^{page 261 note 1} A paper read at the ninth General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas at Marburg on to 09 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} Der erste Korintherbrief, p. 242.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} Lutgert, W., Gesetz wid Geist: eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes (Beitr. a. Forderung christl. Theol. xxii, 6, Gütersloh, 1919);Google ScholarRopes, J. H., The Singular Problem of the Epistl, to the Galatians (Harvard Theological Studies, xiv, 1929).Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 4} Creed, Cf. J. M. in J.T.S. XXXI (1930), pp. 421–4. It is at least more probable than the thesis that Paul was once a missionary of the Jewish dispersion.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 1} The double έτι also appears in Rom. v. 6, where some MSS. and versions omit the second; in Gal. v. ii the first έτι is omitted in D F G al.

^{page 262 note 2} Schlier, H. (Der Brief an die Galaler, 1949, p. 15) thinks the charge met in Gal. i. io is merely that of making concessions to Gentile Gesetzlosigkeit. It is much sharper if it is a general accusation of making concessions all round.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 3} Windisch, H. (Der zweite Korintherbrief, 1924, p. 176) reconstructs the charge to be that Paul could convince the gullible, but the intelligent could see through him and recognized how unprincipled he was.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 4} Unnik, W. C. van, ‘Reisepläne und Amen-Sagen: Zusammenhang und Gedankenfolge in II Korinther 5:15–24’, in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 215–34,Google Scholar has acutely shown that the key to the understanding of this obscure passage lies in the play upon the root ℸℑℵ. He thinks, however, that there is no allusion to the dominical saying of Matt. V. 17, on the ground that the situation is quite different, and it is difficult to see in what way the Lord's words could be relevant. In view of the remarks of Knox, W. L., St Paul and the Church of Jerusalem (1925), p. 338, n. 8, this does not seem entirely clear. James iv. 15 and v. 12 illustrate a type of ‘precisionist’ piety, which would take offence at Paul's failure to include ‘Deo volente’ in announcements of future plans and at such language as II Cor. i. 23; xi. 10; xii. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 1} The obvious example is the accusation, occasioned by Paul's frequent and passionate defences of his standing as an apostle on an equality with the ‘pillar’ apostles, that he was continually ‘commending himself’. Paul returns the compliment with interest in II Cor. iii. 1; iv. 2, 5; V. 12; VI. 4; vii. II; X. 12–18; xii. 11.

^{page 263 note 2} In this paper I leave on one side the conventional terms of reference for the discussion of I Cor. ix. 22, such as Paul's circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. I) and perhaps also Titus (Gal. ii. 3–5), not because these are irrelevant, but because they are well-worn themes.

^{page 263 note 3} Delling, G., Paulus' Steliwig zu Frau und Ehe (1931);Google ScholarPreisker, H., Christentum und Eke in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (1927), pp. 123 ff.Google Scholar Delling's book not only contains excellent background material, but also states admirably what Paul says. But he takes an essentially simple view of why Paul says it. His answer is in terms of Paul's personal psychology rather than of the external, pastoral situation at Corinth. For good emphasis on the latter Michel, cf. O., ‘Wie spricht Paulus über Frau und Ehe?’,’, in Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, CV (1933), pp. 215–25, especially at p. 219:Google Scholar ‘Das Ehekapitel I Kor. vii kann nur dann richtig verstanden werden, wenn es die seelsorgerliche Rückführung enthusiastischer Strömungen zu normalen Verhältnissen in sich trägt.’ Delling's view is apparently accepted with regret by John, Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul (1950), p. 105:Google Scholar ‘Paul shows…a rather abysmal and embarrassing ignorance of the total meaning of marriage.’ For a sympathetic review of Paul's marriage ethic see Enslin, M. S., The Ethics of Paul (1930), pp. 169ff.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 1} Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief, p. 169: ‘Während in vi. 12–20 starkgeistiger Libertinismus bekämpft wird, steht Paulus hier ciner hyperasketischen Stimmung gegenüber, die den geschlechtlichen Verkehr auch in der Ehe als eine Beeinträchtigung des gott- und christus-geweihten Lebens anzusehen geneigt ist.’ Robertson and Plummer (International Critical Commentary, I Cor., 1911), p. 532: ‘Having in the two previous chapters warned the Corinthians against the danger of Gentile licentiousness, he here makes a stand against a spirit of Gentile ascetwism.’Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 2} For the Corinthian liberals Dupont, cf. J., Gnosis: Ia connaissance religieuse dans les épitres de S. Paul (1949), pp. 265–377,Google Scholar and thereon the criticisms of Bultmann, R. in J.T.S. n.s. III (1952), pp. 19f.;Google ScholarGrant, R. M., ‘The Wisdom of the Corinthians’, in The Joy of Study:. Essays in honor of F. C. Grant, ed. Johnson, S. E. (1951), pp. 51–5.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 3} To avoid misunderstanding, it is worth remarking that the English word ‘opportunism’ does not necessarily imply a complete lack of scruple which has an eye only to the main chance. For the sense in which I am describing Paul as an opportunist perhaps the nearest German equivalent (as Mr H. P. Kingdon suggests to me) might be Anknüpfungspzmktler if such a word were possible.

