[1] Along the lines suggested by Cullmann, O., ‘The Tradition’, The Early Church (London, 1956) 55–99Google Scholar; Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala, 1961) 288–323.Google Scholar For the role of the Pauline circle and a suggested analogy between traditions in the Gospels and those in the epistles cf. Ellis, E. E., ‘Gospels Criticism’, Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, ed. Stuhlmacher, P. (Tübingen, 1983) 45–54.Google Scholar

[2] E.g. Trummer, P., Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe (Frankfurt, 1978).Google Scholar On the Baurian background cf. Ellis, E.E., ‘Dating the New Testament’, NTS 26 (1980) 494–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= FT: Communio 7, 1982, 81–7; revised GT: TZ 43(1987), forthcoming.

[3] Cf. Hofius, O., Der Christushymnus Philipper 2, 6–11 (Tübingen, 1976)Google Scholar and the literature cited.

[4] E.g. Rom 3. 24 ff.; cf. Meyer, B. F., ‘The pre-Pauline Formula in Rom 3:25–26a’, NTS 29 (1983) 198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the literature cited.

[5] E.g. Aboth 1. 1–3; cf. (Strack, H. L. and) Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols. (München, 1922–8)III, 444Google Scholar; Mk 7. 4, 13; Acts 6. 14.

[6] Gal 1. 9; Phil 4. 9; 1 Thess 2. 13; 4. 1; 2 Thess 3. 6 (‘receive’). Acts 16. 4; Rom 6. 17; 2 Pet 2. 21; Jude 3 (‘deliver’). Rom 6. 17; 16. 17 (‘deliver’, ‘learn’) probably have the same significance (pace Cranfield, C. E. B., Romans, 2 vols., Edinburgh 1979, loc. cit.).Google Scholar

[7] Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952) 41 ff.Google Scholar Both verses are in the context of larger expository (midrashic) patterns, Rom 9. 30–10. 21 and 1 Pet 2. 4–10. Cf. Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic (Tübingen and Grand Rapids, 1978) 218 f.Google Scholar

[8] Mk 14. 58; 15. 29 f. par; Jn 2. 19ff.; Acts 7.48; 15. 16ff.; 1 Cor 3. 16; 6. 19; Eph 2. 19–22; Rev 3. 12; 21. 22.

[9] Doeve, J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen, 1954) 116Google Scholar; cf. Ellis (note 7) 161 f.; ibid., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, ² 1981) 98–107.Google Scholar

[10] Ellis (note 7) 182–7; ibid. (note 9) 107–12. They occur in Acts 7. 49; Rom 12. 19; 14. 11; 1 Cor 14. 21; 2 Cor 6. 16 ff.; Heb 10. 30A (cf. Acts 2. 17) with the phrase λέγεı ĸὺρως added; in Acts 15. 16 ff.; Heb 8. 8 ff.; 10. 16 f. with the phrase or its equivalent in the Old Testament text.

[11] Virtues: Phil 4. 8; 2 Pet 1. 5–7. Vices: Rom 13. 12ff.; 1 Cor 6.9 f., cf. 5.10 f.; Eph 5.3ff.; Mk 7. 21 f.; Mt 15. 19; cf. Acts 15. 29.

[12] 1 Cor 5. 6 ff.; Gal 5. 19–23; Col 3. 5–15; Jas 3. 14–18; 1 Pet 2. 1 f.; 1 Cor 10. 1–13, 1 Tim 1. 9 f. and Jude represent the kind of Old Testament exposition on which the vice lists appear in part to be based.

[13] Cf. Rom 1. 29 ff.; 2 Cor 6. 4–10; 12. 20 f.; Eph 4. 17–32; 6. 11–20; 1 Thess 5. 6ff.; 1 Tim 1.9f.; 6. 11; 2 Tim 2. 22–25; 3. 1–5; Jas 4.1ff.; 1 Pet 1. 8; 4. 3–9, 15; Rev 9. 20 f.; 21. 8; 22.15.

[14] Cf. Rom 13. 12ff.; Eph 6. 11–20; Col 3. 8–12.

[15] πορνεία, άσέλγεıα (ϕόνος Gal 5. 21 ACD lat), μοıχεία, κλοπή (κλέπτης), ψευδομαρτυρία (ψεὺδεσθαı), βλασϕημία πλεονεξία (πλεονέκτης). Cf. Mt 15. 19 = Mk 7. 21 f.

