Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The interpretation of 1 Cor 12.31–13.13 is thwarted by three problems. The most important obstacle is the obscurity of the genre to which this passage belongs, added to which are two minor riddles. The question of the function and meaning of the exhortation: ‘Zealously strive for the greatest gifts’ (12.31) as well as of the clause: ‘that I might boast’ (13.3) has not, as yet, been answered convincingly.
1 Smit, J., ‘The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in the Light of Classical Rhetoric’, NovT 33 (1991) 193–216.Google Scholar
2 Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910, repr. 1970) 309Google Scholar; Spicq, C., Agape dans le Nouveau Testament. Analyse des textes 2 (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1959) 63 n. 4Google Scholar; Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 623.Google Scholar In addition to 1 Cor 14.1, 39 reference is often made to the imperative ζητεῖτε in 1 Cor 14.12 to confirm that ζηλοτε in 1 Cor 12.31 should be taken as an imperative.
3 See Bauer, W., Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur (6th ed.; ed. K., and Aland, B.; Berlin/New York, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar s.v. μέγας; Zerwick, M., Graecitas Biblica (4th ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1960) §§ 147–8Google Scholar; Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek 3: Syntax (by Turner, N.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1963) 29–30.Google Scholar
4 The expression καθ' ὑπερβολήν occurs in Rom 7.13; 1 Cor 12.31; 2 Cor 1.8; 4.17; Gal 1.13. In 2 Cor 1.8 and Gal 1.13 it has the function of an adverb. In Rom 7.13 it enhances an adjective. In 2 Cor 4.17 it probably serves as a kind of adjective with the substantive βάρος. That the expression should be taken here in 1 Cor 12.31 as a kind of adjective to δός is held among others by Bauer, Wörterbuch, s.v. ὑπερβολή and Zerwick, M., Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1960) 382.Google Scholar
5 Fee, Corinthians, 616, translates ἔτι as ‘now’. Weiss, Korintherbrief, 309, gives ‘über-dies, ferner’. Kieffer, R., Le primat de l'amour (Lectio Divina 85; Paris: Cerf, 1975) 40Google Scholar has ‘de plus’. Bauer, Wörterbuch s.v. 2.b notes that ἔτι may enhance a comparative and accordingly translates s.v. ὑπερβολή 1 Cor 12.31 as: ‘ich will einen noch ausgezeichneteren Weg zeigen’. Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 296–7Google Scholar and Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 254Google Scholar give a similar translation.
6 In 2 Cor 1.10 Paul also enhances ἔτι through a preceding καί. Moreover Bauer, Wörterbuch notes under καί II.2: ‘In Verbindung mit Komparat. sogar noch’ and refers to Matt 11.9; John 14.12 as examples. To my knowledge only Wolff, C., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THNT 7.2; Berlin: Evangelische, 1982) 116Google Scholar and Strobel, A., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (ZBK 6.1; Zürich: Theologischer, 1989) 198Google Scholar prefer this alternative.
7 Fee, Corinthians, 623, qualifies this imperative as ‘a puzzle’.
8 So Weiss, Korintherbrief, 309.
9 Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A. (ed.), The Greek New Testament (3rd ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975)Google Scholar; Nestle-Aland, , Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979).Google Scholar
10 The hypothesis of an insertion meets the approval of among others Weiss, Korinther-brief, 310–11; Barrett, First Corinthians, 297. I have argued against this hypothesis in my article ‘The Genre of 1 Cor. 13’. Fee, Corinthians, 626–7 also rejects this hypothesis but less categorically than I do.
11 Iber, G., ‘Zum Verständnis von 1 Cor. 12.31’, ZNW 54 (1963) 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This proposal is adopted by Kieffer, Primat, 42; Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975) 430 n. 37Google Scholar; C. Wolff, Korintherbrief, 116.
12 Fee, Corinthians, 624, thinks Iber's proposal attractive, but nevertheless joins most scholars in rejecting it on account of the imperatives in 14.1, 39.
13 The two positive and the connected four negative activities, which Paul in 13.4–5 enumerates with regard to love, are parts of the virtue of temperance (temperantia) as I pointed out in ‘The Genre of 1 Cor. 13’.
14 Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 35.1440b–1441b.
