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 114.Google Scholar Although this view rightly stressed corporeality, it appears to transform key functions of the referent (viz., the physical body) to the level of semantic components of the word (viz.,σῶμα). Käsemann is followed by B. Byrne, ‘Sinning’; Batey, R., ‘The MIA ΕΑΡΞ Union of Christ and the Church’, NTS 13 (1966–1967) 278;Google ScholarSchrage, W., The Ethics of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 218Google Scholar and, apparently, T. Radcliffe, ‘Glorify God’. For valuable analysis, see Gundry, R., Sōma, 197–9.Google Scholar

²⁹ Contra R. Kempthorne (‘Incest’), who argues (a) that the sin in view in 6.12–20 is the same as 5.1, (b) that 18b is a Corinthian slogan, and (c) that Paul's response in 18c entails a double sense for σῶμα Church and body. Similarly, Mitchell, M. M., in Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (Louisville: Westminster, 1991) 120, n. 338,Google Scholar suggests that ἵδου αῶμα in v. 18c is a pun, referring to ‘both one's own body and the body which is the community’. See also 234. But the presence of ἵδος in a clause with a singular subject makes it difficult to sustain such a reading. Both Kempthorne (572, n. 3) and Mitchell (234, n. 271) draw support from 1 Clem. 46.7 in which τò σῶμα τò ἵδιος clearly refers to the church, τἀ μέλη τοῦχριστοῦ. The parallel is striking, however ἴδιον is governed by the plural verb σταιάζομεν hence ‘why…do we rebel against our own body?’ See further critique by Gundry, R., Sōma, 74–5.Google Scholar

³⁰ I.e., ‘his/his own [body]’ rather than ‘his personal/private [body]’. BAGD, 370, notes the difficulty of distinguishing between emphatic (l.b) and non-emphatic (2) uses.

³¹ Elsewhere in Paul, ἵδιος modifies σῶμα (4x), νοῦς (lx), καρδία (lx),χείρ (3x): Rom 14.5; 1 Cor 4.12; 6.18; 7.4a, b, 37; 15.38; 1 Thess 4.11. Cf. Eph 4.28.

³² Cf. v. 15 and see below on the rhetorical structure of the pericope.

³³ First Corinthians, 262–3. Fee argues from the flow of thought, looking back to 6.13 (‘the body is… for the Lord’) as well as vv. 15–17, and looking forward to 7.4 (‘the husband does not have authority over his own body…’). Similarly, Robertson, and Plummer, (1 Corinthians, 127)Google Scholar find the key in v. 13: τò σῶμα τῷ Κυρίῳ, καì ό κύριος τῷ σώματι.

³⁴ Paul does not say, for example, είς τò σῶμα ὡς τοῦ κυρίον(ο ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ) άμαρτάνει For approximate parallels to these alternative expressions, see 1 Cor 4.1,14; 2 Cor 2.17; 6.4; Rom 14.8.

³⁵ Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 112.Google Scholar

³⁶ The structure of this paragraph is a matter of some dispute. See, for example, Bailey, Kenneth (‘Paul's Theological Foundation for Human Sexuality: 1 Cor. 6.9–20 in the Light of Rhetorical Criticism’, Theological Review 3 [1, 1980] 27–41)Google Scholar, and Fee, Gordon (First Corinthians, 257).Google Scholar Bailey takes 6.12–20 to be an elaborate chiasm – focusing upon the citation of Gen 2.24 (v. 16b) – which pairs up v. 18 and v. 15b. Alternatively, Fee sees vv. 15–17 as a tight rhetorical unit to which w. 18–20 are attached as conclusion.

³⁷ Ten of Paul's twelve uses of ούκ οἵδατε are in 1 Cor (six in chap. 6): 3.16; 5.6; 6.2, 3, 9,15, 16, 19; 9.13, 24. Cf. Rom 6.16; 11.2; and Hurd, J. C., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (2nd ed.; Macon: Mercer University, 1983) 85–6.Google Scholar Other NT uses: Luke 2.49; John 19.10. A similar phrase, ού νοεîτε őτι occurs only 3x in the synoptics: Mark 7.18 (cf. Matt 15.17); Matt 16.11. For somewhat similar rhetorical uses of γινώσκω cf. John 3.10 and Jas 2.20.

