This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature.

For more information on obtaining a

subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
RBL 9/2002

Thiselton, Anthony C.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on
the Greek Text
The New International Greek Commentary
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. xxxiii + 1446,
Cloth, $75.00, ISBN 0802824498.
David G Horrell
University of Exeter
Exeter, UK

While there are a number of recent commentaries on 1 Corinthians, both brief and
detailed, it has been a long time since there has been a detailed commentary in English on
the Greek text of the epistle, and students and scholars will be grateful for Anthony
Thiseltons massive and detailed work. After the prefaces and general bibliography, the
volume opens with a fifty-two-page introduction dealing in turn with Roman Corinth in
the time of Paul, the Christian community in Corinth, the occasion of the epistle, and its
argument and rhetoric. In the commentary proper, there is an introduction to each major
section of the text, followed by Thiseltons own translation of the Greek, a bibliography,
then a verse-by-verse commentary. Here there are short sections on significant textual
variations, where appropriate (and in a smaller typeface), along with a considerable
number of excursuses on points of particular significance or debate (also marked out
clearly by the use of a different font). There are also a number of representative sections
dealing with the posthistory, influence (Wirkungsgeschichte), and reception of various
portions of the letter, which serve to illustrate how the text was taken up in the patristic,
medieval, Reformation, and modern periods. Finally, there are extensive indexes.
A number of features of the general approach adopted in the commentary are
noteworthy. First, Thiselton suggests that Corinthian culture has much in common with
the social constructivism, competitive pragmatism, and radical pluralism which
characterizes so-called postmodernity as a popular mood (14; cf. 12-17, 40-41). Thus
Pauls challenging appeal to the Corinthians has a surprising amount of direct relevance
This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
today. This proposed parallel is interesting and suggestive, especially for preachers,
though I am not sure it can be so confidently drawn. To talk about psychological
insecurity generated by status inconsistency, radical pluralism, and a situation where
truth lost its anchorage in the extralinguistic world and became a matter of social
construction or local perception (40, 42) is to propose a massive thesis about the
ancient world, one that may read (post)modern attitudes and anxieties into the first-
century context without sufficiently doing justice to the profound historical and cultural
distance between then and now. Indeed, overall I missed from the commentary much
sense of cultural (and even theological?) distance between Paul and his contemporary
interpreters.
A second interpretative approach worthy of attention is Thiseltons use of speech-act
theory (following J. L. Austin, J. R. Searle, and N. Wolterstorff) to interpret some of the
kinds of statements Paul makes in the epistle not as mere descriptions or claims to power
but as performative utterances, the performance of an act in saying something (J. L.
Austin, cited on p. 112; cf., e.g., 51-52, 115, 146, 455, 1017).
Thirdly, summarizing insights from a wide range of recent studies, including those by
Bruce Winter, Andrew Clarke, and John Chow, as well as the classic contributions of
Gerd Theissen and Wayne Meeks, Thiselton places considerable weight on the
sociohistorical background as a key to understanding the issues at stake in 1 Corinthians.
Also influential in the commentary are the rhetorical analyses of the epistle by Margaret
Mitchell and others. These two areas of recent research have a major impact on the
interpretation presented. However, Thiselton is keen to stress that social history
should not lead to an unintended marginalization of Pauls central theological concerns
(403). And indeed, this is a commentary that takes Pauls text seriously as theology and
seeks to interpret it in the light of the theological tradition, from the patristic period
onwards (see, e.g., 187, 1169-78; Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and others are often cited).
Readers who are aware of Thiseltons well-known article on Realized Eschatology at
Corinth (NTS 24 [1978]: 510-26) will be interested to discover that the author broadly
reaffirms his conclusions in that article, while wishing now to qualify them by combining
the theological perspective with the impact of cultural attitudes derived from secular or
non-Christian Corinth as a city (40). A quote from C. K. Barretts commentary (1968;
2d ed., 1971) on 1 Corinthians is still deemed apposite to summarize the realized
eschatology evident in 4:8 (see 358).
On specific exegetical matters there are, of course, almost endless possibilities for
discussion, and readers will find their own particular points of disagreement. For
example, I was unconvinced by Thiseltons arguments against the take freedom
interpretation of 7:21 (Thiselton argues that Paul urges slaves not to focus on distractions
such as the hope for freedom but to make positive use of the present [544] to pursue
