[JSNT 55 (1994) 55-75]

THAT WE MIGHT NOT CRAVE EVIL' THE STRUCTURE AND ARGUMENT OF 1 CORINTHIANS 10.1-13 Gary D. Collier University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology Denver, CO 80217

It has now been more than a decade since JSNT published Wayne A. Meeks's important article identifying 1 Cor. 10.1-13 as a 'homily...a literary unit, very carefully composed prior to its use in its present context'.1 According to Meeks, the pericope was originally a self-contained unit, it was almost surely of Christian composition, and some or all of it was most likely written by Paul prior to 1 Corinthians.2 In what follows, I would like to explore this matter further, offering a fresh evaluation of the pericope and its function in the context of 1 Corinthians. 1. W.A. Meeks, '"And Rose up to Play": Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10.1-22', JSNT 16 (1982), p. 65. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have shown an increasing tendency to regard 1 Cor. 10.1-13, either partially or wholly, as an independent pre-existent literary unit. Johannes Weiss designated w. 1-5 'ein Midrasch' (Der Erste Korintherbrief [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910], p. 250); Ulrich Luz argued that the pericope was based on an earlier midrash (Das Geschichtsverstndnis des Paulus [BEvT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968], pp. 117-23); CK. Barrett pointed to the phrase 'our fathers' (v. 1) as possibly betraying that Paul 'was quoting, without modification, an existing Exodus midrash' (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968], p. 220); Hans Conzelmann referred to the whole pericope when he cited the abruptness with which it appears in its present context: 'At first sight this section appears to be totally foreign... [We] have apparently a piece of teaching that was already established before the composing of the epistle.' (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], p. 165). 2. Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', pp. 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71; Meeks is somewhat unclear on the last point, a matter taken up below.

56

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

1 An Independent Pericope For Meeks, by far the most significant indication that Paul has at least influenced (if not composed) the homily is the quotation m 7 of Exod 32 6 on idolatry Meeks suggests that 'Paul himself has added this reference since "idolatry" is the immediate issue under discussion in the letters' 3 But what is more, the quotation is a significant key for understanding the logic of the homily It may be that it is quoted verbatim because it provides the midrashic basis for the antithesis we found to be central to the whole passage's logic (viz , they sat down to eat and drink [cf vv 1 5] and rose up to play [cf vv 6 l l ] ) 4 To establish this, Meeks looks to Jewish tradition for 'some analogous exegetical move that would permit the verb to imply all these sins' 5 listed m 1 Cor 10 6-10 (craving, idolatry, fornication, testing and grumbling) He finds help from the Tosefia, the Genesis Rabbah, the Palestinian Targums, the LXX and Philo Rabbinic sources reveal expla nations of ('playing') to mean idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed or attempted murder The LXX equivalents ( and ) often mean 'to joke, mock, or make fun of, and 'immediately suggest the fourth and fifth sins, "testing Christ [or the Lord]" and "grumbling" ' 6 in 1 Cor 10 9, 10 Philo, along with other Jews of Hellenistic culture, specifically understood the golden calf incident (Exod 32) m terms of 'turning the soul away from higher things and becoming embroiled in 7 the material world', an apt expression for 'craving evil things' in 1 Cor 10 6 Thus, all five sins (and more) listed in 1 Cor 10 6-11 can be singly linked to midrashic interpretations of As Meeks says The elegant symmetry of the piece is not adventitious but is founded on a quite subtle exegesis of the one scriptural verse that is formally quoted, 8 Exodus 32 6

3 4 5 6 7 8

'And Rose up to Play', 'And Rose up to Play', 'And Rose up to Play', 'And Rose up to Play', 'And Rose up to Play', 'And Rose up to Play',

69 69 69 70 71 71

COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil'

57

The argument of the homily, says Meeks, flows naturally into vv. 12-13 which (1) warn against over confidence, and (2) offer consolation against falling into resistible temptations, as in the five sins listed in vv. 6-10: craving, idolatry, fornication, testing and grumbling. In this way, the general focus of the original, isolated homily (against resistible tempta tions) is different from the specific focus which Paul draws from it here in 1 Corinthians. For in vv. 14-22 Paul draws upon only one of the homily's five sinsidolatrywhich is the dominant theme of chs. 8-10. This also explains for Meeks why Exod. 32.6 is the only textual quotation: Paul added it because of his current interest in idolatry. But by drawing out only one of the sins, Paul in effect reinterprets the homily; indeed, 'the homily does not fit the context so very well... 9 because it was composed for another purpose'. Meeks's analysis has several compelling features, including specifically the understanding of as 'craving' rather than 'lust' (based on the Num. 11 context), the emphasis upon Exod. 32.6, and the 10 possible midrashic relationship of to the other listed sins. Moreover, he charts a course for examining 1 Cor. 10.1-13 as an independent unit. His analysis is not, however, without serious difficulties. Not only does his structure of the pericope appear to be forced,11 it is also unclear from his argument whether anyone other than Paul even could have

9. 'And Rose up to Play', p. 74. The 'other purpose' refers to the general focus of the homily against resistible sins. 10 G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (d. F F. Bruce, NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 454, dismisses Meeks's analysis in one sentence: '[Meeks] makes the dubious suggestion that 'play' here is intended to cover all five forms of sin listed in vv. 6-10' What is dismissed along with this is Meeks's overall effort to explain the relationship of the four examples (vv. 6-10) to each other, as well as to the rest of vv. 1-22. In this regard, however, Meeks's contribution is significant. 11. The phrase in v. 6 does not bear the weight Meeks puts on it as being one of the 'listed sins' ; it is rather a general 'heading' statement, as shown by the following points: (1) The statement of the sm m 6 is of a different form than vv. 7-10. (2) The reference to 'some' is also different, despite Meeks's disclaimer The real parallel is to be seen in a fourfold . (3) Each of vv 7-10 has explanatory statements elaborating the listed sin; 6 does not (4) The introductory formula in v. 6 points to a clear separation of v. 6 from vv. 7-10 as a heading to supporting points. (5) Finally, there is a chiastic correspondence between vv. 6 and 11 (as A to A') which shows a clear separation from w . 7-10.