³⁸ See examples in Stowers, S. K., The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981) 88–9, 92–3.Google Scholar See also Fee, G., First Corinthians, 232,Google Scholar n. 15; cf. 146; Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians, 5.Google Scholar Frequent strings of rhetorical questions and lively ‘dialogue’ are most common, among ancient sources, in Epictetus.

³⁹ J. C. Hurd describes Paul's tone as ‘jarring and aggressive’ (Origin, 87).Google Scholar Recall also the biting sarcasm of v. 15b.

⁴⁰ Our assessment, thus, differs dramatically from K. Bailey's contention that 6.13c–20 comprises a ‘precisely balanced piece of Pauline rhetoric’. ‘Paul's Theological Foundation’, 32.

⁴¹ In 1 Cor 6.2–3, the only other place in Paul where οὐκ οἵατε is repeated, the formula introduces parallel but clearly distinct arguments: first ‘the saints will judge the world’ and second, ‘we will judge angels’.

⁴² Absent from some important witnesses (ß⁴⁶ D K L ψ) and placed in square brackets in NA²⁷. But aside from strong external support (א A B C F G 33 et al.), the stylistic pattern observed here may favour its inclusion.

⁴³ Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch, s.v. ἤ, l.d.α (emphasis mine). Stowers, S. K. (The Diatribe, 94)Google Scholar notes parallel uses of ἤ in the diatribe to introduce indicting rhetorical questions.

⁴⁴ The inclusion of ἤ has only weak ms. support (D^# F G vg^mss sa^ms bo). It may have arisen precisely because a scribe felt it was natural to include it here in a series of rhetorical questions.

⁴⁵ Of these examples, all except 1 Cor 10.19 employ either ούκ οἵδατε őτιοἀγνοεîτε őτι. Other possible examples are Rom 3.29 (cf. 3.27); 7.1 (cf. 6.21). Departures from this pattern include 1 Cor 6.3; 10.22 (closest rhetorical question is 10.19); 2 Cor 11.7.

⁴⁶ Stowers, S. K., The Diatribe, 140–1,177;Google ScholarMalherbe, A. J., ‘ΜΗ ΓΕΝΟΙTΟ in the Diatribe and Paul’, HTR 73 (1980) 232, 236 and 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Rom 6.1–2, in following this pattern, has features parallel to 1 Cor 6.15–16: (1) rhetorical question: should we continue in sin?; (2) μἠ γένοιτο (3) rhetorical question both explaining why a Christian should not sin, and introducing the theme of Rom 6, death to sin; (4) ἢ γνοεîτεἀ őτι followed by another rhetorical question.

⁴⁷ See Malherbe, A. J., ‘ΜΗ ΓΕΝΟΙTΟ’, 232.Google Scholar Cf. also Fee, G., First Corinthians, 258, n. 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ NA²⁷ suggests a sub-paragraph break between w. 17 and 18. Cf. NIV. Among commentators, Fee, G. (First Corinthians, 251)Google Scholar and Barrett, C. K. (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [New York: Harper & Row, 1968] 144)Google Scholar follow suit. Conzelmann, H. (First Corinthians, 112, n. 31)Google Scholar considers v. 18 to be something of an intrusion, with few clear ties on either side. Héring, J. (The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians [London: Epworth, 1962] 45–6)Google Scholar takes 18a with 15–17 and 18b, c with 19–20. Many studies simply do not discuss paragraph substructure.

⁴⁹ Examples of a disconnected imperative beginning a new unit include: 1 Cor 3.18; 10.25; 11.13; 14.1; 16.13.

⁵⁰ See Donfried, K. P., ‘False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans’ in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Donfried, K. P.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991) 114;Google ScholarConzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians, 5;Google Scholar BDF §§463 and 494. Both 6.18a and 18b are asyndetic. Contrast this with the expanded version at 10.14: Διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί μου ϕεύγετε ἀπò τῆς είδωλολατρίας.

⁵¹ The LXX has φεύγω at Gen 39.12,15,18.

⁵² So Rosner, B., ‘A Possible Quotation of Test. Reuben 5.5 in 1 Cor 6.18a’, JTS 43 (1, 1992) 123–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarT Reub 5.5 has φεύγετε οὖ τἠυ πορυείαν. Eight verses earlier, at 4.8, the Joseph/ Potiphar episode is explicitly in view.

