I’ve been seriously interested in the scholarly study of 1 Corinthians for a few years now, and engaged in full time research in this area for the past year; so I’ve decided it’s time to share a few ideas on resources. I’m not going to try to be exhaustive – I’ll just outline a few books of interest if you’re trying to come to grips with the message of this piece of Christian Scripture.
Textual issues:
New Testament Greek Manuscripts, by Swanson: This book gives all textual variants, arranged in relation to the text of 1 Corinthians from Codex Vaticanus. Our NA27 Greek New Testaments actually don’t give us a lot of textual information, so this sorta thing can be quite handy – it’s easy to follow and allows you to quickly scan all variants of any passage. It’s boring though – I wouldn’t take it to bed to read.
The Situation in Corinth:
Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, edited by Adams & Horrell: This is a collection of important influential essays on the situation in Corinth, by various authors throughout the twentieth century, including selections by Baur, Munck, Schmithals, Barrett, Dahl, Theissen, Thiselton, etc etc etc… This is an excellent resource if you want an introduction to the search for the Corinthian church.
After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, by Bruce Winter: Here’s an interesting question: How did the Corinthian church develop beliefs and practices that were so fundamentally repugnant to Paul, given that Paul had actually spent significant time with them? This is a great book, indicating the social factors that may have played a part in the Corinthian church becoming so wacko just a relatively short while after Paul had personally spent 18 months with them.
Patristic Reading of 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian & Medieval Commentators, by Judith Kovacs. This is a great commentary, giving sizable chunks of reflection on 1 Corinthians by a range of early writers. It’s a good starting point for finding material of interest, which you can then delve deeper into by consulting the early authors themselves…. well – via their books, not via a medium… come ON!
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: 1-2 Corinthians, edited by Gerald Bray: This is similar to the above volume, but with smaller and different chunks. Also worthwhile.
Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, by John Chrysostom (in Schaff, NPNF): Chrysostom is probably the best early ‘commentator’ on 1 Corinthians. His style is pastoral and engaging, and he suggests a number of exegetical directions which are still being recognised as insightful ways forward in relation to difficult interpretive questions.
Argumentation/Rhetoric:
Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, by Margaret Mitchell: This has been very influential, and you need to engage with it if you want to understand where present 1 Corinthians scholarship is at – it is an application of rhetorical criticism to 1 Corinthians. Mitchell argues that Paul has blended epistolary and rhetorical genres to create a literary product that evidences “deliberative” rhetoric. She argues that the main problem in Corinth is disunity, and Paul’s letter is designed to urge the Corinthians to pursue unity as something which is to their advantage. Personally, I think rhetorical criticism is currently being pushed beyond its usefulness – and Mitchell’s project has been criticised by Stanley Porter, R. Dean Anderson (MacGyver???), and Philip Kern, amongst others.
The Resurrection of the Dead, by Karl Barth: A little book which should not be ignored in considering the rhetoric/argumentation of 1 Corinthians: Barth essentially argues that the book illustrates theological rhetoric, pitting human self-sufficiency against dependence on God. He sees chapter 15 as the climax and key to the whole letter. Good stuff – but simplistic and one-sided at times.
Commentaries:
The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC) by Thiselton: Well you could see this one coming: I think this is the best way in to current scholarship on 1 Corinthians – he is a fine exegete, but also incredibly well-read, so this commentary on the Greek text will point you to plenty of other relevant work on 1 Corinthians. It is thorough, so not for the faint-of-heart. There are other good recent commentaries on 1 Corinthians in English by Fee and Garland. Forthcoming commentaries of interest are by Bruce Winter, and Ciampa and Rosner.
Der Erste Brief an die Korinther, by Helmut Merklein (3 Volumes): I like Merklein, and this is a good German commentary to interact with on 1 Corinthians. Merklein has also done some great stuff on the unity of this letter. Other good recent German commentaries are by Schrage, Wolff, and Schnabel.
The Most Important Resource on 1 Corinthians:
Check back here in approximately 3 years’ time 
Okay – that will do at the moment. It’s just a very very brief overview of a few resources. I’m heading off to Wales for a week from this weekend, and then I’m off to London for two weeks. I’ll try to get online, but it will be less frequent. When I get back, I’ll do some more detailed/specific posts on 1 Corinthians – specifically, what I think it’s all about… if anyone has particular questions/comments/areas of interest in relation to 1 Corinthians, do mention them, and I’d be happy to engage with them. Also, feel free to add any other resources you’ve found helpful.
RSS - Posts
Those are some impressive titles. You should consider Gordon Fee’s 1 Corinthians in the NICNT.
Speaking of temptation, I’m tempted to pick up 1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian & Medieval Commentators as well as the Ancient Christian Commentary volume (I really want the whole set!) — Looks like something right up my alley.
I wish they’d translate those German commentaries into English.
How often do you find yourself disagreeing with Thiselton’s interpretation of debated passages? I found myself disagreeing with him on a few so I was wondering what those who are more specialist thought. I do love it’s comprehensiveness.
BTW do you think 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation (I think I got the verses right)? One of the things I was disappointed with about Thiselton’s discussion on that was that he didn’t deal with Fee’s section on that in “God’s Empowering Presence” and seemed to rely more on what others said (maybe because he’s not a textual critic).
Anyway, great list.
Have you looked at Horsley’s commentary? I haven’t but, having read a lot of his other material, I’d be curious to hear how his commentary on 1 Cor compares with others. Also, I’m probably going to be looking at Yung Suk Kim’s Christ’s Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor when it comes out (July 1st).
Kim’s book is a part of the “Paul in Critical Contexts” series, which has me very excited (I’m almost done Neil Elliott’s The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire and it is an exceptional book; then, I’ll be moving on to Davina C. Lopez’s Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission, which also looks good).