58

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

composed the homily (despite numerous affirmative statements), or whether the homily could have been independent. For if Paul added Exod. 32.6 to the homily in order to focus on idolatry in vv. 14-22,12 and if Exod. 32.6 is vital for 'the elegant symmetry of the piece',13 then it would seem either that Paul himself must have composed the piece explicitly for the Corinthian context, or that Paul, for his own contextual needs, merely made explicit what was already implicit: viz., the underlying, but to that point unquoted, basic text of the pericope, Exod. 32.6. And in that case merely making the quotation explicit would not have changed anything about the pericope. Before proceeding to my own analysis, it will be useful to look briefly at a second study, by Lawrence Wills.14 Like Meeks, Wills sees the pericope as a homily, only much more specifically. Wills identifies the pericope as extending through v. 14 (not 13), and argues that it reflects an early Hellenistic/Jewish and Christian sermon form (derived originally from 'Greek rhetoric in the Hellenistic schools'15) which he calls 'the word of exhortation'. Wills finds a formal rhetorical structureexempla, conclusion, exhortationin various NT, early Christian and Jewish, and Greek rhetorical writings.16 The structure can stand alone or 'be used repeatedly in cyclical fashion as building blocks of a longer sermon'.17 Accordingly, 1 Cor. 10.1-14 may be regarded as a homily having three definable cycles (see fig. I).18 Based on this examination, Wills concludes that 'Paul may be adapting an older sermon, or intentionally imitating sermonic style; either way, the word of exhortation has influenced the composition of this passage'.19

12. Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', pp. 68-69. 13. Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', p. 71. 14. L. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity', HTR 77.3-4 (1984), pp. 277-99. Wills makes no reference to Meeks. 15. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon', p. 299. 16. Including, among others, sections from Acts, 1 Cor. 10, 2 Cor. 6, sizable sections of Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 Clement. 17. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon', p. 280. 18. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon', pp. 288-89. Wills does not produce the following chart, but gives the information. 19. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon', p. 289.

COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil' a b c a b c Exempla Conclusion Exhortations New Exempla Conclusion Exhortation lb-5 6 7-10 7-10 11 12 Exposition of Scripture 'Now these are warnings 'let us not/do not' Israel's sins and results 'Now these things happened to them as a warning... ' 'Therefore, let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.' Exposition

59

a b c

Exemplum Conclusion Exhortation

13a 13b 14 Figure 1

Wills does not, however, integrate his proposal with previous work on the passage. He himself is less certain about the third cycle (vv. 13-14), speaking of it only as 'quite likely'.20 But in fact it does not appear that the third cycle is a cycle at all, but an extended exhortation (vv. 12-13).21 Verse 13a does not function as an exemplum in any sense in the struc ture of 1 Cor. 10.1-13, but as a conclusion or means of comfort derived somehow from the previous material. Indeed, vv. 12-13 function collec tively to draw a conclusion based on the aggregate lesson preceding in vv. 1-11, not just 7-10; it is a general conclusion and final exhortation. Though Meeks's and Wills's concerns are quite different, with these two studies the form, structure and function of the pericope have finally 22 come to the forefront. Here are efforts to see the pericope on its own terms, though certainly as it may reflect contemporary formal structures. Still, questions remain, and there are some unsatisfactory elements in Meeks's and Wills's discussions relating especially to midrashic structure 20. Wills, 'The Form of the Sermon', p. 289. 21. Nor does v. 14 belong as part of the pericope. See below. 22. Much previous work focused on background material. See especially, S.R. Driver, 'Notes on Three Passages in St Paul's Epistles', Exp 9 (1889), pp. 1523; H.St.J. Thackeray, Relationship of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan, 1900); A.T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965); E.E. Ellis, Note on 1 Cor. 10.4', JBL 76 (1957), pp. 5356; A.J. Bandstra, 'Interpretation in 1 Cor. 10.1-1 , Calvin Theological Journal 6.1 (1971), pp. 5-21; and E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-68), IV, pp. 147-56; VI, pp. 185-87; X, pp. 27-41,131-39; , pp. 15-17.

60

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

and function within the larger context of 1 Corinthians 8-10. It remains, then, to address these issues. 2. Structure The pericope seems to be set off from its context both by the first person singular (v. 1) and (v. 14), and by (v. 1), which may here indicate traditional material of some kind.23 As it exists, the pericope falls into three distinct blocks, each uniquely crafted (see fig. 2). In the first block (vv. 1-5) the fivefold is contrasted sharply and abruptly with a single . This is followed in vv. 7-10 with a fourfold , making the contrast between and a basic part of the structure (though the present 5:4 ratio need not be original). Verses 6-11 are a formal chiasm based partially on parallel thought patterns in the verses, but mostly on parallels among four verbs: , ', / (vv. 6, 11); , ', the pre sent imperative second plurals, and (vv. 7 and 10);24 and C, C, the hortatory subjunctives and (vv. 8 and 9). Even so, a more significant pattern is to be seen in that (1) all six blocks of vv. 6-11 have three elements each, roughly parallel with the other blocks in an a-b-c order; (2) v. 6 and 11 form an inclusio;25 and (3) the four remaining blocks26 (vv. 7-10) are virtually parallel in every respect. Although each of these verses (7-10) begins with the negative particle , and is thus related back to v. 6, it is nevertheless clear from structural elements that vv. 7-10 are set apart from v. 6 (a heading statement) and are not simply a continuation of a list of five sins.

