20. See Gal. 6:11.
The form Πρίσκα (P46 
B P 0121a 0243 33 1175* 1739 1881* pc r sa bo) is almost certainly original. This is the form used by Paul (Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19); Luke prefers the diminutive “Priscilla,” by which she is better known. A similar textual variation occurs in Rom. 16:3, but in fewer MSS. Cf. the discussion in Metzger, 570. It should perhaps also be noted that in Paul’s next mention of them (Rom. 16:3), they are in reverse order (Priscilla and Aquila), which in itself should probably tone down some attempts to suggest that there was an “antiwoman” tendency among some later scribes (e.g., D. A. Kurek-Chomycz, “Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila,” JBL 125 [2006], 107–28). For a considerable discussion of this couple and their relationship with Paul as “co-workers” (Rom. 16:3–5), see C. G. Müller, “Priska und Aquila. Der Weg eines Ehepaares und die paulinische Mission,” MTZ 54 (2003), 195–210.
The Western witnesses (D* F G it) add the spurious note, “with whom I am lodging.”
Most of the witnesses add Χριστοῦ (except * B Ψ 33 pc sa). On this addition see also on 5:4–5. See the discussion in Metzger, 570.
The vast majority of MSS reflect the use of this letter in the church by adding the liturgical ἀμήν (absent from B F 0121a 0243 33 81 630 1881 pc sa Ambst). Cf. Metzger, 571.
The later MajT also adds a spurious—and obviously incorrect—subscription: “The first letter to the Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Timothy.”
Found in every letter except Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy, each for reasons peculiar to the individual letters, although this is the first of the extant letters in which greetings from those with Paul are sent to the recipient(s) of the letter. For the full discussion of this feature both in the Hellenistic letters and Paul, see Gamble, Textual History, 59–60 and 73–75.
Apparently this was first suggested by R. Seeburg, Aus Religion und Geschichte (Leipzig, 1906), 118–20; it was adopted by Lietzmann, Mass, 186, and by many scholars thereafter, e.g., K.-M. Hofmann, Philēma Hagion (Gütersloh, 1938), 23–26; G. Bornkamm, “The Anathema in the Early Christian Lord’s Supper Tradition,” in Early Christian Experience (1950; ET, New York, 1966), 169–79; O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship (1950; ET, SBT 10; London, 1953), 13–14; J. A. T. Robinson, “Traces of a Liturgical Sequence in 1 Cor. 16.20–24,” JTS 4 (1953), 38–41; Wiles, Intercessory, 42, 70, 150–55.
This view has been rejected by Gamble, Textual History, 143–44, who rightly notes: “A liturgical form may indeed be derivative, but in the letters may perform a strictly epistolary function. . . . To the extent that such formulae can be seen to serve purely epistolary needs and/or to possess contextual relationships, and thus to be integral to the letters as letters, there is no reason to seek out a nonepistolary rationale for their use.” This is surely the crucial point. One may as well argue that the creedal formula of 15:3–5 at that point served liturgically in the assembly as the place in worship for the citing of the creed. And to go beyond that and argue, as Robinson does, that we have here the very sequence—indeed, the earliest evidence for such—of the liturgy is to outstrip the evidence altogether. Cf. also W. C. van Unnik, “Dominus Vobiscum: The Background of a Liturgical Formula,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester, 1959), 272, who correctly warns against such “pan-liturgism,” which finds evidence of later liturgies behind every conceivable passage in Paul’s letters.
Thus in yet another, albeit subtle, way Paul tries to lift their vision to recognize that they belong to a much larger “family” of believers. See on 1:2; 4:17; 11:16; 14:33, 36; 16:1.
Gk. πολλά (= “very much”), an unusual intensification that indicates a strong desire to be remembered by their friends in Corinth.
Gk. τῇ κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ; this is the first appearance of this expression in Paul’s writings. Cf. Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15; Phlm. 2. This is probably also the meaning of Acts 8:3. On this phenomenon see F. V. Filson, “The Significance of the Early House Churches,” JBL 56 (1939), 105–12; Malherbe, “House Churches and Their Problems,” in Social Aspects, 60–91; Banks, Idea, 33–42; M. B. Button and F. J. van Rensburg, “The ‘House Churches’ in Corinth,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003), 1–28.
Ordinarily the names appear in reverse order (cf. Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19; Acts 18:18, 26), indicating the considerable prominence of Priscilla. Only here and in Acts 18:2, where they are first introduced, do they appear in this order; cf. .
For a cogent argument that Rom. 16 belongs to that Epistle, see Gamble, Textual History.
This “movement” of these two people has led in part to the doubts as to whether Rom. 16 belongs to that letter and to whether 2 Timothy is authentic. But there is no good reason to doubt the possibility of such mobility.