[16] ζ⋯λος, έρıθεία, άκαταστασία (δıχοστασία), ψεὺδεσθαı.

[17] άσέλyεια, έρıθνμία, κωµος, είδωλολατρία (φονεὺς), κλέπτης.

[18] πόρνος (πορεία), ϕάρμακος (ϕαρμακεία), ϕονεὺς (φ⋯υος), είδωλολάτρης.

[19] άγάπη, πίσττıς, έγκράτεıα.

[20] άγνός, άγαθ⋯ς (άγαθωσὺυη), δıκαωσὺυη (δίκαως), είρήνη.

[21] άγαπαυ (άγάπη), πıστεὺε⋯ (πίστıς), χαρά.

[22] E.g. Philo, (de sacrif. Abel. 22Google Scholar, 27) and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Test. Assher 2.5); 1 QS 10. 21–23). In the Old Testament cf. Exod 20. 13–17; Pv 6. 16–19; Hos 4. 1 f.; Jer 7. 9. On the general background, with particular attention to the Qumran texts, cf. Wibbing, S., Die Tügend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1959)Google Scholar; further, Kamlah, E., Die Form der katalogischen Paränese (Tübingen, 1964).Google Scholar

[23] E.g. Epictetus, Diss. frag. 14. Wibbing (note 22) finds fewer correspondences with pagan texts (23n., 98 f.) than with Jewish, which have a common background with the New Testament in the Septuagint (91–4).

[24] E.g. 1 Tim 1. 9 f., which is a contemporization, i.e. an implicit midrash on Decalogue sins. On the sociotheological context of the traditioning process in early Christianity cf. Ellis (note 1) 43–54; my ‘Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles’, W. H. Brownlee memorial vol., forthcoming.

[25] 1 Cor 5. 6; 6. 9; Eph 5. 5; 1 Tim 1. 9; 2 Tim 3. 1. See below.

[26] Eph 5. 22–6. 9 and Col 3. 18–4. 1; 1 Pet 2. 13–3. 7; 5. 5; cf. 1 Tim 2. 9–3. la; 5. 4, 14; 6. 1 f.; Tit 2. 2–10; 3. 1. Among the apostolic fathers cf. 1 Clem 1. 3; 21.6 ff.; Did 4.9 ff.; Polycarp, , ad Phil 4Google Scholar. 2; Ignatius, , ad Poly. 4. 3Google Scholar; 5. 1.

[27] Cf. Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Christliche Verantwortung bei Paulus und semen Schülern’, EvT 28 (1968) 177–84.Google Scholar

[28] Both have the same pairs, sequence and reciprocity of obligation.

[29] Cf. Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St. Peter (London, 1946) 421–39Google Scholar and the tables given. If the household rules in the Pastorals were in part traditions that Paul acquired in Rome, as I think likely, they witness to a wider use of the motif in early Christianity.

[30] E.g. Josephus, , c. Apion. II, 201Google Scholar; ps-Phocylides, , Maxims 179–227Google Scholar; Philo, , Hypothetica 7. 3, 14Google Scholar: [According to Moses' law] ‘wives are to be subjected (δσυλεύεω) to husbands …; parents are to rule children…’ ‘The husband … transmit ‘s] a knowledge of the law to wives, the father to children, the master to slaves.’ Cf. Crouch, J. E, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafeln (Göttingen, 1972) 74–101.Google Scholar

[31] E.g. Seneca, , de benef. 2Google Scholar, 18, 1; epis. 94, 1–3. Cf. Crouch (note 30) 37–73, 148; Balch, D. L., Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter (Chico CA, 1981) 23–52, 56–80Google Scholar, who may, however, overestimate the influence of Greek philosophical writings for the background of the New Testament regulations.

[32] E.g. Josephus, , c. Apion. 2, 195–202.Google Scholar

[33] Phio, , de decal. 165 f.Google Scholar

[34] Phio, , de confus. ling. 117 f.Google Scholar Cf. Wibbing (note 22) 28.

[35] The same is true of the vice-list at 1 Tim 1. 9 f., a cited tradition that is an implicit midrash on the second table of the Decalogue.

[36] Eph 5. 31 f. (Gen 2. 23 f.); 1 Pet 3.5 f. (Gen 18. 6ff., 12); 1 Tim 2. 11–3. 1a.

[37] Eph 6. 1 f. (Exod 20. 12; Deut 5. 16).

