III. Some Critical Questions
In general 1 Corinthians is remarkably free of the kinds of questions that fit under this rubric. Discussions may be found in the standard introductions. The letter may be safely dated in the Spring (see on 16:8), ca. A.D. 53–55, depending on the time of Paul’s departure from Corinth (Acts 18:18) and the length of his stay in Ephesus. The single issue of significance is whether or not the letter is a unity. For various reasons several scholars have divided it (along with 2 Corinthians) into various letters sent to Corinth by Paul. The starting point is Paul’s mention of the previous letter in 5:9, which is assumed to be visible in some sections of 2 Corinthians. Then, on the basis of alleged contradictions between some sections of our 1 Corinthians, the letter has been broken up into three letters.
But these theories run aground at four points: (1) The very fact that there is so little agreement in the theories suggests that the various reconstructions are not as viable as their proponents would lead one to believe. (2) The alleged contradictions are invariably resolvable exegetically. For example, as argued in the present commentary, the tensions that some find between the beginning and the conclusion of the passage dealing with “idol food” (8:1–13 and 10:23–33) are the result of Paul’s speaking to two quite different, though related, issues. (3) Related to this, these theories miss a basic form of argumentation in this letter, the “A-B-A” pattern. In each case the first “A” section puts the matter into a larger, more general theological perspective; the “B” section is an explanatory digression of some kind, yet crucial to the argument as a whole; and the second “A” section is the very specific response to the matter at hand. (4) When one can make perfectly good sense of the document as it comes to us, such theories are as unnecessary as they are unprovable. The evidence does not seem “strong enough to support the burden of proof which this kind of theory must always bear.”