[1] For these problems, which need not to be indicated here, see the commentaries and the literature cited in this article.

[2] The latest treatment of this verse known to me is to be found in Hanson, A. T., The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture (London, 1980) 21–96.Google Scholar

[3] Orr, W. F. & Walther, J. A., I Corinthians. A New Translation. Introduction … and Commentary (Garden City, New York, 1976) 157.Google Scholar

[4] Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, ² 1971) 72.Google Scholar

[5] Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen, 1969) 73 n. 4; 82.Google Scholar

[6] I do not participate in the controversy as to the origin of the quotation that is the main content of verse 9. For the various views on this matter see, e.g. Hanson, op. cit. (n. 2), and Berger, K., ‘Zur Diskussion über die Herkunft von 1 Kor. ii.9’, NTS 24 (1978) 270–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the main I deal only with the grammatical structure and not so much with the exegesis of the section 2. 6–10a (2. 6–16).

[7] In addition to the commentaries, see, e.g. Dahl, N. A., ‘Paul and the Church at Corinth in 1 Cor 1:10–4:21’ in Christian History and Interpretation. Studies presented to John Knox. Ed. by Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D. & Niebuhr, R. (Cambridge, 1967) 313–35Google Scholar; Funk, R. W., Language, Hermen-eutic and Word of God (New York, 1966) 275–305Google Scholar; Sellin, G., ‘Das “Geheimnis” der Weisheit und das Rätsel der “Christuspartei”’, ZNW 73 (1982) 69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also the works by Lührmann (below n. 23) and Wilckens (below n. 21). For the portion 2. 6–16, see also Pearson, B. A., The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in I Corinthians (Missoula, Montana, 1973), esp. 27–39Google Scholar, and Widmann, M., ‘I Kor 2.6–16: Ein Einspruch gegen Paulus’, ZNW 70 (1979) 44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Kaiser, W. C., ‘A Neglected Text in Bibliology Discussions: I Corinthians 2:6–16’, Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1981) 301–19.Google Scholar

[8] Cf. Kühner, R. – Gerth, B., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache [Satzlehre], 2 (Hannover und Leipzig, ³ 1904 [Hannover, 1966]) 431 f., and see below by notes 31 ff.Google Scholar

[9] Heinrici, C. F. G., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen, 1896) 97.Google Scholar

[10] Op. cit. 95.Google Scholar

[11] ‘P. bezeichnet, statt … mit ňν fortzufahren (…), den geheimnisvollen Inhalt der Weisheit und drückt sich daher in der sächlichen Form (ά) aus …’, op. cit. 97 f.Google Scholar

[12] Cf. op. cit. 97 f., 99 f.Google Scholar

[13] Op. cit. 98Google Scholar; cf. 95: ‘2.7–9 ist ein Satz’.

[14] The apodotic use of δέ here was advocated some years later by Bachmann, (Der erste Brief desPaulus an die Korinther [Leipzig, 1905] 128 f.)Google Scholar, who viewed vv. 9–10a as representing a positive intensification in relation to v. 7 and as being something strongly opposed to v. 8 by άλλά.

[15] Heinrici, , op. cit. 100Google Scholar. Heinrici prefers δέ in v. 10a. By γάρ we would have ‘eine incorrect nachgebrachte Begründung von v.7’.

[16] Weiss, J., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen, 1919), ad loc.Google Scholar

[17] Whether we have to suppose that this link backwards consists in a supplied λαλοῦμεν is not clear.

[18] Allo, E. B., Première Épitre aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1934), ad loc.Google Scholar

[19] Cf. Feuillet, A., ‘L'énigme de I Cor., II, 9’, RB 70 (1963) 53Google Scholar: ‘…, il est mieux de le (sc. άλλά) regarder comme la suite ou la contrepartie de ούδείς … γνωκεν du v.8’. But yet he views v. 9 as an apposition to v. 7 and an explanation of σοΦία, and like it, governed by λαλοῦμεν.

[20] The phrase καί έπί καρδίαν άνθρώπου αύκ άνέβη is inserted by Paul ‘comme glose personelle, pour l'ampleur oratoire’, op. cit. ad loc.

[21] Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit. Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu I Kor. 1 und 2 (Tübingen, 1959).Google Scholar

[22] I cannot find that Wilckens even mentions it.

[23] Lührmann, D., Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden (Neu-kirchen-Vluyn, 1965), 113–17, 133–40.Google Scholar

[24] Op. cit. 116.Google Scholar However it is not quite clear how he imagines the grammatical structure in detail.

[25] Of course, I do not deny the obvious fact that in the context there is – though it is not specifically expressed – a thought of an opposition between God's wisdom as ‘hidden’ and ‘revealed’.