[38] 1 Pet 5. 5 (Pv 3. 34).

[39] 1 Pet 2.13 f., 17 (Pv 24. 21).

[40] E.g. for 1 Peter cf. 1 Pet 1. 10 f.; 2. 7, 12; 4. 13 f.; 5. 1f.; Selwyn (note 29) 23 f. For James cf. Jas 1. 5, 6, 22 f.; 2. 5, 13; 4. 10; 5. 12; Mussner, F., Der Jakobusbrief (Freiburg, 1975) 47–52. 1–3Google Scholar John have frequent allusions to Jesus' teachings in the Fourth Gospel.

[41] Cf. the discussion of B. Gerhardsson, others and myself in P. Stuhlmacher (note 1).

[42] Resch, A., Der Paulinisimus und die Logia Jesu (Leipzig, 1904)Google Scholar mentions all conceivable (including some quite improbable) instances. For a more measured estimate, with attention to the significance of allusions, cf. Müller, P. G., Das Traditionsprozess im Neuen Testament (Freiburg, 1982) 204–41Google Scholar; Dungan, D. L., The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar; Wenham, D. in Gospel Perspectives V, ed. Wenham, D. (Sheffield, 1985), 7–39Google Scholar (on Rom 12. 14–20; 13. 9 f.; 1 Cor 7. 10 f.; Gal 2. 7 ff.; cf. 1. 16–19). Cf. further Dodd, C. H., ‘Matthew and Paul’, New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1953) 53–66Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964) 357–62Google Scholar; Allison, D. C., ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels…’, NTS 28 (1982) 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar (especially on Rom 12–14; 1 Corinthians; Col 3–4; 1 Thess 4–5). Supporting a minimal knowledge of Jesus' teachings by Paul are Furnish, V. P., Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville, 1968) 53 ff.Google Scholar (about a dozen allusions to Jesus' teachings in Paul); Goulder, M. D., The Evangelists' Calendar (London, 1978) 227–40 (Matthew used Paul)Google Scholar; Richardson, P. and Gooch, P., ‘Logia of Jesus in 1 Corinthians’, Gospel Perspectives 5 (note 42), 39–62.Google Scholar

[43] 1 Cor 7. 10. Catchpole, D. R., ‘The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem’, BJRL 57 (1974–5) 102–10Google Scholar, argues that Paul knew the tradition behind Mk 10. 2–12 but not that behind Mt 19. 3–9.

[44] 1 Cor 9. 14. Cf. 1 Tim 5. 18b.

[45] Gal 2. 7; cf. 1. 16–19.

[46] Rom 13. 8 ff.

[47] 1 Thess 4. 13–5. 6. While the ‘word of the Lord’ (4. 15) seems to refer to a revelation (perhaps including a vision) from the exalted Jesus, the passage also includes fairly clear allusions to sayings in the Synoptic apocalypse (Mt 24. 1–36 parr).

[48] Gerhardsson (note 1) 290 f., 300.

[49] 1 Cor 2. 16. On Paul as a Barrett, C. K., ‘Shaliah and Apostle’, Donum Gentilicium, ed. Bammel, E. (Oxford, 1978) 88–102Google Scholar; on his self-estimate as such cf. Gerhardsson (note 1) 292; Agnew, F. H., ‘The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept’, JBL 105 (1986) 93 f.Google Scholar

[50] It is, one may add, an imposition of modern thought-patterns on Paul to suppose that in 1 Cor 7–9 he is diminishing or setting aside Jesus' authority when he qualifies the original dominical teaching on divorce (7. 10–16) or on taking payment for ministry (9. 14) or when he sets Jesus' command alongside appeals to other authority (9. 8 ff., 13 f.). Paul's apostolic ‘I say’ (7. 12) is nothing less than or essentially different from a command of Jesus (14. 37; cf. Gerhardsson, note 1, 313 f.), and his appeal to multiple authorities, like his appeal to different texts of scripture on a given point, is not a qualification of the full ‘Word of God’ character of one text or of one domini cal saying but rather an awareness of the hermeneutical problem of discerning and appropriating a given ‘word of God’ to a particular situation and the response of a good rabbinical interpreter to the problem.