23. Cf. 8.1, 4; 9.10; 11.23; and Gal 3.11. Note also, on the introductory phrase, Rom 1.13; 11.25-26; 1 Cor. 12.1, 1-4; 2 Cor. 1.8; and 1 Thess. 4.13; and see E.E. Ellis, 'Traditions in 1 Corinthians', NTS 32 (1986), esp. pp. 490 and 499 n. 79. r d,e bo 24. Some witnesses ( R D F G^ 33 it cop arm Origin Chrysostom Augustine) have (v. 10) to which Meeks is attracted, along with a suggestion of for v. 7 based on 'an early auditory error' ('And Rose up to Play', p. 75 n. 5). Neither is likely, however. See B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 560; and Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 451. 25. So Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', p. 65. 26. Against Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', p. 65.

COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil'

Verse: 1

61
Reference:

2 3 4

5 6

, , Pss. 78, 106 : , . ' , Num. 14.16 . a A b c , , . a b c , , . a b c a b c , . , . Num. 11.4,34

Exod. 32.6

8 C 9 C 10 ' 11 A a b c a b c

Num. 25.1

Num. 21.4-7

, .

Num. 11.1

, , .

cf. Wis. 16.2-14

12 13

. C : D , C ' . Figure 2

62

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

A somewhat curious alteration in the parallelism of vv. 7-10 is the third element in v. 7. Still, it is noteworthy that each of the third elements has not only to do with punishment, but is described in language that gets successively stronger: the cause of their downfall (v. 7), they fell (v. 8), they were being destroyed by serpents (v. 9), and they were destroyed by the angel of destruction (v. 10).27 The tenor of the argument increases in other respects as well. (v. 6) is weaker than its counterpart, (v. 11) which in the NT nearly always indicates an event with (dire) consequences. 28 Also, (v. 11) is possibly original, despite its omission by NA 26 , UBSGNT4 and most commentators.29 Even without it, however, the intensity of the pericope steadily builds. Verse 13 has caused commentators problems since it contains no obvious allusions to the larger context of chs. 8-10. However, vv. 12-13 together form a chiasm, pinpointing the center of concern and bringing the immediate pericope to a focused conclusion and exhortation. God, who destroyed most of our fathers for their sins, is nevertheless faithful, for he provides an escape from the temptation of such evil cravings as they had. The one who bears up under such temptation, will do so by

27 It is not the verbs , and in vv 8-10 which alone indicate a crescendo in punishment, but the full language of Israel's fate it is bad enough to fall (v 8), but the language of 'being destroyed by the angel of destruction' (v 10) is certainly more ominous and is held till the end For more on the 'angel of destruction' (possibly God or the Lord') see nn 38 and 39 below 28 Mk 10 32, Lk. 24 14, Acts 3 10, 20 19, 21 35, and esp 1 Pet 4 12 29 Whether was added for emphasis, as most argue (Metzger, A Textual Commentary, p. 560, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 451 ; G Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles [London Oxford University Press, 1946], 166 n 5 [contra von Soden], A Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians [ICC, Edinburgh & Clark, 2nd edn, 1914], 208, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 451) or was deleted to harmonize the phrase with 6 is at least arguable, despite the variation m its place ment The reading in A (v. 11), m fact, seems fully harmonized with 6 as a sort of introductory formula. On internal grounds, it is not improbable that might have occurred at this point as a follow-up of the five clauses in vv 1-4, forming something of a simple, but logical, inversion, /, / (See 1 Cor. 12 11 for the only other occurrence of this combination in the NT.) In such a case the argument would be that as God had given every blessing to all of them, he has given warning to all of us It is unfortunate that the editors of UBSGNT4 chose to upgrade the reading from C to in favor of omitting

COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil'

63

the power of the same God who has final ability to destroy utterly. The pericope 10.1-13 is about God. 3. Midrashic Argument At first glance, there does not appear to be a main OT text in view, and a look at the margin of NA 2 6 seems to confirm that judgment. As noted already, the only OT text to be quoted directly is Exod. 32.6 on idolatry (v. 7), which, according to Meeks, provides 'the midrashic basis for the antithesis we found to be central to the whole passage's logic (viz., they sat down to eat and drink [cf. vv. 1-5] and rose up to play [cf. vv. 6ll]'.30 Meeks's suggestion is indeed intriguing, and it is perhaps more than a curiosity that the quote comes exactly in the middle of the pericope.31 But I would propose the following: (1) the midrashic basis of the passage lies in Numbers 11, which is also the main text; (2) Exod. 32.6 is midrashically derived on the basis of a word tally with Numbers 11; (3) the main theme of our pericope is a denunciation of (those who crave evil things), found in the heading statement of v. 6; and (4) the sins that follow in vv. 7-10 (idolatry, harlotry, testing Christ and grumbling) illustrate the main theme and are midrashically derived by way of Exod. 32.6, not on the basis of alone (Meeks), if at all, but primarily on the basis of the phrase, for each of the underlying OT texts ties Israel's sin to eating and are interpreted here in light of . To demonstrate this proposal, I will look first at Numbers 11 as the main text of our pericope, including the role and function of Exod. 32.6; then I will examine the relationship of with eating and drinking in general, and with Exod. 32.6 in particular. Numbers 11 as Main Text The first clue that Numbers 11 is in view is the heading statement in v. 6 (the first statement of the inclusio) where the readers are warned not to be 'cravers of evil' ( ) like the children of Israel had 32 craved (). Here is a clear echo of the end and beginning 30. Meeks, 'And Rose up to Play', p. 69. 31. The pericope proper begins in v. 1 after with oi . From this point 90 words precede the Exod. 32.6 quote, and 91 (or 92) follow it. 32. This despite Fee's claim that, 'Paul makes no point here of anything from the Numbers passage' (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 453). Scholars may