So also Ellis, 14. It is the single borderline case in this letter as to whether Paul has included only his known male companions or some “sisters” as well. In any case, Paul’s own argument for the right to have female companions accompany him (9:5) would seem to favor the latter.
See 1 Thess. 5:26; 2 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 16:16; and 1 Pet. 5:14, where it is called “the kiss of love.” On this matter see, inter alios, Hofmann, Philēma Hagion; G. Stählin, TDNT 9:138–41; G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London, 1945), 105–7; N. J. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane (Berkeley, 1969), 12–18; Gamble, Textual History, 75–76.
This is evidenced by the fact that it occurs not only in the letters to Pauline churches (Thessalonica and Corinth), but also in Romans and in 1 Peter.
Apol. 65: “On finishing the prayers we greet each other with a kiss.” This is followed by the Eucharist itself.
See the studies by Hofmann, Bornkamm, Robinson, and Wiles in .
Cf. Gamble, Textual History, 76: “We should think only of an act of mutual greeting, a visible sign and seal of fellowship within the congregation on any occasion.”
On this phenomenon see esp. G. J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 87 (1968), 27–41 (who, however, is probably more ambitious than the evidence warrants as to how much makes up this signature, taking it in this case back to v. 15); and Gamble, Textual History, 76–80.
See Gal. 6:11.
The very fact of this change of hands, as well as the content of this greeting, indicates that this is primarily an epistolary, not a liturgical, phenomenon. See . Robinson, “Traces,” 39, suggests that this is Paul’s way of “being present” at the table. But that stretches epistolary forms beyond recognition.
See the evidence in Bahr, “Subscriptions.”
See Gal. 6:11 and Col. 4:18; cf. Rom. 16:22. See also 1 Pet. 5:12.
Gk. φιλεῖ; this verb is found only here and in Tit. 3:15 in the entire Pauline corpus. Paul elsewhere uses the word ἀγαπάω for love.
For this word see on 12:3, esp. .
In the similar formula in Gal. 1:8, he has ἀνάθεμα ἔστω rather than the ἤτω ἀνάθεμα that appears here (in fact this is the only occurrence of ἤτω in his letters); Maranatha is a NT hapax legomenon.
See , esp. the argument in Robinson.
Cf. 3:17; 5:4–5; 6:9–10; 11:29; 14:38.
Cf. C. Spicq, “Comment comprendre φιλεῖν dans I Cor. xvi,22?” NovT 1 (1956), 200–204, who sees the sentence not as a liturgical formula, but as describing the state of a person who has rejected Christ and is thereby excluded from the church and finally the heavenly kingdom. He is followed by W. Dunphy, “Maranatha: Development in Early Christology,” ITQ 37 (1970), 294–308, esp. 302.
The bibliography is considerable. Among the more significant items, see K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 4:466–72; C. F. D. Moule, “A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha,” NTS 6 (1959/60), 307–10; S. Schulz, “Maranatha and Kyrios Jesus,” ZNW 53 (1962), 125–44; P.-É. Langevin, Jésus Seigneur et l’eschatologie (Bruges/Paris, 1967), 168–208; Albright and Mann, “Two Texts”; Dunphy, “Maranatha”; M. Black, “The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (I Enoch 1:9),” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge, 1973), 189–96.
Gk. ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ, which would be nearly the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic Marana tha.
This stands in direct opposition to those, such as Robinson, “Traces,” who think it functions as a prayer of invitation for the Lord’s presence at the beginning of the Eucharist proper. That is to force the sure evidence of the Didache and the Revelation to conform to a dubious historical reconstruction, namely the “sequence” of the conclusion of this letter.
See, e.g., Moule, “Reconsideration”; Bornkamm, “Anathema,” 170–71; Wiles, Intercessory, 152.
Pace W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (ET, Nashville, 1970), 129, who argued that the title first arose in the Greek-speaking church, and for whose theory this prayer is a “rock” that he rather lightly steps around instead of taking seriously; cf. Bultmann, Theology, 1:52.
See the discussion in Gamble, Textual History, 65–67.
See the scores of examples in Exler, Form, 69–77 and 111–13.
Cf. also the letters of Ignatius of Antioch; 2 Macc. 11:21, 23; Josephus, Life 227, 365.
Since no verb is expressed, it could be either an indicative (= “grace is yours”) or an optative (“grace be yours”). Both van Unnik, “Dominus Vobiscum,” 291, and G. Delling, Worship in the New Testament (ET, Philadelphia, 1962), 75, argue for the indicative. However, since it takes the place of the standard ἔρρωσο, most likely the optative is intended. As Gamble, Textual History, 66–67, points out, it functions as a benediction or blessing.
This phenomenon tends to make the question of its prior origin in the liturgy of the church esp. tenuous, all the more so, since all the other evidence is later than Paul.