^{page 265 note 1} The maximum of positive valuation is extracted from I Cor. vii by Menoud, P. H., ‘Manage et Célibat selon S. Paul’, in Revue de Théol. et de Philos. n.s. XXXIX (1951), pp. 21–34.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} Tatian not unfairly comments on this (ap. Clem, . Alex, . Strom. III. 81. 2): πάνυ υούν δυσωπητικως διά τής σνυχρήσέΕως ΕίρυΕι. It is almost as if marriage under the new covenant has the same status as divorce under the old (cf. Mark x. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} Wisd. of Sol. viii. 21: υνούς δέ ότι συι άλως έσομαι έυκρατης έάν μή ί θΕός δωω.

^{page 266 note 1} For the difficulties of a mixed marriage see the story told by Justin, , Apol. II. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 2} Jeremias, Cf. J., ‘Die missionarische Aufgabe in der Mischehe’, in Neutestamsntliche Studien für R. Bultmann (Beiheft z. Z.N.W., XXI, 1954), pp. 255–60.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 3} Weiss, J. in his commentary (p. 194),Google Scholar followed by Enslin (Ethics of Paul, pp. 176 f.),Google Scholar thinks the ‘virgins’ at Corinth were not merely women who did not happen to be married, but were both men and women dedicated to the celibate life (cf. Rev. xiv. 4). The Corinthian situation being what it was, the existence of such ascetics, both male and female, is certainly probable. Theodore of Mopsuestia comments (Migne, P.G. LxvI, 885): . It would enhance the case of the present paper if it were true that from vii. 25 onwards Paul is dealing with people unmarried on principle rather than by accident. But the objections urged by Jülicher, (‘Die J ungfrauen im ersten Korintherbrief’, Protestantische Monatshefte, XXII, 1918, at pp. 110ff.) are weighty. Jülicher thinks Weiss's exegesis conditioned by an unconscious desire to emphasize the prominence of virgines subintroductac in Corinthian church life.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 1} Theol. Literaturzeitwzg (ig), cols. 449f.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 2} Virgines subintroductae (Leipzig, 1902);Google Scholar he gives an English summary of his monograph in Hastings's Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, I (1908), s.v. ‘Agapetae’.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 3} Compare the dramatic scene in the Acta Thomac (12) where Jesus, Thomas's identical twin, persuades a bride and bridegroom on their wedding night to think better of their carnal intention of consummating their marriage. Also the story of Amoun in Socr. H.E. IV. 23. 3ff. Since this paper was written the view of vii. 367ndash;8 accepted above has been argued in detail and with full documentation by Kummel, W. G., ‘Verlobung und Heirat bei Paulus’, in N. T. Studien f. Bultmann, pp. 275–95.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 1} If the man followed Paul's stated ideal rather than his practical counsel, the ultimate result would have been a situation very like that of the virgines subintroductae. Was the effect of Paul's opportunism accidentally to create this practice?.

^{page 268 note 2} On this chapter cf. the remarks of Jeremias, J. in Studia Pautina in honorem J. de Zwaan, pp. 151–2.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 1} The Montanists did not expect the Paraclete to inspire other prophets beside Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla; all they asked of the church was that the inspired utterances of the prophetic trio should be ‘recognized’ as the true operation of the Holy Ghost. Cf. the anonymous writer in Eus. H.E. v. 16. 9 ad fin.; the agnitio spiritaliwn charismatum is often mentioned in Tertuffian; adv. Prax. i and 30; de Fuga II. 2; de Monog. I; de Anima 9.