15 Rhet. ad Alex. 21.1434a; Quintilianus Institutio oratorio 8.6.54–8; 9.2.44–53; Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.24.46; Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarische Rhetorik (München: Hueber, 1960) §§582–5Google Scholar; 902–4; Plett, H., Einführung in die rhetorische Textanalyse (4th ed.; Hamburg: Buske, 1979) 93–9Google Scholar; Perelman, C. et Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., Traité de l'argumenxtation (5th ed.; Bruxelles: Éditions de l'Université 1988) 279–80.Google Scholar
16 Quint. 8.6.54: ‘On the other hand, that class of allegory in which the meaning is contrary to that suggested by the words, involve an element of irony, or, as our rhetoricians call it, illusio. This is made evident to the understanding either by the delivery, the character of the speaker or the nature of the subject. For if one of these three is out of keeping with the words, it at once becomes clear that the intention of the speaker is other than what he actually says.’ Lausberg, Handbuch, §582: ‘Die Ironie ist der Ausdruck einer Sache durch ein deren Gegenteil bezeichnendes Wort. Sie ist eine Waffe der Parteilichkeit. Der Redner ist sich der Überzeugungskraft seiner eigenen Partei sowie der Sympathie des Publikums so sicher, daß er … die lexikalische Wertskala des Gegners verwendet und deren Unwahrheit durch den (sprachlichen odeT situationsmäßigen) Kontext evident werden läßt.’
17 Quint. 9.2.25 describes the judicial form of permissio as follows: ‘The figure known as concession springs from practically the same source as communication; it occurs when we leave some things to the judgment of the jury, or even in some cases of our opponents, as when Calvus says to Vatinius, “Summon all your assurance and assert that you have a better claim than Cato to be elected praetor.”’ Cf. Rhet. ad Her. 4.29.39. Quint. 9.2.48–9 mentions the ironic permissio: ‘It is also irony when we assume the tone of command or concession, as in Virgil's: “Go! Follow the winds to Italy.”’ Lausberg, Handbuch, §857 gives more ample documentation.
18 Plett, Einführung, 65: ‘Permissio (epitrope): Ironie des falschen Rates: scheinbare Aufforderung zu alien möglichen (auch für den Angeredeten schädlichen) Handlungen, obgleich diese dem Willen des Sprechers entschieden widersprechen. Die permissio steht folglich oft als Ausdruck von Ärger und Unwillen. “Tu, was du willst! Renn nur in dein Verderben”; “Take your pleasure for a time and do what you like, a time will come, when account shall be made.”’
19 Quint. 8.6.73–4 notices: ‘But even here a certain proportion must be observed. For although every hyperbole involves the incredible, it must not go too far in this direction, which provides the easiest road to extravagant affectation … We must therefore be all the more careful to consider how far we may go in exaggerating facts which our audience may refuse to believe. Again, hyperbole will often cause a laugh. If that was what the orator desired, we may give him credit for wit; otherwise we can only call him a fool.’
20 In addition to the fourfold ‘all’, the following elements contribute to the exaggerated presentation of the charismata. In v. la the emphatic addition: ‘Yes, even in those of the angels’, cf. 1 Cor 4.9; Gal 1.8; 4.14 for the hyperbolic function ‘angels’ more often fulfil in Paul. In v. 2a the enumeration: prophecy, mysteries, knowledge, faith; further the grotesque metaphor: ‘to move mountains’. In v. 3a the giving up of the body, a metonymy for life itself, enhances the giving away of the possessions that precedes it. Petzer, J. H., ‘Contextual Evidence in Favour of ΚΑΥΧΗΣΩΜΑΙ in 1 Corinthians 13.3’, NTS 35 (1989) 234–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar gives a thorough analysis of these verses.
21 Weiss, Korintherbrief, 311 cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘Der köstlichere Weg. 1 Kor. 13’, Studien zum Neuen Testament (München: Kaiser, 1985, orig. 1937) 223.Google Scholar
22 Irony is a complex phenomenon, hard to detect and describe. Cf. Perelman, Traité, 280: ‘L'ironie est d'autant plus efficace qu'elle s'adresse à un groupe bien délimité. C'est la conception que l'on se fait des convictions de certains milieux qui seule peut nous faire deviner si tels textes sont ou non ironiques.’ Abrams, M. H., A Glossary of Literary Terms (5th ed.; New York, etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1988) 91–2Google Scholar: ‘Sometimes the use of irony by Pope and other masters is very complex; the meanings and evaluations may be subtly qualified rather than simply reversed, and the clues of the ironic counter-meaning under the surface statement may be indirect and obtrusive.’