[51] Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (London, ² 1934), [¹1919] 242.Google Scholar I see no reason, however, to limit the collections to ‘sayings’ in the sense that it was understood in the classical form criticism. Cf. Ellis (note 1) 46. Whether the traditions in 1 Corinthians can be traced to a particular Synoptic source is also doubtful; cf. Tuckett, C. M., ‘1 Corinthians and Q’, JBL 102 (1983) 607–19Google Scholar; Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘What Paul Knew of Jesus’, Scripture Bulletin 12, 2 (1981) 39 f.Google Scholar

[52] For other indications that 1 Cor 10. 16 was itself previously transmitted tradition cf. Wolff, C., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther: Zweiter Teil (Berlin, 1982) 50 ff.Google Scholar

[53] The concept is, of course, a part of a larger Pauline theological complex and has other elements in its background that must also be taken into consideration. Cf. for example, Kim, S., The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Tübingen, 1981) 162–93, 252–6Google Scholar and the literature cited.

[54] Cf. Ellis, E. E., Paul and his Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids, ⁵ 1979) 34–48Google Scholar (= NTS 6, 1959–60, 211–24); ibid. (note 7) 170 ff. (briefly).

[55] Pace Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘Hellenistic Christian Traditions in Romans 6?’, NTS 29 (1983) 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 351, who supposes that the introductory formula in 1 Cor 3. 16; 6. 15f., 19, may refer only to the Corinthians' general knowledge that they belong to Christ.

[56] Cf. McKelvey, R. J., The New Temple (Oxford, 1969) 120 f.Google Scholar; Ellis (note 9) 90 ff., 107 f.

[57] See above. Among such quotations the temple typology is in view elsewhere at Acts 7. 49; 15. 16 f.; cf. Heb 8. 8–12; 10. 16 with 8. 2, 5.

[58] This seems preferable to the conjecture that 2 Cor 6. 14–7. 1 was a fragment of another letter added later (in a copy) or a gloss by a scribe since no manuscript lacks the pericope.

[59] Apart from the characteristics of a λέγεı κύρως quotation there are eight New Testament hapaxes and several expressions found nowhere else in Paul. On its Qumran affinities cf. Fitzmyer, J. A., Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula MT, 1974) 205–17Google Scholar = CBQ 23 (1961) 271–80.

[60] See above, note 7.

[61] On the form and the origin of the pericope in the pre-resurrection mission of Jesus cf. Ellis (note 7) 251 ff.; Snodgrass, K., The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Tübingen, 1983) 72–110.Google Scholar

[62] Mt 26. 61; 27. 40; Jn 2. 19–22; Acts 6. 13 f.; cf. 15. 16 ff.

[63] 2 Cor 5. 1; Col 2. 11; cf. Ellis (note 54) 41 f.

[64] Acts 7. 48; 17. 24; Eph 2. 11; Heb 9. 11, 24; cf. 8. 2.

[65] The clause, ‘we know that’, may refer not only to common knowledge or conviction (e.g. Rom 7. 14) but also to specific teachings previously traditioned by Paul to his congregations (e.g. 1 Cor 8. 4 ff.; 1 Tim 1. 8 ff.; cf. ‘you know (that)’: 1 Thess 3. 3 f.; 4. 2; 5. 2; 2 Thess 2. 5 f.; 3. 7–10).

[66] E.g. Pesikta Rabbati 33. 7. A somewhat similar exegetical pattern also appears in Phio (e.g. de mut. 252–263). The basic pattern is as follows: Theme and initial text(s) + Exposition, including inter alia verbal links between the texts and exposition + Concluding text. Cf. Ellis (note 7) 25 f., 154 ff., 213 f.; Branick, V. P., ‘…Analysis of 1 Corinthians 1–3’, JBL 101 (1982) 251–69.Google Scholar

[67] A number of scholars have recognized this but have sought its origin, wrongly I think, in a (hypothetical) gnosticizing exposition by Paul's opponents, which Paul has here revised. Cf. Ellis (note 7) 45–50; Conzelmann, H., I Corinthians (Philadelphia, 1975) 57–60Google Scholar, 62. On the background cf. Brown, R. E., The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1968).Google Scholar

[68] δıδακτός, 1 Cor 2. 13.

[69] Phrases in 1 Cor 2. 6–16 not found elsewhere in the New Testament: ‘Rulers of this age’ (6), ‘before the ages’ (7), ‘the spirit of man’ (11), ‘the spirit of the world’ (12), ‘natural man’ (14; cf. ‘old man’: Rom 6. 6; Eph 4. 22; Col 3. 9) and the ‘mind of Christ’ (16). Not found elsewhere in Paul: ‘the Lord of glory’ (8; cf. Jas 2. 1).

