The Integrity of 1 Corinthians
The Integrity of 1 Corinthians
Relatively few voices question the Pauline origins of 1 Corinthians. Some have argued that 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 is a non-Pauline interpolation (see 9. 1 and 2 Corinthians, TEXT below). Others have suggested the same for 1:2b, on the grounds that, since the letter was specifically written for the Corinthians, the words "together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ— their Lord and ours,” are utterly out of place. 44 This misreads Paul rather badly, on two grounds.
First, the Corinthian church was constantly tempted to think itself a cut above other churches, quite free to act without consideration of what other churches thought. Correspondingly, Paul repeatedly stresses that what he is teaching them "agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17); this "is the rule I lay down in all
the churches” (7:17)—so much so that if anyone "wants to be contentious” about what Paul is saying, he or she must face the brute fact that "we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God” (11:16; see also 14:33b). In this framework, Paul’s firm linking in 1:2 of the Corinthian church to all believers everywhere has a great significance.
Second, there is evidence that Paul self-consciously writes with authority that transcends that of a pastor for a church he has planted, that at least on some occasions the content of his writing is nothing less than "the Lord’s command” (1 Cor. 14:37). 45There lies at least the potential for an authoritative reach that extends beyond the local congregation.
But some scholars who do not doubt the authenticity of the entire epistle nevertheless suggest that it is a pastiche of Pauline fragments. The impetus for this analysis largely derives from three bits of evidence: the reference to a previous letter in 1 Cor. 5:9, the influence of various partition theories in 2 Corinthians, and the topical, not to say fragmented, nature of 1 Corinthians. Numerous competing theories have been advanced. 46
Without detailing them at length, the following factors tell heavily against such theories.
1. The fragmented nature of 1 Corinthians is, as we have seen, best accounted for by the fact that Paul is responding to reports brought by those from Chloe’s house, by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and also to a letter sent from the Corinthian church that raised a number of questions. Paul’s agenda was already set for him.
2. The partition theories on 1 Corinthians agree on so few points, and gain so few adherents, that it seems best to conclude that none of them has the cogency their individual proponents see in them.
3. The alleged contradictions between parts of 1 Corinthians, contradictions that give warrant to the partition theories, are in every case patient of convincing exegetical resolutions. This is true, for instance, of the relation between 1 Cor. 8:1-13 and 10:23
33, and between 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36.
4. Collins 47and Fee 48have shown that some of the unease about the smoothness of the flow of argumentation in this letter stems from the failure to recognize the frequency with which Paul makes use of an A-B-A pattern. That is, in the first A section Paul deals with the topic at hand within a broad theological framework; in the B section he partially digresses into some crucial explanation of an integral component of his argument; and in the second A section he returns to the topic but addresses it very specifically. 49