⁵³ Spicq, C., Théologie Morale du Nouveau Testament 2 (Paris: Lecoffre, 1970) 556.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ E.g., union with Christ (15) is incompatible with union with a prostitute (16, 18); belonging to Christ (13, 15) parallels possession by the Spirit (19, 20); self-violation (18) is violation of divine property (19).

⁵⁵ Contra Robertson, & Plummer, , 1 Corinthians, 127;Google ScholarBest, E., One Body in Christ, 75–6 et al.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Spicq, C., Théologie Morale, 556, n. 4:Google Scholar ‘les deux mondes sont radicalement opposés’. Also, Fee, G., First Corinthians, 257;Google Scholar E. Schweizer, s.v. σῶμα, κτλ TDNT 7.1070.

⁵⁷ It occurs 12 times in the NT, but only here and Rom 12.9 in Paul. According to the LXX concordance of E. Hatch and H. Redpath it occurs 37 times in the LXX. Only three of these refer to sexual union (cf. 1 Kings 11.2 and 1 Esdras 4.20).

⁵⁸ Contra Miller, J. I., ‘A Fresh Look at 1 Corinthians 6:16f.’, NTS 27 (1980) 125–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Miller contends that Paul's shift away from the compounded form is a shift away from direct sexual reference, to speak instead of adhesion and loyalty. But evidence to support Miller's strict distinction between the two forms is lacking. See further, Mitchell, M. M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ So Sampley, J. P., And the Two Shall Become One Flesh (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1971) 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ See above, I. B. P. Skehan's text critical work on Sirach 18.30–19.4 (The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 288–9) strengthens ties between these two texts. He places v. 4 immediately after v. 2 (v. 3 is missing from the Syriac version), and renders it: ‘He who lightly trusts in them [i.e., prostitutes] has no sense, and he who strays after them sins against his own life.’ The textual critical challenge of Sirach is notoriously complex, and certainly cannot be sorted out here. (See Skehan, 51–62.) On balance, however, it seems more natural to construe v. 4 with 18.30–19.3 (on sensual desires) than with 19.5–12 (on gossip).

⁶¹ 1 Esdras 4.20 may also have relevance for our study. In the course of Zerubbabel's discourse on the superior strength of women and of truth (4.13–41), he says ‘a man leaves his own father, who brought him up, and his own country’ (ἃνθρωπος τòν έαυτοῦ πατέρα ἐγκαταλείπει őς ἐξέθρεψευ αὐτòν καî τὴυ ίδίαυ χώραν,) ‘and unites to his own wife’ (καί πρò πὴν ίδίαν γυναîκα κολλᾶταί) This is clearly alluding to Gen 2.24 but differs in some important respects: whereas Gen 2.24 uses προσκολλάω 1 Esdras adopts the less common κολλάω and while Genesis uses αύτοῦ3 times, 1 Esdras prefers emphatic forms: έαυτοῦ once and τὴν ίδίαν twice. Since both innovations also occur in 1 Cor 6.16–18 (κολλάω 16,17; τò ἴδιον, 18), in a context where Gen 2.24 has been cited (16), we may well wonder if Paul's language owes something to 1 Esdras 4.

⁶² The γάρ introducing 16b is causal.

⁶³ With this most commentaries agree. The view of Thrall, M. E. is representative: ‘It is not merely a passing physical act…, it is something which has a lasting psychological and spiritual effect’, I & II Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965) 48.Google Scholar See also Hodge, C., First Epistle to the Corinthians (reprint: Eerdmans, 1980) 105;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., I & II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 64;Google ScholarPubMedBatey, R., ‘ΜΙΑ ΣΑΡΞ’, 279.Google Scholar Fot dissenting views, see Fee, G., First Corinthians, 259Google Scholar and especially Gundry, R., Sōma, 62–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Best, Ernest (One Body in Christ, 76),Google Scholar although operating with a more holistic view of αῶμα, reaches a similar conclusion: ‘If αῶμα is equivalent to “person”, then, when the fornicator becomes “one body” with the harlot, he surrenders his personality to her, his sin is a sin against “his body” because he is united to her in sin at the centre of his being.’

⁶⁵ Cf. the parallel subjects: τἀ αώματα ύμῶν and τò σῶμα ύμῶν.

⁶⁶ I presented a draft of this paper to the AAR/SBL Upper Midwest Regional Conference, April 16, 1993. Thanks to Richard B. Hays and Mark Reasoner for their valuable critique of that earlier piece.