[70] 1 Cor 2. 11, 14; 3. 16; 6. 11; 7. 40; 12. 3; 2 Cor 3. 3; Eph 4. 30; Phil 3. 3. The phrase, ‘the spirit of God’, also occurs in the pericope (1 Cor 2. 11, 14).

[71] 1 Jn 4. 1; Rev 11. 11; 1 Sam 16. 14; cf. Isa 32. 15.

[72] Cf. Rom 16. 25 f. (11. 25–36); Eph 3. 3 ff.; Col 1. 25–28; Mk 4. 10–12 + Q; Rev 10. 7; 1 QpHab 7. 4 f.; Brown (note 67); Ellis (note 7), 11n., 57–60; Ringgren, H., The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia, 1963) 60–3.Google Scholar

[73] So, re 1 Cor 10. 1–13, Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1970) [1910] 212 f.Google Scholar, followed by Schmithals, W., Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville, 1971 [1956]) 91 ff.Google Scholar, 100n. Similarly, Bruins, J. A. in ThTijd 26 (1892) 501 ff.Google Scholar, who gives the pericope a Jewish (Christian) origin. But see Clemen, C., Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe (Göttingen, 1894) 42 f.Google Scholar

[74] So, re 1 Cor 10. 1–5, Weiss (note 73) 250.

[75] Meeks, W. A., ‘“And Rose up to Play:” Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10. 1–22’, JSNT 16 (1982) 64–78, 65, 73.Google Scholar

[76] Especially the terms, έσθίpεω, πίνεω, παίζεω.

[77] 1 Cor 10. 1–5 combines allusions to Pentateuchal texts with their interpretations in the Psalms, e.g. Ps 78. 15 f., 18, 24 f. and Ps 106. 14, 25. The same technique is evident in Gal 4. 22; cf. Ellis (note 7) 156, 188–97.

[78] Matters pointed out and rightly stressed by Meeks (note 75).

[79] “Οτı is used variously; the phrase ‘(I) do not want you to be ignorant’, does perhaps introduce cited material in Rom 11. 25 f. and 1 Cor 12. 1, 4–11, but does not do so at Rom 1. 13 and 1 Thess 4. 13 (cf. 2 Cor 1. 8).

[80] Words in 1 Cor 10. 1–13 not found elsewhere in the New Testament: καταστρὼννυναı (5), έπıθνμηής (6), παίζεω (7), όλσθρευτής (10), συµβαίυειυ (11). Words not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus: έίκοσı (8), έκπεωάζεω (9 D), γογγύζεω (10), συμβαίνεω (11), έάεω (13), ἕκβασıς (13).

[81] καταστρώννυναı, παίζεω, ογγύζεω (όλοθρεντής cf. Exod 22. 20).

[82] 1 Cor 1. 9; 2 Cor 1. 18; cf. 1 Thess 5. 24; 2 Thess 3. 3. Also on the phrase, ‘God was not pleased’, in 1 Cor 10. 5, cf. 1. 21; Gal 1. 15 (Col 1. 19).

[83] 1 Cor 10. 1–22 also prepares the way, in some respects, for the sub discussion of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11, as has been observed by Perrot, C., ‘Les exemples du desert (1 Co. 10. 6–11)’, NTS 29 (1983) 437–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But 1 Cor 10. 1–13 may still have been a traditional piece, adapted to the concerns of the Corinthian letter. Cf. Bruins (note 73) 501–5.

[84] See notes 11, 12, 13 and 17.

[85] Jude 5; cf. Ellis (note 7), 225 f.; ibid. (note 1) 45–54.

[86] Cf. Ellis (note 7) 23–30, 45–52, 72–9.

[87] 1 Clem 1. 3, usually given a date of AD 95; but the references to the Jerusalem temple services as still functioning (41. 1f.) and to the Neronian (not Domitianic) persecution as in the most recent past (5–6) and other factors shift the probabilities to an AD 70 date. Cf. the Bampton Lectures of Edmundson, G. (The Church in Rome in the First Century, London, 1913, 187–202)Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (London, 1976) 327–34.Google Scholar

[88] E.g. Conzelmann (note 67) 246; Weiss (note 73) xli (‘perhaps’).