^{page 269 note 2} Εί δέ τις άυ;νο;Εί. It is a sharp saying, and the variant reading άυ;νο;Είτω in B K L pesh al. suggests that its sharpness was too much for some second-century reviser. Those who dissent from the Apostle receive generous tolerance in Phil. iii. 15: και Εί τι έτέρως ϕρο;νΕίτΕ, και τοũτο б θΕός ύμίν άποκαλũψΕι. God will disclose all to them in time; meanwhile, let them carry on with such light as has been vouchsafed to them. The Philippian situation was less delicate. The term όρθοποδοũσιν in Gal. ii. i, interpreted by Kilpatrick, G. D. in N.T. Stud. f Bultsnann, pp. 269–74, suggests that Phil. iii. 15 represents Paul's more natural attitude. But cf. I Thess. iv. 8 (Luke x. 16?).Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 3} Cf. my introduction to the third book of the Stromakis in the volume Alexandrian Christianify (Library of Christian Classics, II, 1954).

^{page 270 note 1} Cf. W. Völker, Der wahre Gnostiker, nach Clemens Alexandrinus (Texte und Untersuchungen 57, 1952), especially pp. 199ff. For similar inconsistency in Tertullian, Lovejoy, cf. A. O., Essays in the History of Ideas (1948), pp. 331–5.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 1} For a thorough survey of the literature to 1945 see Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheseebrief (Lund, 1946),Google Scholar who thinks both Colossians and Ephesians authentic. The case for rejecting Colossians is perhaps strengthened by Käsemann, E., ‘Eine urchristlichc Taufliturgie’, in Festschrjft Rudolf Bultmann (1949) PP. 133–48:Google Scholar rejecting the view that in Col. i. 15–20 there are allusions to the Colossian heresy, he thinks this passage substantially a pre-Christian hymn in praise of the Gnostic redeemer. To his review, Gnomon, XXI (1949), pp. 342–7,Google Scholar Percy replies in Z.N.W. XLIII (1951), pp. 178–94.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 2} There are writers on Paul who appear to conclude from the fact that Paul was a Jew of the degenerate hellenistic age who had the misfortune to become a Christian, that they can safely assume him to have been a little stupid. It is perhaps easy to be misled by a naive reading of I Cor. i. 18ff., especially if little account is taken of I Cor. ii. 5ff. Taken together, the two passages suggest that here also Paul is giving with one hand what he takes away with the other. That the Corinthians thought Paul a highly ingenious, if unscrupulous, man and thought I Cor. a subtle piece of work in which the Apostle's words could not be taken at their face value, is implied by Paul's rebuttal in II Cor. i. 13: . The charge that he concealed his true thought also appears in the Corinthian complaint that his beliefs were ‘veiled’ and lacked frank expression, to which he replies in II Cor. iii. 12ff. (thereon Fridrichsen, cf. A., The Apostle and his Message, Uppsala, 1947, p. 23, n. 27).Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 3} On the Colossian heresy, see Knox, W. L., St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (1939), pp. 146–78;Google Scholar Dibelius' commentary (3rd edition by Greeven, H., 1953) On Col. ii. 23;Google ScholarBieder, W., Dee koloss. Irrlehre und die Kirche von heute (1952);Google ScholarBornkamm, G., ‘Die Haeresie des Kolosserbriefes’, in Theol. Lit.-Zeit. (1948), cols. 11–20, reprinted in his Des Ende des Gesetes (Beitr. z. evang. Theol. 16, Munich, 1952), pp. 139–56,Google Scholar where he declares that since writing his paper he has lost confidence in the Pauline authorship of the Epistle; also Percy, , op. cit. pp. 137–78.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 4} Nock, A. D. in Gnomon, XII (1936), pp. 605 ff.;Google ScholarQuispel, G. in Evangelische Theologie, 10. 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 1} St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, p. 149, n. 5. The comment in Dibelius-Greeven (on Col.i. 10) is fair: ‘nicht mehr als Vermutung.’Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 1} Origen, Cf., contra Celswn VI, 31 (and notes thereon in my translation, pp. 346, n. 3, 348, n. 3);Google ScholarSchlier, H., Chthtus und die Kirche im Epheserbrisf (1930), pp. 18–26.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 2} Jaeger, Cf. W., Xemesios v. Emesa (1914), pp. 96ff.;Google ScholarKarl, Reinhardt, Kosmos und Syinpathie (1926).Google Scholar For the idea in Dio Chrysostom, Fridrichsen, cf. A. in Serta Rudbergiana (=Symb. Osi. Suppl). 4, (1931), p. 26,Google Scholar and for a parallel in Plutarch, Mor. 957^A, his note on Col. iii. 14 in Symb. Osl. XIX (1939) pp. 41−5. Rudberg, C. in Coniectanea Neotestamentica, III (1938), pp. 19–21, compares Plato, Rep. 616b (of the Milky Way).Google Scholar