TC: Yep, Fee is good – less thorough than Thiselton, but a great exegete, and particularly sensitive to the main issues at stake in 1 Corinthians.
Nick: Yeah, you’d probably enjoy them, particularly with your recent resource that enables you to comprehensively follow up other works by/about the early fathers. Kovacs is possibly my preference, because she gives bigger sections rather than tantalisingly brief quotes.
Bryan: I do disagree with Thiselton’s conclusions sometimes – eg. in chapter 11 where it appears that Paul is ‘pleased’ that there are divisions in the church, I lean towards a different understanding than Thiselton. Also, I think I have some new ideas on certain difficulties like baptism on behalf of the dead (15:29) – but what I especially value in Thiselton’s commentary is that he at least indicates the various exegetical options that different people hold, before revealing his own conclusion. In terms of 14:34-35, I’m aware of some of the arguments in relation to this, but I wouldn’t say I’m totally up with all of the issues. I am cautious about theories of interpolation in 1 Corinthians though – and that particular section has a lot of terminology that perfectly matches the context (I think Garland is one who notes this). The call for some in the church to restrain themselves for the sake of the community is a constant theme in chs 8-14, and within ch14, the call for some to be silent has already occurred twice – so I wouldn’t be as quick as some to say that it is obviously contextually ill-fitting. But beyond that, I don’t really have firm views on it.
Dan: I have a vague recollection of making some use of Horsley’s commentary, but I haven’t read it through or used it extensively – perhaps I should have another look. I’ve pre-ordered Yung Suk Kim’s book (although I thought it wasn’t out until September), and I’m looking forward to it. I’m curious about the Lopez book that you’ve mentioned – the title alone makes me very interested… I’ll have to keep an eye out for it.
Matthew, Isn’t it instructive that major translations do not even acknowledge Fee’s contention of 1 Cor 14:34-35? I tend to agree that the injunction here fits the larger context of church order.
Matthew,
This is how the book jacket describes Lopez’s book:
What did Paul mean by identifying himself as “apostle to the nations”? Davina C. Lopez finds the surprising answer in the way the Roman Empire depicted the relationship between conquering and conquered peoples in myths, inscriptions, and especially in the visual repertoire of statues and reliefs found in every Roman city… Tracing themes of conquest and domination through sources contemporary with Paul, Lopez shows that Paul’s language of “the nations” would have been heard by his contemporarires as confronting the Roman ideology of power and expressing solidarity with defeated peoples.
Word!
TC:
You should read his treatment on it in God’s Empowering Presence as well as Eldon Jay Epp’s in his book on Junia. Those two guys are great textual critics which is ultimately what the contention over that verse is about. The other issues like context play a part in that discussion but as Fee has said it was when he started doing the textual criticism on that passage for his 1 Corinthians commentary that he changed his view on it and saw it as an interpolation. I love how he points out that everyone who argues that it’s not ends up saying that it can’t mean what it says anyway and must mean something else.
Matthew:
I read in a review of Garland that he was too cautious and unwilling to go far enough. What do you think about his commentary? I hear Hays’ commentary is also really good.
Bryan
Dan: This book does look interesting. Certainly I think the call to living “death” is incredibly important to 1 Corinthians – even chapter 15, the ‘resurrection chapter’ is fundamentally opposing the Corinthians’ proud disdain for cruciformity, before looking ahead to the hope of resurrection…
TC & Bryan: I haven’t looked extensively into the textual issues in relation to the section in ch.14 – I’ll be curious to look further into it. As I recall, Hays also goes for interpolation. I read his commentary a few years ago, and I enjoyed and recommended it at the time, although it’s been a while since I’ve referred to it. Hays, as I recall, emphasises problems in terms of that section fitting the context. Garland, on the other hand, goes against interpolation because he says the section fits the context well – I don’t remember either of them going significantly into textual issues. Garland is conservative, but I wouldn’t have called him too over-cautious. I emailed him a couple of years ago about chapter 15, and he mentioned that, in preparing his section on this chapter, he wrestled with it until he ended up concluding that most commentators were mistaken in their take on this chapter, and he went his own way…
Incidentally, a couple of ways into Thiselton’s thought about 1 Corinthians: One is to read the introduction to his commentary (kinda obvious I suppose); the other is to read his essay called (I think) ‘Luther and Barth on 1 Corinthians 15′… Thiselton hints that 1 Corinthians was something like an earlier (and more specifically applied) draft of the sort of issues approached in his later letter to the Romans. I think there’s something to this – a comparison of Paul’s ‘boasting’ terminology in the two letters (indeed, across all Paul’s letters) is interesting.
tag
ooh tagged… okay, I’ll get onto it from London, hopefully!
David Hall’s “The Unity of the Corinthain Correpondence” (JSNT Sup 251) is an intriguing but little known book. While we may not agree with all his reconstruction of events, he makes a strong case that 1 Corithians and 2 Corinthians are very closely tied together. 1 Cor is often explored in isolation from 2 Cor and I wonder if this is a mistake. I recommend this work by Hall.
Great addition: Hall’s book is certainly worth engaging with – particularly in relation to the unity & links between canonical 1 & 2 Corinthians.
He has interesting interpretation of 4:6 (metaschematizo): He follows Chrysostom in reading this as Paul revealing that he has “disguised” his prior argument as though it were about Paul & Apollos, whereas in fact it was really about leaders within the Corinthian church. Ultimately I don’t find this convincing, but at least it forces us to reckon with the usage of the verb metaschematizo elsewhere in ancient literature.
I agree Richard: I wish this book had had a wider impact. It’s still relatively newish though, so I suppose we’ll see.