23 Most manuscripts read καυθήσωμαι. Experts agree that the future subjunctive is unknown in the koine of Paul's time and occasionally appears only in Byzantine times. ἽΙνα with future indicative however occurs several times in the New Testament, Paul included: Luke 14.10; 20.10; John 7.3; 1 Cor 9.18; Gal 2.4; 1 Pet 3.1; Rev 22.14. See Debrunner–R., F. Blass–A.Funk, W., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago/London: University of Chicago, 1961) §§28, 369(2)Google Scholar. I think that an original καυχήσωμαι, as it was no longer understood, was changed into the comprehensible καυθήσωμαι, which for grammatical reasons was subsequently corrected into καυθήσομαι. In the context of this article it makes no difference whether καυθήσομαι or καυθήσωμαι is read. For the state of the question see Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 563–4Google Scholar; Fee, Corinthians, 629, 633–5; Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 229–33.
24 K., and Aland, B., Der Text des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell-schaft, 1982) 282–3Google Scholar draw up a list of twelve basic rules for text-critical work. In particular rule 3, 4 and 10 are relevant here.
25 Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 229–30, gives a long list of six text-editions and fifteen commentaries in favour of: ‘that I might be burnt’. To these should be added Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles (London: Oxford University, 1953) 36Google Scholar; Spicq, Agape, 2.57; Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 263–4; Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 201; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 426 n. 265, who summarizes common opinion as follows: ‘We should probably read καυθήσομαι rather than καυχήσωμαι despite the latter's superior attestation.’
26 Having argued that the external evidence favours καυχήσωμαι Fee, Corinthians, 629, writes: ‘But these matters are finally indecisive in themselves; the question must finally be determined on the basis of intrinsic probability.’ Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 232, remarks: ‘More particularly it seems that the fitness of the readings to stand in the context is the main cause of the problem.’
27 See Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 36.
28 Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 36; Spicq, Agape 2.57–8; Elliott, J. K., ‘In Favour of καυθήσομαι at 1 Corinthians 13.3’, ZNW 62 (1971) 297–8Google Scholar; Kieffer, R., ‘“Afin que je sois brûlé” ou bien “Afin que j'en tire orgueil” (1 Cor. XIII.3)’, NTS 22 (1976) 95–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kieffer, Primat, 19, attaches much weight to the improvement of style: ‘Pourquoi n'a-t-on pas hésité à changer un text relativement clair (“si je livre mon corps afin que je sois brûlé”) en un text relativement obscur (“si je livre mon corps pour en tirer orgueil”)? Oui, parce qu'on aimait un style plus correct.’ To me this sounds improbable.
29 Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 230–1, mentions Nestle-Aland, , Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed., 1979)Google Scholar, the text-editions of the United Bible Societies and Westcott-Hort, and Héring, J., The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) 135, 137–8Google Scholar. To these should be added Clark, K. W., ‘Textual Criticism and Dogma’, Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii (ed. Sevenster, J. N. et van Unnik, W. C.; Haarlem: Bohn, 1953) 62Google Scholar; Walther, W. Orr-J., I Corinthians (AB 32; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 291Google Scholar; Wischmeyer, O., Der höchste Weg: das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (SNT 13; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981) 81–8Google Scholar; K., and Aland, B., Der Text, 290–1; Fee, Corinthians, 633–5; Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 229–53.Google Scholar
30 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 564.
31 Wischmeyer, Der höchste Weg, 88; Fee, Corinthians, 634–5.
32 Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 242–3.
33 Petzer, ‘Contextual Evidence’, 246, frankly admits the hypothetical character of his proposal: ‘I believe that the explanation given in the discussion above, i.e. that it is an allusion to the offering of the body of Jesus during the institution of the Lord's Supper, though I admit that it is pure hypothesis, answers more questions than it creates problems.’ Conzel-mann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 261, notes: ‘Wie stark für das Kapitel die Tradition bestimmend ist, zeigt ein negativer Befund: die Christologie fehlt vollständig.’
34 Blass–Debrunner–Funk, Grammar, §387; Bauer, Wörterbuch, s.v. ϊνα III.2; Zerwick, Graecitas, §415; Moule, C., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953) 144–5Google Scholar; J. Moulton, Grammar 3 (N. Turner), 94–5.