Theodore of Mopsuestia (on Rom. viii. 19 in Staab, , Pauluskonunentare aus d. griech. Kirche) (1933), p. 137Google Scholar speaks of man as the lynchpin of the great Chain of Being, being the σύνδΕσμος between the spiritual and material world. For Philo cf. de Plant. 9; (Q.R.D.H. 188; de Migr. Abr).Google Scholar 180−1; de Conf. Ling. 136, 166.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 3} Knox's acceptance of the substantial historicity of Acts xvii has been much criticized. For the evaluation of his thesis as a whole the point is marginal, and in any event irrelevant here.

^{page 274 note 1} Cf. especially Lowe, J., ‘An examination of attempts to detect developments in St Paul's theology’, in J.T.S. XLII (1941), pp. 129–42;Google ScholarBenoit, P. in Vivreet Penser, I (1941), pp. 140–7;Google ScholarDodd, C. H. in Cambridge Review, LXII (1940–1941), pp. 323–4.Google ScholarBultmann, R., in Theol. Lit.-Zeit. (1947), cols. 77–80,Google Scholar criticizes Knox for making too rigid a contrast between eschatoiogy and cosmology, and thinks that Paul's ' Grundkonzeption' in which eschatology and cosmology are a unity was firmly established long before Paul preached at Athens, indeed in some sense before his conversion. For important criticisms of Knox's detail Nock, cf. A. D. in J.T.S. XXI (1940), pp. 292–4,Google Scholar in Amer. Journ. Philol. LXIII (1942), pp. 476–80,Google Scholar and in Gnomon, XXI (1949), p. 227, n. 1.Google Scholar

For a careful statement of the view that Paul's theology did not develop at all see Allo, E. B., ‘L’évolution de l'évangile de Paul’, in Vivre et Penser, I (1941), pp. 48–77, 165–93.Google Scholar A view of Pauline development very different from that advanced by Knox is stated by Dodd, C. H., ‘The Mind of Paul’, in New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1953), pp. 108ff. I do not wish the above remarks to be understood as a bald acceptance of everything in Knox's book, but rather as an attempt to meet a criticism of his view of Paul to which my own is equally open, and to aflirm a belief that in interpreting Paul in this way Knox saw a vital clue to the apostle's mind which cannot be ignored.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 2} Benoit, Cf. P., loc. cit. pp. 146–7: ‘Il est bien vrai que Paul se fait tous à tous et qu'il s'adapte aux préoccupations de ses auditeurs ou de sea adversaires. On peut mhme croire qu'il admet, sans vouloir les discuter, les élucubrations cosmologiques qu'il rencontre a Colosses. Mais précisément Ia façon dont il en pane, pour les remettre à leur place de “philosophic” et de “vaine tromperie scion la tradition des hommes” en dit long sur la valeur qu'il leur accorde. Dire qu'il leur doit, fût-ce par réaction, sa conception de Ia primauté du Christ, c'est méconnaître entièrement le sérieux de sa pensée et de sa foi…En somme un seul point, mais essentiel, nous sépare de Knox: notre foi à l' Inspiration. Cette inspiration bien comprise ne nous empêche nullement de reconnaître la part très considérable des maténiaux que l' Apôtre a empruntés à son temps; mais noire foi a l'assistance divine qui l'a guidé dans le choix de ses matCniaux et dans sa construction nous interdit de ne voir dans le résultat qu'un système parmi beaucoup d'autres. Nous croyons que Dieu s'est servi de Paul pour nous enseigner…’Google Scholar