[26] From the stylistic point of view 1 Cor 2. 6–7a is a good example of what can be labelled as ‘antithetical double-turn of phrase’ (Eidem, E., Del kristna livet enligt Paulus [Stockholm, 1927], 44)Google Scholar. Cf. Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa 2 (Leipzig & Berlin, ³ 1918) 507 f.Google Scholar

[27] Other arguments pro et contra especially in respect of the phrase έν μυστηρίω are to be found in the commentaries.

[28] This clause most nearly partakes of the nature of an independent clause, and we view it as such. But this is not a part of the argumentation in solving the problem of άλλά in v. 9.

[29] Instead of 祀 attested by P⁴⁶ ℵ C D F G H etc., 耄σα is read by A B and a few other MSS of minor importance. For a short discussion, see below.

[30] Barrett, , op. cit. (n. 4) 72Google Scholar, inserts paraphrasingly ‘But the hidden wisdom has been revealed’. Then he continues: ‘In the words of Scripture …’.

[31] The citation formula (referring to the O.T. Scriptures) consists of the comparative clause καθώς γέγραπται introducing the quotation.

[32] If 祀 instead of 耄σα is read in the last relative clause, this clause can be taken either (a) as a clause parallel to the other relative clauses or (b) as an object of these clauses (it might then in a way also be taken as a parallel to the ήν προώρισεν-clause, v. 7b; cf. also v. 12: τά ύπό τοῦθεοῦ Χαρισθέντα ήμίν). If case (b) is true, it is only the first three relative clauses (祀όΦθαλμός – ούκ άνέβη) that form a further description of the hidden σοΦία. If όσα is adopted the clause introduced by it is in apposition to the preceding relative clauses resuming their content.

[33] I take έγνώκαμεν here and έγνωκεν in v. 8a as true perfects; cf. v. 11 b. For a brief note on the distinction between γώωσκεώ and είδέναι, see Allo, , op. cit. (n. 18) 46.Google Scholar

[34] E.g. A C D G P ψ 33 81 614.

[35] Unfortunately now also by Nestle-Aland, , Novum Testamentum Graece (26th edition, Stuttgart 1979).Google Scholar

[36] P⁴⁶B Clement al.

[37] So e.g. Bachmann, , op. cit. (n. 14) 128.Google Scholar

[38] E.g. Weiss, , op. cit. (n. 16) 59 f.Google Scholar, Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther (Tübingen, ⁴ 1949 [Küm-mel]), ad loc.Google Scholar, Barrett, , op. cit. (n. 4) 74Google Scholar, Feuillet, (if δέ is read), op. cit. (n. 19) 54Google Scholar, Wilckens, , op. cit. (n. 21) 75 ('Diese Aussage [sc. v. 10a] ist das Ziel des Gedankengangs seit 2, 6).Google Scholar

[39] Perhaps this is what Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London-New York, 1971)Google Scholar, means by ‘the loose use of the connective δέ … entirely in Paul's manner’ (p. 546).

[40] Funk, , op. cit. (n. 7) 293Google Scholar, Allo, op. cit. (n. 18) ad loc., takes γάρ to v. 6 (vv. 7–9 being a digression); Lietzmann, , An die Korinther (Tübingen, 1910) [cf. n. 38], ad loc., and Feuillet (if γάρ is read), op. cit. (n. 19) 54, refer it to v. 7.Google Scholar

[41] Robertson-Plummer, , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh, 1911), ad loc.Google Scholar

[42] Conzelmann, op. cit. (n. 5) ad loc. It is true that there is a stress on ήμίν, but this intensification entirely lies in the advanced position of ήμίν in the clause.

[43] Lührmann, , op. cit. (n. 23) 138.Google Scholar

[44] For such a use of γάρ in its causal and explanatory sense, see Denniston, , The Greek Particles (Oxford, ² 1970) 60 ffGoogle Scholar. For Paul's use of it, cf. Gal 5. 5; Phil 3. 3, 20; cf. also Rom 5. 6–7, 8. 12.

[45] In vv. 10b–16 which form the last part of the section 2. 6–16 we may – in addition to the arguments given by Paul why the Spirit can reveal divine and secret things – notice especially the statements found in w. 12–13a: ήμείς δέ ού τό πνεμα τοῡ κόσμου έλάβομεν (cf. v. 8), άλλά τα πνεῡμα το θεο砅, ἵνα είδῶμων τά ύπς τοῡ θεοῡ Χαρισθέντα ήμῑν · 祀 καί λαλοῡμεν κτλ. One might say that these verses contain in nuce 1 Cor 2. 6–10a.

Further examples can be found to lend support to this view of άλλά in conjunction with a quotation. They are Rom 15. 3 and 15. 21, and in a way also 1 Cor 1. 31.

