In a couple of days I’ll be heading to Australia for two weeks with my family. Among other things, I’ll be presenting a little paper at Trinity Theological College in Western Australia, on the topic, ‘Redaction Criticism and Historical Plausibility, in Relation to 1 Corinthians’: Over the last century, particularly since the commentary by Johannes Weiss, there have been numerous redaction theories concerning 1 Corinthians – that is, the idea that, because 1 Corinthians is riddled with abrupt changes and apparent incongruities, it can be understood as in fact a collection of Pauline letters that have been edited together.
These are largely literary arguments, which require largely literary evaluation. The most significant recent attempts to argue for the literary unity of 1 Corinthians have made use of rhetorical criticism, arguing that the background of Greco-Roman rhetoric enables us to discern a united, well-ordered argument in 1 Corinthians. The most obvious proponent of this view is Margaret Mitchell, who has been very influential. Rhetorical Criticism in its application to Pauline letters has come under some fire though, and I think its value has been overplayed.
But apart from literary arguments for the coherence of 1 Corinthians, I think there is also room to evaluate theories of redaction from the perspective of textual evidence and historical plausibility – and this is what my paper in Australia will be about: I argue that any redaction theory ought to involve a plausible reconstruction of the document’s creation, given the evidence that we possess.
I find that by and large, redaction theories about 1 Corinthians are quite weak here, jumping too quickly from apparent literary incongruities to speculative theories about editorial compilation, and failing to give adequate thought to how this might have actually happened. At the end of my paper, I suggest some elements that I think would be part of a plausible reconstruction of the early history of the letter – elements which would seem to support the original unity of the letter more than the idea of a later redaction:
A plausible historical reconstruction would seem to involve at least the following four elements:
- Some sort of Pauline letter collection available in Rome by the mid-90s, including a canonically-recognisable 1 Corinthians
- The possibility of other collections or editions of the individual letters (i.e. there was not one aggressively exclusive textual archetype)
- A degree of consistency between Clement’s adoption of the rhetorical force of what “the blessed Paul the Apostle… first” wrote, and its original reception by the Corinthian church (i.e. Clement’s citation was not transparently hollow)
- The development of Pauline letter collections by the second and third centuries that evidence a high level of commonality in terms of text and letter order, yet with the persistence of major variation in the ending of Romans
RSS - Posts
Matthew, I glad you’ve pointed out the weaknesses of the redaction critics. I’m always amazed at these theories.
What are we to do with the formula Περὶ δὲ in this whole unity discussion? Is it of any signifance?
Hi TC… You may be aware that J.C. Hurd argued that the sections introduced by ‘peri de’ involve issues that the Corinthians had raised via letter, to which Paul wanted to respond. These issues are addressed in chs.7-15, with one exception occurring in chs.1-6. The other issues in the letter, Hurd argued, were raised by Paul himself, in response to oral reports. These are addressed in chs.1-6, again with one exception occurring in chs.7-15.
Against this, Margaret Mitchell wrote a 1989 article arguing that the phrase ‘peri de’ could not be relied upon as an indication of one particular set of issues originating from one particular source. Hurd felt that he was somewhat misrepresented in this article by Mitchell, but I find her largely persuasive here: I see ‘peri de’ simply as a transition to a new topic, which may have had an origin in a letter from Corinth or in oral reports or in Paul’s own creativity as a letter-writer.
One of the great peculiarities of the ordering of 1 Corinthians is that it doesn’t appear to be ordered using a straightforward principle such as ‘oral reports first, responses to letter second’ – despite some commentators making this assertion: A close inspection of each topic reveals that he seems to move between issues raised by letter/oral report/personal creativity – suggesting that there is, perhaps, some OTHER organisational principle going on.
Well, I do see some sort of organizational principle. But Paul’s arguments in Chapter 15 must be by design?
Well I think it’s no accident that the letter begins with an in-depth theological discussion of the significance of the cross, using prophetic/apocalyptic language & categories… and the letter ends with an in-depth theological discussion of the significance of the resurrection, again using prophetic/apocalyptic language & categories (such as reference to the doom of earthly powers)…
So I do think the letter is carfully crafted, with very intentional ordering
Matthew, Is there any significance of beginning with the cross and ending with the resurrection? The very possibility is itself intriguing to me.
I think there is. David Ackerman has a 2006 book, called – I think – “Lo, I Tell You a Mystery: Cross, Resurrection, and Paranaesis in 1 Corinthians”. He rightly argues that there is an intentional flow from Cross to Resurrection in the letter, with extended ethical application in between. I think there are parts of his book that are less convincing, but this overall picture is a good one. It’s a great little book to read.
Thanks, Matthew. Yes, I see that too.