This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
their divine calling). I was also unconvinced by the suggestion that the speaking Paul
prohibits in 14:34-35 (taken as authentic) is specifically the activity of sifting or
weighing the words of prophets, especially by asking probing questions about the
prophets theology (1158). I find it hard to see the text as indicating such a contextually
specific issue (or why such a restriction should apply to women only), especially given
the insistence that this rule is for all the churches (14:33). On the enigmatic 15:29,
Thiselton argues for the view that the baptism in view is that undertaken by living
persons who decide to be baptized in order to be united, at the resurrection of the dead,
with their believing relatives who have already died (1248). The rejection of the
vicarious baptism view seems to me too much influenced by the conviction that Paul
could not have countenanced any unorthodox doctrine regarding baptism.
On most points of significance, however, Thiselton takes pains to enumerate the full
range of scholarly positions and is clear in arguing for a particular solution. Whatever
ones disagreements on specific points, the comprehensiveness and clarity of the
exegetical discussion is highly valuable. An interest in the texts contemporary
significance is also apparent (e.g., 896-97 n. 246), though discussions on matters of
current debate are sometimes somewhat oblique (e.g., on 6:9-11 and homosexuality
[453]; on slavery [565]).
Despite the size of the commentary and the attempt to be definitive (xvi), there are
some minor gaps in the exegetical discussions. For example, the significance of the
absence of ho4s in the final item in the series in 9:20-22 (to the weak I became weak)
passes without notice, despite its mention by other commentators. That such omissions
occur in a work of such size perhaps reflects the fact that so much of the text is taken up
with quoting and discussing the scholarly literature. Indeed, the commentary is
particularly characterized by its extensive engagement with secondary literature. One
could, of course, point to articles and essays that might have been cited; such omissions
are inevitable and unsurprising in this age of mass publishing, though Peter Tomsons
Paul and the Jewish Law (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), much of which deals with
1 Corinthians, is a surprising gap. In dealing with the range of contemporary scholarship,
Thiselton tends to seek a mediating position that learns from all sides (e.g., in his attempt
to accept points from Meeks, Theissen, Winter, and others, on the one hand, and from
Justin Meggitt, on the other [25, 183]). More surprising is an occasional tendency to cite
works but not on the points where their arguments might be crucial. For example, Gerd
Ldemanns work on Pauline chronology is cited (23, 29), yet his controversial
arguments that Pauls arrival in Corinth (and the edict of Claudius) should be dated much
earlier than the conventional dating and that the Acts 18 account conflates the details of
two visits to Corinth pass unnoticed. Thiselton simply affirms that most writers accept
the Acts account of an eighteen-month ministry in Corinth, generally dated between 50
and 51 CE (28-29). Duane Litfins book on 1 Cor 1-4 is mentioned a number of times, but
not Litfins critique of the idea that a realized eschatology on the part of the Corinthians
is indicated in 4:8.
This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
The commentary contains few typographical errors. There are occasional lapses of
syntax and the like that a careful edit might have picked up (e.g., 24, 69 n. 56, 113, 148,
553, 558, 695, 820, 840 n. 226). Due to an unfortunate repetition of a footnote (819 nn.
92-93), the correspondence between the note reference in the main text and the footnote
reference is one out across a lengthy section (819-48). But on the whole the commentary
is well presented, with point sizes and typefaces helpfully used to distinguish different
types of material.
Overall, it would be churlish to focus on the gaps, when this commentary engages
with so extensive a range of secondary literature in pursuing its detailed and careful
exegesis. References to, and discussion of, relevant primary sources are more limited,
except in relation to those that form part of the early posthistory of the text. Whether the
extensive engagement with recent scholarship is always necessary or helpful may be
debatable; it depends, of course, on what one wants the commentary for. Those who use
this 1500-page volume may perhaps smile at the general editors comment that the series
is intended for students who want something less technical than a full-scale critical
commentary (xvhow times have changed since Lietzmanns classic ninety-six pages
on 1 Corinthians!). But Thiselton has clearly made it his intention to be as comprehensive
as possible (xvi). Students and scholars will indeed be grateful for this compendium of
contemporary scholarship and will use it as a first port of call (along with Schrage) when
finding their way into some particular topic in 1 Corinthians research. I am less sure
whether those who are engaged in the ministry of the Word of God, whom the series is
supremely aimed to serve (xv), will want to wade through so much discussion of the
range of scholarly proposals to read an exegesis of the text.