35 With regard to 1 Cor 5.2 see the discussion in Weiss, Korintherbrief, 126; Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 122; Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 114 n. 6; Fee, Corinthians, 202 n. 29. As to 2 Cor 10.9 see Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Black, 1973) 258–9Google Scholar; Furnish, V., II Corinthians (AB 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984) 467Google Scholar; Martin, R. P., 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word, 1986) 310–11.Google Scholar
36 A survey of this genre may be found in Rhet. ad Alex. 3; 35; Cicero De partitione oratoria 21–3; Rhet. ad Her. 3.6–8; Quint. 3.7. See also my ‘The Genre of 1 Cor. 13’.
37 Cf. Zmijewski, J., Der Stil der paulinischen ‘Narrenrede’ (BBB 52; Köln/Bonn: Han-stein, 1978) 276–7.Google Scholar
38 See Quint. 11.1.15–26: ‘In the first place, then, all kinds of boasting (u.r. self-glorification – JS) are a mistake; above all, it is an error for an orator to praise his own eloquence, and, further, not merely wearies, but in the majority of cases disgusts the audience … Let us therefore leave it to others to praise us. For it beseems us, as Demosthenes says, to blush even when we are praised by others. I do not mean to deny that there are occasions when an orator may speak of his own achievements, as Demosthenes himself does in his defence of Ctesiphon. But on that occasion he qualified his statements in such a way as to show that he was compelled by necessity to do so, and to throw the odium attaching to such a proceeding on the man who had forced him to it. Again, Cicero often speaks of his suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy, but either attributes his success to the courage shown by the senate or to the providence of the immortal gods.’ Cf. Betz, H. D., Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT 45; Tübingen: Mohr, 1972) 75–8Google Scholar. Plutarch De Laude Ipsius (Moralia 539A–547F) issues the same warnings and advises the same antidotes. Cf. also Betz, H. D., Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 367–93Google Scholar, esp. 368–71.
39 Plett, Einführung, 54, defines the function of a parenthesis as follows: ‘Die Parenthese erzeugt einen Stau im Gedankenfluß, der erst am Ende des unterbrochenen Satzes gelöst wird. Sie dient nicht nur der Expansion des Textes, sondern gerade auch der Selbst-vorstellung des Sprechers, der beweisend, widerlegend, erläuternd in die Darstellung eingreift.’
40 Furnish, II Corinthians, 532, 533, gives the following comment on the parentheses in 11.21, 23: ‘After a lengthy prologue (11:1–21a), Paul launches at last into the “foolish” boasting with which he has been so reluctant to become involved. Even as he begins, however, his self-consciousness about it is apparent: I am speaking foolishly (v. 21b), I am out of my mind to speak this way (v. 23a)’; ‘The parenthetical remark that he is speaking foolishly by attempting this … shows that he would rather not be doing it, and is at the same time an implicit request that the readers excuse him for it.’
41 Prümm, K., Diakonia Pneumatos (2 vols.; Rom/Freiburg/Wien: Herder, 1960–1967) Teil 2, Band 2, 343Google Scholar: ‘Nicht vorbeizugehen ist an der kurz vorher in 11,17 von Paulus eingeflochtenen Bezeichnung dieses Stoffes als Thema “Gerühme”. Keinen einzigen Begriff des ganzen Briefes findet man derartig hervorgehoben durch eine … fast modern klingende reflexe Kennzeichnung wie den Begriff καύχημα hier an dieser Stelle. Paulus gibt aber diese Auszeichnung dem Gegenstand nicht aus Gewohnheit und noch weniger aus Sympathie. Der Gesamt-Ausdruck verrät gerade einen inneren Abstand von diesem “Thema”. Er muß sich aus äußeren Zwang wider Willen damit abgeben.’
42 Weiss, J., ‘Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetorik’, Theologische Studien, Bernhard Weiss zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht (ed. Gregory, C. R., Harnack, Ad. u.a.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897) 165–6Google Scholar already points to this: ‘Daß Paulus in seinen Briefen, welche anerkanntermassen dictiert und zur öffentlichen Vorlesung be-stimmt sind, hervorragende rednerische Eigenschaften an den Tag legt, ist nichts Neues. Die Frage ist nur, wie dies rhetorische Element erklärt und gewertet werden soll … Vor allem kommt es darauf an, in jedem Augenblick den zu erklärenden Text als einen gesprochenen und für das Ohr bestimmten anzusehen, also mit dem Ohr zu lesen. Hat die Exegese hier bisher genug gethan?’