64

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

of Numbers 11 (vv. 34 and 4 respectively) where the two words occur, each with the more general term, . 3 3 LXX Num. 11.4 and 3334 read as follows:
4 And the rabble among them craved a craving ( ), so that the children ol Israel sat down and cried and said, 'Why won't he feed us meat?' 33 While the meat was still in their teeth, even before they were done, the Lord was enraged against the people, and the Lord struck the people with an exceedingly great plague 34 And the name of that place was called 'Monuments of the Craving', () because there they buned the people who had the craving ()

Significantly, Num. 11.4 and 34 serve as a kind of inclusio of a narra tive on Israel's intense craving for meat. This of the people incurs the ('hot anger', note the wordplay) of Yahweh (vv. 10 and 33), who grants their wish only to destroy them by an exceedingly great plague ( ). 1 Cor. 10.6, by referring to Numbers 11, calls up this context
(Robertson and Plummer, A Critical Commentary, 203, J Hring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians [London Epworth Press, 1962], 90, C Perrot, 'Les exemples du desert [1 Cor 10 6-11]', NTS 29 [1983], 438) or may not (Conzelmann, First Epistle to the Corinthians, W F Orr and J A Walther, 1 Corinthians [AB, Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1976]) point to Num 11 as the background text here But none sees anything more than a passing reference to the text In contrast to all of this, Num 11, as a proper 'echo' of 1 Cor 10 6-10, meets six of the seven entena listed by R Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven Yale University Press, 1989), pp 29-32 availability of the text, volume of allusions (which I will demonstrate), recurrence of reference to Num 11 elsewhere (in Paul, other NT writings, and other contemporary authors, e g , Philo), thematic coherence with 1 Cor 10 1-13, historical plausibility that Paul could have used it m the proposed way and that attentive readers of the LXX could have understood it, and satisfaction that Num 11 illuminates the meaning of 1 Cor 10 1-13 in such a way as to explain the intertextual relation of texts (again, which I will demonstrate) 33 Although and occur m Ps 105(106) 14, and the latter in 77(78)29-30, m 1 Cor 10 6 comes directly from Num 11 34 The occurrence of the adjective phrase ('desirable land') in Ps 105(106) 24 is unrelated 34

COLLIER 'That we Might not Crave Evil'

65

of / and destruction in the desert, thus making a quite natural transition between 1 Cor. 10.5 and 6. (Verse 5 alludes to Num. 14.16 that God overthrew them in the desert, ?[ .) Numbers 11 and 14 are seen in the same confessional context of rebellious Israel incurring God's wrath in the desert. Though 1 Cor. 10.5 directly alludes to Num. 14.16, it is nonetheless a proper introduction to the same theme from Numbers 11 in the next verse. The second clue that Numbers 11 is the text in view is the specific wording of Exod. 32.6 quoted in 1 Cor. 10.7: . Indeed, this text was 'suggested' to our author by a word tally of two verbs that (again) stand at the beginning and end of LXX Numbers 11, (v. 4) and (v. 32): 4 And the rabble among them craved a craving, so that the children of Israel sat down () and cried and said, 'Why won't he feed us meat?...32 And the people rose up () all day and night and all the next day and gathered the quail... 35 This is the more striking since at Num. 11.4 the Masoretic tradition does not allow for such a link, reading *aem as Osn 'they turned' (from the verb mo). In contrast, LXX tradition interpreted the same Hebrew consonants as razn 'they sat down' (from the verb ner). As a result, LXX Numbers 11 says that the children of Israel 'sat down' (, 11.4) and 'rose up' (, 11.32) in pursuit of meat which they greatly craved ( ), providing the author of 1 Cor. 10.6-7 with a midrashic link to Exod. 32.6 as a kind of summary of Numbers 11. Exod. 32.6 is understood midrashically as Numbers 11 writ small.36 The third indication that Numbers 11 is the text in view is the way in which Exod. 32.6 unwraps the theme of Numbers 11 by pulling in related OT texts. For by the time the midrashic linkages are 35. ... . 36. Cf. the comment by Jacob Milgrom on Num. 11.32: 'Hebrew va-yakom is perhaps an ironic comment on its antonym, the proposed va-yeshvu (v. 4); that is Israel sat down to complain, but rose quickly to glut its lust' (The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990], p. 92).

