Thiselton Review Ist Corinthians

5/21/2018 Thiselton Review Ist Corinthians

1/4

This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription 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 HorrellUniversity of Exeter

Exeter, UK

While there are a number of recent commentaries on 1 Corinthians, both brief anddetailed, it has been a long time since there has been a detailed commentary in English onthe 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, thevolume opens with a fifty-two-page introduction dealing in turn with Roman Corinth inthe time of Paul, the Christian community in Corinth, the occasion of the epistle, and itsargument and rhetoric. In the commentary proper, there is an introduction to each majorsection 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 textualvariations, where appropriate (and in a smaller typeface), along with a considerablenumber of excursuses on points of particular significance or debate (also marked outclearly by the use of a different font). There are also a number of representative sectionsdealing with the posthistory, influence (Wirkungsgeschichte),and reception of variousportions 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 arenoteworthy. First, Thiselton suggests that Corinthian culture has much in common withthe social constructivism, competitive pragmatism, and radical pluralism whichcharacterizes so-called postmodernity as a popular mood (14; cf. 12-17, 40-41). ThusPauls challenging appeal to the Corinthians has a surprising amount of direct relevance


2/4


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 psychologicalinsecurity generated by status inconsistency, radical pluralism, and a situation where

truth lost its anchorage in the extralinguistic world and became a matter of socialconstruction or local perception (40, 42) is to propose a massive thesis about theancient world, one that may read (post)modern attitudes and anxieties into the first-century context without sufficiently doing justice to the profound historical and culturaldistance between then and now. Indeed, overall I missed from the commentary muchsense of cultural (and even theological?) distance between Paul and his contemporaryinterpreters.

A second interpretative approach worthy of attention is Thiseltons use of speech-acttheory (following J. L. Austin, J. R. Searle, and N. Wolterstorff) to interpret some of thekinds of statements Paul makes in the epistle not as mere descriptions or claims to power

but as performative utterances, the performance of an act insaying 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 byBruce Winter, Andrew Clarke, and John Chow, as well as the classic contributions ofGerd Theissen and Wayne Meeks, Thiselton places considerable weight on thesociohistorical 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 MargaretMitchell and others. These two areas of recent research have a major impact on theinterpretation presented. However, Thiselton is keen to stress that social historyshould 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 andseeks to interpret it in the light of the theological tradition, from the patristic periodonwards (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 atCorinth (NTS24 [1978]: 510-26) will be interested to discover that the author broadlyreaffirms his conclusions in that article, while wishing now to qualify them by combiningthe theological perspective with the impact of cultural attitudes derived from secular ornon-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 realizedeschatology evident in 4:8 (see 358).

On specific exegetical matters there are, of course, almost endless possibilities fordiscussion, and readers will find their own particular points of disagreement. Forexample, I was unconvinced by Thiseltons arguments against the take freedominterpretation of 7:21 (Thiselton argues that Paul urges slaves not to focus on distractionssuch as the hope for freedom but to make positive use of the present [544] to pursue


3/4


their divine calling). I was also unconvinced by the suggestion that the speaking Paulprohibits in 14:34-35 (taken as authentic) is specifically the activity of sifting orweighing 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 contextuallyspecific issue (or why such a restriction should apply to women only), especially giventhe 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 livingpersons 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 thevicarious baptism view seems to me too much influenced by the conviction that Paulcould not have countenanced any unorthodox doctrine regarding baptism.

On most points of significance, however, Thiselton takes pains to enumerate the fullrange of scholarly positions and is clear in arguing for a particular solution. Whatever

ones disagreements on specific points, the comprehensiveness and clarity of theexegetical discussion is highly valuable. An interest in the texts contemporarysignificance is also apparent (e.g., 896-97 n. 246), though discussions on matters ofcurrent 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 aresome minor gaps in the exegetical discussions. For example, the significance of theabsence of ho4sin 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 omissionsoccur 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 isparticularly characterized by its extensive engagement with secondary literature. Onecould, of course, point to articles and essays that might have been cited; such omissionsare inevitable and unsurprising in this age of mass publishing, though Peter TomsonsPaul and the Jewish Law(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), much of which deals with1 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 attemptto accept points from Meeks, Theissen, Winter, and others, on the one hand, and fromJustin Meggitt, on the other [25, 183]). More surprising is an occasional tendency to citeworks but not on the points where their arguments might be crucial. For example, GerdLdemanns 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 muchearlier than the conventional dating and that the Acts 18 account conflates the details oftwo visits to Corinth pass unnoticed. Thiselton simply affirms that most writers acceptthe Acts account of an eighteen-month ministry in Corinth, generally dated between 50and 51 CE(28-29). Duane Litfins book on 1 Cor 1-4 is mentioned a number of times, butnot Litfins critique of the idea that a realized eschatology on the part of the Corinthiansis indicated in 4:8.


4/4


The commentary contains few typographical errors. There are occasional lapses ofsyntax 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 footnotereference is one out across a lengthy section (819-48). But on the whole the commentaryis well presented, with point sizes and typefaces helpfully used to distinguish differenttypes of material.

Overall, it would be churlish to focus on the gaps, when this commentary engageswith so extensive a range of secondary literature in pursuing its detailed and carefulexegesis. 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 theextensive engagement with recent scholarship is always necessary or helpful may bedebatable; 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 seriesis intended for students who want something less technical than a full-scale criticalcommentary (xvhow times have changed since Lietzmanns classic ninety-six pageson 1 Corinthians!). But Thiselton has clearly made it his intention to be as comprehensiveas possible (xvi). Students and scholars will indeed be grateful for this compendium ofcontemporary scholarship and will use it as a first port of call (along with Schrage) whenfinding their way into some particular topic in 1 Corinthians research. I am less surewhether those who are engaged in the ministry of the Word of God, whom the series issupremely aimed to serve (xv), will want to wade through so much discussion of therange of scholarly proposals to read an exegesis of the text.

Documents

Thiselton Review Ist Corinthians