[89] So, recently, Wolff (note 52) 142.

[90] Although ‘all the churches’ could refer to Paul’s churches (1 Cor 7. 17; 2 Cor 11. 28), the addition, ‘of the saints’, implies a more comprehensive reference.

[91] Verbal similarities between 1 Cor 14. 34 f. and 1 Tim 2. 11–15 are σıγαν/ήσυχία, ύποτάσσεοθαı/ύποταγή, μανθάνεω, έπıτρέπεω, άνήρ, γυντή. The νόμος (1 Cor 14. 34) refers to Scripture, probably to Gen 3. 16 or to a wider and well-known traditional exegesis of Genesis, as is usual in Paul and in the New Testament generally, and not to Paul’s ‘ruling’ (νόμος), pace Martin, R. P., The Spirit and the Congregation (Grand Rapids, 1984) 87.Google Scholar

[92] Discussed at length in Ellis, E. E., ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor 14:34–5)’, New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Epp, E. J. (Oxford, 1981) 213–20.Google Scholar See above, note 24.

[93] 1 Cor 11. 3: ‘I want you to know that’ (θέλω δέ ύμấς είδέναı ὅτı), which appears elsewhere in the New Testament only at Col 2. 1; but cf. Ignatius, Magn. 11. 1: ‘I want to warn you.’

[94] See above, note 79.

[95] This seems to be implied in the double reference, ‘[neither] we …nor the churches of God’. The latter phrase includes non-Pauline congregations in its only other occurrence in the Pauline corpus, 2 Thess 1. 4. Cf. Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968) 258Google Scholar, who supposes that the ‘custom’ refers on]y to the use of the veil.

[96] 1 Cor 11. 7 ff., 12. Gen 1 cannot be excluded, pace Meier, J. P., ‘On the Veiling of Hermeneutics (I Cor 11:2–16)’, CBQ 40 (1978) 219.Google Scholar In the Jewish hermeneutics of the period the priority of the male would also be implied in Gen 1. 27, i.e. the order, ‘male and female’. Cf. MekEx 12. 1; somewhat similar: Mt 19. 4–8; Gal 3. 17.

[97’ 1 Cor 11. 3–16: άκατακάλυπτος (5, 13), ξυρεıν (5, 6), κατακαλύπτεω, (6, 7), κείρεω (6 bis), κομᾱν (14, 15), κόμη (15), περıβολαıον (15), ϕıλονεıκος (16), συνήθεıα (16).

[98] Walker, W. O., ‘I Corinthians 11:2–16…‘, JBL 94 (1975) 110Google Scholar, convincingly refuted by Murphy-O’Connor, J., ‘The Non-Pauline Character of I Corinthians 11:2–16?’, JBL 95 (1976) 615–21.Google Scholar

[99] Col 4. 16; cf. 1 Clem 47. 1 f. This practice was followed even with the letters of Ignatius (Polycarp, ad Phil. 13. 2; cf. Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers II, I: S. Ignatius. S. Polycarp, London, ² 1889, 336 f.Google Scholar, 423 f.), how much more with those of Paul. Cf. Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953) 14 f., 278 ff.Google Scholar

[100] So, Zuntz (note 99) 14, 279, who attributes the first collection to Alexandrian editors. Otherwise: Knox, J., Philemon among the Letters of Paul (Nashville, ² 1959) 107Google Scholar, who locates it in Ephesus c. AD 90 under the oversight of Onesimus.

[101] According to Paoli, U. E. (Rome, its People, Life and Customs, London, ⁸ 1983, ¹1940, 177 f.Google Scholar) the first reference to the codex form is in Martial, Epigrams 1, 2, 2 f. (libellis) in AD 84, but an earlier use of papyrus in this form cannot be ruled out.

[102] The clause is a ‘first-class’ condition, assumed to be true.

[103] Cf. 1 Cor 10. 20. For the discussion and divisions among nineteenth-century scholars, on whom the more recent commentaries largely depend, cf. Godet, F., Commentary on First Corinthians, 2 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids, 1977[1889]) 411–15.Google Scholar

[104] Mk 7. 1–23 par. This tradition was probably known to Paul and underlay his support for the ‘strong’ Corinthians (cf. Rom 14. 14 with Mk 7. 2: κοωός). See above, note 15.