66

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

finally completed, we will have gone full circle back to Num. 11.1. A major question about Exod. 32.6 has been why it appears at this point in the pericope (v. 7). The best answer is that, as the only quoted text in the list of sins, the phrase becomes midrashically definitive for the other sins.37 Thus, the particular ways the people craved included idolatry (v. 7), harlotry (v. 8), testing Christ (v. 9) and grumbling (v. 10). But merely to list the sins is not helpful since it does not show what relationship exists among them, or between them and Exod. 32.6. For each of the OT texts specifically mentions food and illustrates a matter relating directly to , viz., when Israel sat down to eat, they sinned, for they craved the food of their own choosing, rather than what God had provided: (1) in idolatry (v. 7), it was eating and drinking in an idol feast in an attempt to fulfill their own desires (Exod. 32.6); (2) in harlotry (v. 8), it was a desecration against God himself as 'the people blatantly practiced harlotry' ( ), primarily a forsaking of God in idolatry, since the people 'ate the [Moabite] sacrifices and worshiped their idols' ( , Num. 25.1-2); and (3) in testing (v. 9), it was the speaking against God ( ) that was at issue, for the people said, 'there is no food or water' ( , Num. 21.4-7). (4) The last sin to be listed, grumbling (v. 10), is more difficult to locate precisely. It is so commonplace in the wilderness traditions that 1 Cor. 10.10 is often assumed either to be making a generalized refer ence, or perhaps a reference to Numbers 14 (refusal to enter the land), or Numbers 16 (Korah's rebellion and subsequent uprising of the people). I would suggest, however, that Numbers 11 itself is the text of choice, since it provides four important items: (1) v. 1 begins, ; (2) vv. 33-34 describe the of ; 3 8 (3) all of this takes place in the context of rampant ; and this is (4) described as an insatiable (and deadly) craving for meat. Numbers 11 is, in fact, the only text that 37. Against Meeks, there is no reason to assume that the text was ever absent from the pericope. 38. An ample description of in 1 Cor. 10.10, the destroying angel of the OT (Exod. 12.23), (Josh. 3.10) or (Josh. 7.25). Cf. Wis. 18.25. Only 1 Cor. 10.10 has the noun form.

COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil'

39

67

satisfies all of these conditions set forth in 1 Cor. 10.10. When 1 Cor. 10.10 returns to Numbers 11, then, the entire context of Numbers 11 is called up. What follows next, in 10.11, is the quite fitting second statement of the inclusio: , , . The noun occurs only here in the undisputed letters of 40 Paul, and only once in LXX, at Wis. 16.6, in precisely the same form: ('they were provoked as a warning for a short time'). And perhaps it is more than coincidental 41 that the subject of Wis. 16.2-14 is Numbers ll. It appears that in 1 Cor. 10.6-11, the inclusio (vv. 6 and 11) wraps the whole statement into a coherent piece against the of Numbers 11. From the midrashically chosen Exod. 32.6 (on the basis of and ) to the subsequent texts from Numbers 25, 21 and 11 (all chosen on the basis of the concept in Exod. 32.6), each of the OT texts illustrates the point against . For the food which Israel craved (vv. 7-10) was a blatant rejection of the food offered by God (vv. 1-4). Eating and It was indicated above that on the basis of the phrase in Exod. 32.6, other 'food' texts could be 39. With reference to ('destroyer') in 1 Cor. 10.10: Num. 11 and 16 are the best candidates, although only the verb form () occurs in the LXX (19 times). Only one of these is in Numbers (4.18, not related). Six usages in LXX approximate 1 Cor. 10.10: for (Josh 7.25; Hag. 2.23 [22]; Jer. 33.22 [25.36]); for (Josh 3.10); for an angel (Exod. 12.23; and Wis. 18.25 [on Num. 16]). 40. The word occurs only two other times in the NT at Eph 6.4 (the instruction of children) and Tit. 3.10 (give warning to a factious man). 41. The two texts (Wis. 16.2-14 and 1 Cor. 10.1-13) are mirror images of each other. Wis. 16 uses Num. 11 to extol the blessing and kindness of God (even ascribing to the animals rather than to God! v. 5); appears to be used in a neutral sense ('desire', but not 'evil desire'); and the sins of the Israelites are ameliorated for the purpose of contrast with the sins of the terrible Egyptians (Exodus 8 and 10). In the same way Wis. 16.6 stresses that Israel was provoked only shortly as a warning to them (the Israelites at that time); 1 Cor. 10.11 makes it clear that the warning is of eternal significance for us (hearers of this midrash)! Is 1 Cor. 10.1-13 consciously being played off Wis. 16 (or at least, such a tradition)?

68

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 ( 1994)

midrashically sought out to illustrate the phrase from Numbers 11. The purpose of such midrashic linkages would be to excoriate . At this point, it will be helpful to explore this interest in excoriating and in linking it with food and drink in general, and with Exod. 32.6 in particular. For such an interest is not unique to 1 Corinthians 10, but is found also at least in Philo and Rabbinic literature. Philo, for example, expounding on the tenth commandment ( ), focuses on in Numbers 11 and interprets the whole chapter as aimed against greed, gluttony and wanton self indul gence. In the process, he greatly exaggerates the biblical imagery of gathering the quail: With both hands they pulled in the creatures andfilledtheir laps with them, then put them away in their tents, and, since excessive avidity knows no bounds, went out to catch others, and after dressing them in any way they could devoured them greedily, doomed in their senselessness to be destroyed by the surfeit42 For Philo, gluttony is a common result of . The following quote is even more poignant: when it [] takes hold of the region of the belly, it produces gourmands, insatiable, debauched, eagerly pursuing a loose and dissolute life, delighting in wine bibbing and gluttonous feeding, base slaves to strong drink and fish and dainty cates, sneaking like greedy little dogs round banqueting halls and tables, all this finally resulting in an unhappy and accursed life which is more painful than any death.43 These quotes are characteristic of Philo's vitriolic expatiations on , which combine Platonic, Stoic and Jewish vocabulary and argumentation. 4 4 But for Philo, is not a neutral passion. 45