In the Pauline letters the quotations of the OT Scripture are normally introduced by καθώς γέγραπται (耄τι); in Rom 2. 24 the quotation precedes. This comparative clause together with the quotation fits well the grammatical structure and causes no disturbance to the context. This is true everywhere except for 1 Cor 2. 9, Rom 15. 3, 15. 21, and 1 Cor 1. 31. In the first three cases καθώς γέγραπται and the quotation are preceded by άλλά. We find it troublesome, not to say impossible, to match άλλά καθώς γέγραπται with the grammatical context as well as with the logic. Much the same applies to 1 Cor 1. 31 though άλλά does not appear there. In 1 Cor 1. 31 the citation, which is introduced by καθώς γέγραπται, has its verb in the imperative and therefore can not be construed with the να that precedes it: …, να καθώςγέγραπται, ό καυχώμενος έν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. But this problem can easily be solved by the explanation that in 1 Cor 1. 31 we are faced with the common phenomenon of an ellipse of the (predicate) verb: ῐνα <γένηται> καθώς γέγραπται (see generally, e.g. Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar, Cambridge, Mass., [1920] 1972, 261 f.Google Scholar, Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik, 2, [HAW ii. 1, 2] München, 1950, 767 f.Google Scholar; for 1 Cor I. 31 cf. Blass, F. – Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Rehkopf, Bearbeitet von F.. 14., völlig neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Göttingen, 1976, § 480).Google Scholar

I hold the opinion that Rom 15. 3 and 15. 21 also can satisfactorily be explained if we are allowed to view them as belonging to the elliptical mode of expression.

In Rom 15. 1 Paul asserts the obligation on the part of those who are strong to bear the weaknesses of those who are not and not to please themselves and in v. 2a he briefly develops this principle ΌΦείλομεν δέ ήμεῑς οί δύνατοι τά άσθενήματα τῶν άδυνάτων βαστάζεω καί μή έαυτοίς άρέσκεω (v. 1). Ĕκαστος ήμῶν τῷ πλησίον άρεσκέτω είς τό άγαθόν πρός οίκοδόμην (v. 2a). Paul as usual, uses Christ as the basis and model of good conduct: καί γάρ ό Χριστός ούχ έαυτῷ ᾔρεσεν (v. 2b). Paul then continues (v. 3) substituting the positive fact for this negative (όΧριστόςούχέαυτῷᾔρεσεν) by means of άλλά. The particle άλλά is thus acting according to its nature by introducing and indicating what is quite opposite, in this case to ό Χριστόςούχέαυτῷ ᾔρεσεν. Paul, however, has already explicitly stated an opposition to ‘please oneself’ in the injunction ‘to bear the weaknesses of those who are not strong’ (v. 1). Clearly it would be pointless to repeat this opposition to ‘please oneself’, so instead he jumps to a quotation of Ps 68. 10 (LXX), which apart from being, of course, a proof of Christ's fulfilment of the Scripture, epitomizes the whole of Christ's acting by providing a concrete example (worth following, v. 4) of what it means ‘not to please oneself’ but instead ‘to bear the weaknesses’. So what Paul really is saying is that ‘Christ did not please himself but <bore our weaknesses,> as it is written, etc. Thus, in Greek: (εαί γάρ) όρΧριστόςούχέαυτῷᾔρεσεν, άλλά <τά άσθενήματα ήμῶν έβάσταοεν, > καθώς γέγραπται κτλ. That ‘we’ are concerned is clear from όΦείλομεν (v. 1), ἕκαστος ήμῶν (v. 2), and ὅσα γάρ προεγράΦη, είς τήν ήμετέραν διδασκαλίαν … (v. 4). The reading ήμῶν in v. 2 needs no further support beyond its attestation by the best witnesses. And, as for the thought, neither in Greek nor in English is it in accordance with grammar or logic to let the άλλά (but)-clause consist of άλλά + the quotation (καθώς γέγραπται is one clause). Read for yourself: ‘… Christ did not please himself but… “The reproaches of those who reproach thee fell upon me.”’ It does not make sense.

Since I have dealt with Rom 15. 20–21 extensively in a forthcoming issue of Biblische Zeitschrift I content myself with giving only a short exposition of Rom 15. 21.

The άλλά-clause in Rom 15. 21 introduces the diametrical opposition to what Paul has just said: he has not preached the Gospel where Christ was already known (α μή έπ' αλλότριον θεμέλιον οίκοδομῶ) άλλ <ὅπου ούκ ώνομάσθη Χριστός,> καθώς γέγραπται οἵς ούκ άνηγγέλη περί αύτοῡ ὅψονται κτλ. Cf. Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1962) 273, 277Google Scholar, who imagines an opposition immediately after ὅπου ώνομάσθη Χριστός and before the ἵνα-clause (v. 20), thus leaving us still faced with a peculiar άλλά, followed by the καθώς γέγραπται-clause. Barrett paraphrasingly translates: ‘… I acted rather so as to fulfil the Scripture.’ Cf. also Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1979) 764 f.Google Scholar