[105] Pace Murphy-O'Connor, J. (‘I Cor VIII, 6: Cosmology or Soteriology?’, RB 85, 1978, 259–64)Google Scholar and Dunn, J. D. G. (Christology in the Making, Philadelphia, 1980, 181 ff.Google Scholar), who identify τάπάντα only with the new creation and thus eliminate from 1 Cor 8. 6 a ‘cosmological dimension’ (Murphy-O’Connor) or a pre-existence christology (Dunn). While (τά) πάντα qua creation can be used of the new creation or of the militant reign over the present rebellious created order by the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15. 27 f. = Ps 8. 7; Eph 1. 9 f., 21 f. = Ps 8.7; Eph 4. 10; Phil 3. 21 = Ps 8. 7; cf. Heb 2. 5, 8 = Ps 8. 7; Rev 21. 5), it almost always in the New Testament (exception: Rev 21. 5) means the ‘Genesis’ creation when it speaks of Deus Creator (1 Cor 11. 12; Eph 3. 9; Acts 7. 50 Isa 66. 2; Acts 14. 15 = Exod 20. 11 = Ps 146. 6; Heb 3. 4; ?2. 10; Rev 4. 11; cf. also 1 Clem 27. 4; Barn 15. 8; Did 10. 3). When it is applied to Deus Creator and Christus Creator in the same context, as it is in 1 Cor 8. 6, it most likely means the same (‘Genesis’) creation in both instances. Cf. also Col 1. 16 f.; Heb 1. 2 f.;Jn 1. 3.

[106] Like 1 Cor 8. 6, the doxology at Rom 11. 33–36 also exhibits a break with its context, a poetic structure and Deus Creator language: [θε⋯ς] έξ αύτοṽ καί είς αύτόν τά πάντα (36). Cf. Heb 2. 10 where, in a treatise probably originating within a broader Pauline or Pauline- related circle, similar phraseology is a part of the writer’s own idiom: ‘For whom are all things and through whom are all things.’

[107] Eph 4. 5 ‘One (είς) Lord, one faith, one baptism

One God and father of all

Who is over (έπί) all and through (δıά) all and in (έν) all.

Barth, M. (‘Traditions in Ephesians’, NTS 30, 1984, 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar) places this passage among ‘traditions of Gentile origin’.

[108] Col 1. 15–20, although only christological, contains the same reference (15–17) to Christus Creator 'through (δıά) whom and for (είς) whom all things have been created (16), together with a reference to the new creation (18–20) in which all things through (δıά) him, Christus Salvator, are reconciled (20).

[109] Rom 8. 18–23, where the transfigured physical resurrection of the individual believer's body forms a part of the cosmic redemption of the natural creation (cf. 1 Cor 15. 23–28, 42–45; Phil 3. 20 f.). Cf. Heb 1. 10ff. = Ps 102. 25 f. (26 f.); 2 Peter 3. 5–13 (midrash). On Phil 3. 20 f. cf. Hawthorne, G. F., Philippians (Waco TX, 1983) 172 ff. (a hymn).Google Scholar

[110] Aurelius, Marcus (†AD 180), Meditations 4, 23Google Scholar; cf. Chrysippos (280–207 BC) in Stobaeus, , Eklogai I, 1, 26Google Scholar, cited by Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Darmstadt, 1956 [1913]) 240–50, 241 f.Google Scholar, who did some pioneering work on the subject.

[111] The traditional and questionable dichotomy between diaspora (‘Hellenistic’) and ‘Palestinian’ Judaism is not to be inferred, however, since Stoic influences were present also in Palestine (cf. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1974, I, 147 ff.).Google Scholar Cf. also Borgen, P., ‘Observations on the Theme “Paul and Philo”’, Die paulinische Literatur und Theologie, ed. Pedersen, S., (Århus, 1980) 102Google Scholar: Similar problems on circumcision were debated by Paul, Philo and Palestinian rabbis.

[112] Philo, , quod det. pot. 54Google Scholar; de cher. 127; cf. Wisdom 7. 21; 9. 1 f.: ‘O God…who made all things by your Word (τά πάντα έν λόγἃ σον) and by your Wisdom (σοϕία) formed man.’

[113] Philo, , de sacr. Abel. 8Google Scholar (III): ‘Through the Word (δıά ṕήματος)…the whole universe (κόσμος) was formed … [and] that same word (λόγἃ) by which he made the universe (τ⋯ παν) is that by which he draws the perfect man from things earthly to himself’ (Loeb).