42 Spec Leg 4 129 43. Spec. Leg. 4.91 See his entire argument, 4 79-131 In his use of , Philo 'follows the Stoic idea which conceives of the desire of what we have not got as a spiritual disease ' (F Colson, Philo [LCL, 8, Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press, 1939], ) See also Migr Abr pp 155, 157, and Vit Mos 1 209 44 'In constant warnings and admonitions Philo summons us to combat [the four passions], combining Stoic moralism and the strictest Jewish legalism, and breaking forth in powerful declamations * (F. Buchsel, ', ', TDNT,lll,p 170) 45 And he does define it as a passion* Spec Leg 4 80

COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil'

69

Indeed he says, 'So great and transcendent an evil is that it should more correctly be called, "the fountain of all evils'" 4 6 A similar condemnation of 'evil craving' (van 2), as it is con-nected to eating and drinking, appears in Midrash Tanhuma 4 7 craving says, "Let us eat and drink and do all that we crave to do" (mrr 2 bD iron *t TDT)' This in itself is an interesting parallel to 1 Cor 10 6-7 However, the rabbis do not appear to expound upon the evil nature of ma (hithpael = 'desire', 'lust', 'craving', LXX = ) m the same manner that Philo expounds on (m Platonic and Stoic categories) Even so, they do not hesitate to exploit the easy interchange of meaning between the concepts of craving and of eating and drinking For example, Num R 15 24 4 8 explains that the opening phrase of Num 114 ('the mixed multitude had a great craving') referred to the seventy elders themselves In Num 11 16 the seventy elders received a portion of Moses' spint Earlier m Exod 24 9-11 they ascended Mount Sinai with Moses, saw God, and then ate and drank The Midrash then asks, 'To what may this [eating and drinking in God's presence] be compared 9 To the case of a servant attending upon his master while holding a piece of bread in his hand and biting from it ' That is to say, the mt* ('craving') of Num 11 4 is linked to 'eating and drinking' in Exod 24 9-11 on the basis that both texts speak of food, as well as of the seventy elders In other texts, the verb aer ('to sit' or 'dwell') is used as shorthand for m, even where TIR does not occur And this practice is apparently based
46 Spec Leg 4 84 For Philo's harangue against in terms of food and drink, see Spec Leg 4 79-134 For other texts on this, see Wis 19 11, 16 2, Sir 23 5-6, and 4 Mace 1 34, 3 6-18, 5 14-24 In both Greek philosophy and Jewish literature refers generally to 'the direct impulse towards food, sexual satisfaction, etc , and also desire in general' (Buchsel, ', ', TDNT, III, 169) Greek philosophy assessed it ethically in terms of failure to live according to reason, whereas Jewish literature assesses it morally and religiously as sin against God 47 Midr Tanh 11 1 (on Gen 44 18), quoted from Midrash Tanhuma (trans J Townsend, Hoboken, NJ Ktav, 1989), 271 For the Hebrew text, see S Buber, Midrasch Tanhuma (2 vols , Wilna, 1885, repr Jerusalem, 1964) This is a fascinating text which depicts a person as having two drives the evil drive says 'Let's party', while the good drive says, 'No, let's study Torah' 48 Cited from Midrash Rabbah on Numbers (trans J J Slotki, New York The Soncino Press, 3rd edn, 1983), VI, 669

70

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

49

on Exod. 32.6. For example, Num. R. 9.24 blames the building of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11.1-8) on eating and drinking at a drunken party: And the whole earth was of one language... And it came to pass, as they dwelt () there; yeshibah indicates nought but eating and drinking; for it says, (in Exod. 32.6) And the people sat down (aan) to eat and to drink. That was the cause; for it says, And they said: Come, let us build us a city, and a tower. So according to this interpreter, the people of the earth had a drunken party at which they concocted the notion of the tower. And this insight was all based on a midrashic linking of the verb ntD" in two unrelated texts (i.e., gezerah shawah). 50 Several examples could be cited for this, but at least one example in the midrashim links Exod. 32.6 with Num. 25.1-5 in the same way that 1 Cor. 10.7-8 links the same two texts. In what I will cite, three different OT texts are linked on the word at\ which is used as a code word for eating and drinking: When they sat down <ncn> to eat <Gen. 37.25>, they sold their brother Joseph. So also in Shittim: And [the daughters of Moab] invited the people to sacrifice to their Gods (Num. 25.2). So also the making of the golden calf was on account of wine: And the people sat down OETI> to eat and drink (Exod. 32.6).51 For our purposes it is quite instructive to note that the word a\ on which all of these texts are linked, is specifically stated in the first and last quotes, but does not appear in the second quote (from Num. 25.2). However, the reader is expected to know the Scripture, that Num. 25.1 begins: ntjcn btoyr n^n. So on the basis of gezerah shawah, on the word acr, these otherwise unrelated texts are linked for purposes of illustrating the main point, that 'Wherever you find wine, you find a downfall'. This, in fact, is quite common methodology, that the point of contact between the various texts may not be the part quoted in the interpretation. 49. Cited from Midrash Rabbah on Numbers (trans. J.J. Slotki; New York: The Soncino Press, 3rd edn, 1983), V, p. 283. 50. For example, Piska 43 and 318 in Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (trans. R. Hammer; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 89-90, and 325-26; see also Exod. R. 41.7. 51. Midrash Tanhuma 2.21 on Gen. 9.18ff., adapted from Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma, p. 54. Townsend does not make a note of Gen. 37.25, or reflect that the phrase, 'when they sat down to eat' is a direct quote. Also, items in <> brackets were added by me for clarification.

COLLIER "That we Might not Crave Evil'

71

These parallels from Philo and the rabbis are highly suggestive for our text in 1 Corinthians 10. For even though they come from a variety of dates and philosophic backgrounds, it is precisely that variety that lends strength to the notion that the relationship of /m to food and drink in general, and to Exod. 32.6 in particular, on midrashic grounds, 52 would not have been unusual at the time of Paul. Nor would it have been unusual to link the texts on a matter not specifically quoted in the written interpretations: the listed sins in 1 Cor. 10.7-10 need not have specified 'food and drink' as the common element among them for that to have been the common element. And in the case of Philo, the similarity with 1 Corinthians 10 is especially pronounced. For on the one hand, Philo identifies with the 'fountain of all evils' ( ); on the other hand, he associates the water from the rock with the fountain () of God's Wisdom: 'For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God... 53 the fountain which He drew out from His own wisdom'. This topos of two fountains (or sources for behavior) seems also to be reflected in 1 Corinthians 10: God gave them the spiritual, ever-present rock ( , vv. 1-4), and yet Our fathers' rejected it because of , the source of their sins (vv. 6-10). It is in this light that of 1 Cor. 10.6 is to be understood. It is not merely one of the listed sins, but the source of sin to be explicated. Indeed, vv. 7-10 amount to a 'spelling out' of v. 6.54 To summarize, it is particularly interesting to notice the flow of the midrashic argument in 1 Cor. 10.1-11. Verses 1-5 give a confessional summary of God's blessings in the wilderness (in the tradition of

52. That is to say, Philo and the Rabbis certainly would not have derived their interpretations or methods from Paul! The fact that all of these sources reflect a similar understanding of such texts and methods (despite the differences that may exist) attests to their existence in Jewish interpretation at the time of Paul. 53. Leg. All. 2.86-87. See also Somn. 2.221-22, 270-71 and Ebr. 112-13. 54. Heikki Risnen (Jesus, Paul and Torah [JSNTSup, 43; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], p. 109) is correct to dispute the notion that is used in this text in a 'nomistic' sense (viz., having 'a false zeal for fulfilling [the Law]', so R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament [trans. K. Grobel; New York: Scribner, 1951], I, p. 248). Even so, Risnen incorrectly dismisses S. Lyonnet's argument that in this text is 'le pch par excellence' ("Tu ne convoiteras pas" [Rom. VII 7]', in Neotestamentica et Patristica [Festschrift O. Cullmann; NovTSup, 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962], p. 160).

72

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994)

Pss. 7S7106)55 and ends with God's displeasure from Num. 14.16, 'God scattered them in the desert'. This in turn calls up one such text where God scattered them in the desert, Numbers 11. Thus, in 1 Cor. 10.611itself a well defined block by means of an inclusio and a chiastic arrangement of tripletsNumbers 11 becomes the main text of exposi tion, not only being strongly alluded to in both vv. 6 and 10, but also being midrashically unfolded by Exod. 32.6 which is directly quoted. Exod. 32.6 is a secondary text, itself midrashically derived from Numbers 11 by way of gezerah shawah on and . By way of the phrase, , Exod. 32.6 is used to open up the phrase of Numbers 11 by walking backwards through the book of Numbers to nfood texts in which God had scattered the people in the desert. Three texts are selected: Num. 25.1 (harlotry), 21.4-7 (testing) and 11.1 (grumbling). Thus, the exegesis ends with the first verse of the main text. Each of the examples cited in the exegesis receives increasingly harsher punishment, until the people are destroyed by (the Lord), apparently the fate of those who drink from rather than from the everpresent rock (Christ). Finally, in the closing statement of the inclusio (v. 11), all of this is said to be instruction of eternal import. What is striking about this is that, taken together with vv. 12-13, the entire pericope can easily stand on its own as a focused statement against falling prey to the temptation of selfish craving, with a con cluding exhortation centered in the faithfulness of God: as God has destroyed, he can also deliver. In view of this, it is natural to speculate that the pericope may have originally been independent of its present context, perhaps a Christian or pre-Christian homily of some sort.56 55 Both Pss 78 and 106 confessionally retell the story of God's gracious acts m the face of Israel's unfaithfulness Still the Psalms develop their themes in different ways The pre-exihc Ps 78 (cf. vv 67-72) pulsates around the theme 'they forgot, they sinned, they rebelled, they tested' etc , despite the blessings of God The psalm is freeflowing:there are two separate mentions each of the Red Sea incident (vv 13 and 54) and water from the rock (vv. 15-16 and 20); Exod. 16 and Num 11 are conflated (vv. 17-39); and the ten plagues are reordered with mention of only seven of them The exilic Ps 106 (cf 4-5,47), on the other hand, is a more straightforward retelling of seven specific events and one general summary, and very likely was influenced by Ps 78 (cf. 14) Even so, Ps 106 does not conflate texts nor take events out of sequence 1 Cor 10 1-13 reflects the confessional tradition of these Psalms more than their specific features 56. See Ellis, 'Traditions', p. 491, who notes that 'the expository character is

COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil'