[114] Horsley, R. A., ‘The Background of the Confessional Formula in 1 Kor 8, 6’, ZNTW 69 (1978) 130–5Google Scholar, 134, who offers an instructive analysis of the issues.

[115] Cf. 1 Cor 1. 24; S. Kim (note 53) 258 ff.

[116] Cf. Mt 11. 19; 12. 42 par; Kim, S., ‘The “Son of Man”’ as the Son of God (Tübingen, 1983) 90 ff.Google Scholar and the literature cited.

[118] See above, note 105.

[119] Pace Murphy-O'Connor (note 105) 255–9, who argues that it is an acclamation. But see Wolff (note 52) 7–10.

[119] 1 Cor 15. 3: ‘I delivered…that which I also received.’ See above.

[120] Pauline hapaxes (words or phrases) in 1 Cor 15. 3–7 are: κατά τάς γραϕάς (3, 4), θάπτεω (4), ή ήμέρα ή τρίτη (4), οί δώδεκα (5), έϕαπάξ (6a, in the sense of ‘together’; cf. Stählin, H. in TDNT I, 383).Google Scholar

[121] 1 Cor 15. 3–7: ὅτı…ὅτı…ὅτı…ὅ (3–5); …ἕπεıτα…ἕπεıτα… (5–7). Cf. the sequence, ὅτı-ἕπεıτα at 1 Thess 4. 15–17, which also shows signs of being preformed material; cf. further, Col 1. 16, 19 (ὅτı); 1 Cor 12. 28 (?); 1 Tim 2. 13 (ἕπεıτα ). But the conjunctions also conform to Pauline epistolary style: Phil 4. 15 f.; 1 Thess 3. 2 f. (ὅτı); Gal 1. 18, 21; 2. 1 (ἕπεıτα).

[122] The received tradition is restricted by many to 1 Cor 15. 3b–5, but it more likely includes 15. 3b–6a, 7. So, Stuhlmacher, P., Das paulinische Evangelium (Göttingen, 1968) 266–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[122] For recent discussion cf. Martin (note 91) 96–9; Wolff (note 52) 153–8; Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘Traditionand Redaction in 1 Cor 15. 3–7’, CBQ 43 (1981) 582–9Google Scholar; Kearney, P. J., ‘He Appeared to 500 Brothers (I Cor XV, 6)’, NT 22 (1980) 264–84.Google Scholar

[124] Other examples may be 1 Cor 13, a christological hymn, and 1 Cor 15. 51, a prophetic oracle. On 1 Cor 13 cf. Conzelmann (note 67) 217–21 (Pauline, but apparently preformed); Titus, E. L., ‘Did Paul Write I Cor 13?’, JBR 27 (1959) 299–302Google Scholar (a later interpolation). On 1 Cor 15. 51 f. cf. Aune, D. E., Prophecy in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, 1983) 250 f.Google Scholar (a preformed prophetic oracle).

[125] Cf. Ellis (note 7) 3–22; Ollrog, W. H., Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter (Neukirchen, 1979) esp. 111–202.Google Scholar

[126] See above. On the Pastorals cf. Trummer (note 2) who, however, regards their traditions as a post-Pauline collection; on Ephesians cf. Barth (note 107); on Colossians cf. Cannon, G. E., The Use of Traditional Material in Colossians (Macon GA, 1983) 11–123.Google Scholar

[127] Pace Schmithals, W., Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville, 1971 [1956])Google Scholar; Klauck, H. J., 1. Korintherbrief (Würzburg, 1984) 10Google Scholar; Betz, H. D., 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 (Philadelphia, 1985).Google Scholar

[128] Pace O’Neill, J. C., The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London, 1972) esp. 62 ff.Google Scholar (Gal 4. 21–31), 65–71 (GalS. 13–6. 11); ibid., Paul's Letter to the Romans (London, 1975) esp. 109–14Google Scholar (Rom 6.5–7), 190 f. (Rom 11.33–36), 207 ff. (Rom 13. 1–7).

[129] The post-Pauline origin of the so-called deutero-Pauline letters, which is still a cornerstone of critical orthodoxy, arose in the nineteenth century with inter alia the mistaken assumption that Paul was virtually the sole composer of everything in his letters and that, therefore, their authorship could be tested and determined by internal criteria of style, vocabulary and theological expression. Cf. Ellis (note 2) 497–500.