73

Indeed, the removal of all necessarily Christian elements from this pericope leaves an interesting 4 + 4 balanced pericope,57 with all of the essential elements intact Of course, such a pre-Christian 'homily' cannot be proved to have existed. But this does show that there is nothing essentially Christian about the structure or argument of the passage 58
apparent' in both the explanation of the quotation and the summary of the Exodus events One is tempted, however, to go further and suggest that the very structure of this text is homiletic in nature Joseph Heinemann ('The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim A Form Critical Study', in J Heinemann and D Noy [eds ], Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22, Jerusalem Magnes, 1971]), speaking of Tannaitic homilies among the rabbis, noted that there are many public sermons about which 'we do not know very much' But there is 'one pattern which can be clearly recognized as a form created for and used m the live sermon' the proem 'Instead of starting from the first verse of the pericope and expounding it, [the proem-form] begins invariably with a verse taken from elsewhere, mostly from the Hagiographa, from this "remote" verse the preacher proceeds to evolve a chain of expositions and interpretations until, at the very end of the proem, he arrives at the first verse of the pericope with which he concludes' (see esp pp 101, 103) After some discussion, Heinemann examines the proem of R Eleazar b Azanah on Eccl 12 11 (which he dates at the end of the first century) which concludes with an exhortation (pp 114-16) There are obvious similarities between what Heinemann describes and 1 Cor 10 113, at least in broad terms Even so, there are also differences m detail It would simply be too much to claim that 1 Cor 10 1-13 is an early proem On the other hand, it is not too much to suggest (assuming Heinemann is correct in his own assessments) that 1 Cor 10 1-13 exhibits traits of later established homiletic forms Perhaps it originated as an independent homily of some kind on Num 11 57 Verses 1-11 cloud, sea, food and drink (1-4), and idolatry, harlotry, testing, and grumbling (7-10), all centered about It would seem best to regard vv 2 (baptism into Moses), 4c, 9 (), and 1 lb as at least Christian, and la, 3 and 5 (/), and 12-13 as necessarily Pauline 58 This of course is a very difficult area of study Several have warned against using the category 'homily', since such terms may be referring to genres of literature 'that are possibly non-existent or highly artificial' ( Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity [NovTSup, 38, Leiden Brill, 1974], 26, to give but one example) Surely, the caution is justified Nevertheless Donfhed and others go too far in altogether disallowing the use of terms like 'homily', 'midrash homily', and the like Against this point of view, and aside from the question of other forms, (1) given the fluid state of the proem-form in the Tannaitic period (as per Hememann), and (2) given our ability to trace it from its fluid 'form' and secondary role to its highly rigid and stylized form and place of prominence m rabbinic literature (again, as per Hememann, 'The Proem', 122), it would seem that caution should also be practiced by those who would too strictly apply later forms to earlier texts

74

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994) Conclusion

The present study suggests that 10.1-13 is a self-contained midrash on in Numbers 11 and is not a piece revised in the direction of idolatry per se (as argued by Meeks)although it certainly speaks against idolatry. As such, it is possible, though unproven, that it may have been an independent 'homily' of some sort prior to its inclusion in the present letter. This leaves open the provocative question about its relation to the larger context of chs. 8-10. Only a word can be offered here, but it appears that 10.1-13 is significant for the larger context, more so than its relation ship with 10.14-22 and the idolatry theme might indicate. For seen in its broader context, 1 Cor. 10.1-13 is a focused argument against a Corinthian craving () for the wrong kind of 'food'. To insist on one's right to eat idol meat is to insist on eating from the fountain of , rather than from Christ, the rock. The desire to eat and drink in an idol's temple grows out of a larger problem: a selfish craving which proceeds without concern for the will of God or for others. Such egocentric insistence was long ago shown to be odious to God, who will recoil against such behavior. But God can provide deliverance even from that. Whether or not 10.1-13 needs the larger context, it appears that the larger context needs 10.1-13: a small but pointed midrash on craving evil.59 Indeed, (1) if a pericope can be demonstrated to have features often found m known homilies, even of a later date, (2) if other contextual clues indicate a homiletic origin for the pericope (such as a claim to have been a synagogue address), (3) if the pericope can be demonstrated to be at least in some sense a self-contained unit, and (4) if other indications (of whatever nature) lend support to the idea, then (5) there should be no objection to a cautious and responsible proposal that the given text may have been an early 'homily' or 'midrash/homily' For homily form in 1 Cor 2 6-16, see W Weulner, 'Haggadic Homily Genre in 1 Cor 1-3', JBL 89 (1970), pp 199204; E E Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity- New Testament Essays (WUNT, 18, Tubingen Mohr, 1978), pp 147-72 and 213-20, and V Branick, 'Source and Redaction Analysis of 1 Corinthians 1-3', JBL 101 2 (1982), pp 251-69 However, all of these studies are vulnerable to the charge of over statement, or even misstatement, with respect to the nature of early rabbinic homilies Lawrence Wills ('Form of the Sermon') aware of this debate, discusses the matter of NT homilies from a possible background of Hellenistic rhetorical schools 59. I am indebted to professors Donald A Hagner, Dennis R MacDonald, James A Sanders, Lou H. Silberman, Carl Holladay and the late Robert R Guehch for assistance and encouragement on this project

COLLIER That we Might not Crave Evil'

75

ABSTRACT The separate studies of Wayne Meeks and Lawrence Wills have brought the form, structure and function of 1 Cor. 10.1-13 to the forefront of interest on this text and provide an excellent base for re-examination. Meeks's view that the pericope is an exposition of Exod. 32.6 is challenged and modified. The pericope is found here to be a midrashic exposition of Num. 11 in the tradition of Pss. 78 and 106, using Exod. 32.6 as an exegetical device to 'open up' Num. 11. Furthermore, in its context, 10.1-13 is a focused argument against Corinthian wilfulness (craving) to participate in idolatrous practices, even at the expense of others. The pericope functions in context according to its central structure and argument and is not somehow bent unnaturally into service. Even so, it is a tightly argued, self-contained unit, and may have been originally pre-1 Corinthian or even pre-Christian.

University Microfilms International reproduces this publication in microform: microfiche and 16mm or 35mm film. For information about this publication or any of the more than 13,000 titles we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response: 800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan, Alaska and Hawaii: 313-761-4700.
Z Please send information about these titles

This publication is available in microform.

Name Company/Institution Address City State Phone L

University Microfilms International

^,
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.