The Gnostic and Hellenistic Backgrounds of Sophia in 1 Corinthians 1-4

Perichoresis Volume 17. Single Author Supplement 2 (2019): 3-15 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2019-0032 THE GNOSTIC AND HELLENISTIC BACKGROUNDS OF SOPHIA IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1-4 CORIN MIHĂILĂ * Emanuel University ABSTRACT. First Corinthians 1-4 discusses the concept of sophia or wisdom as a central theme. It seems to be both a worldly standard by which the Corinthians judged their teachers and a concept which Paul redefines in light of the cross. Over the last century, two major proposals have been put forth as an explanation for the background of sophia: Gnosticism and Hellenistic Jewish wisdom. Those who advance the hypothesis of Gnosticism behind the concept, correctly identify in these chapters words and terminology that are commonly associated with Gnosti- cism. However, the literary context of 1 Corinthians 1-4, as determinative of meaning for these words, suggests different meanings associated with the cross. Moreover, claiming Gnostic influence on the writing of 1 Corinthians is guilty of anachronism. The Hellenistic Jewish wisdom proposal is likewise based on alleged linguistic and conceptual parallelism with Philonic type wisdom. It is argued, among other things, that the Corinthians were taught such wisdom by Apollos. This argument, however cannot be sustained, when we look at Apollos’ ministry in light of the information we have in the New Testament. As a result, both Gnosticism and Hel- lenistic Jewish wisdom are not viable hypothesis for the background of sophia. KEY WORDS: Sophia, Corinthians, Gnosticism, Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, Apollos, Paul Introduction The first epistle to the Corinthians is well known to provide answers and solutions to some issues that were present in the Corinthian church. The first of these is the issue of dissensions. A quick perusal of the first four chapters will show that the issue of dissensions is the result of different groups within the church esteeming differently the ones ministering to them. Central to this estimation is the topic of sophia or ‘wisdom’, as can be seen from the number of times this term occurs in these beginning chapters of the letter. Paul responds to this value of wisdom that the Corinthians seem to have valued in the estimation of their teachers. * CORIN MIHĂILĂ (PhD 2006, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) teaches New Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutics at Emanuel University of Oradea. Email: [email protected]. © EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019) 4 CORIN MIHĂILĂ This article will seek to probe into the question of the background behind the concept of wisdom that the Corinthians so highly esteemed and that caused them to have preferences among teachers. More specifically, this article will evaluate the Gnostic and Hellenistic Jewish wisdom proposals for the background of sophia. The evidence will show that neither of these pro- posed backgrounds is behind the term and concept of sophia that Paul re- pudiates in his argument against dissensions. In this article, we will limit our purpose to dismantling and disproving such proposals, another study hav- ing to be conducted in order to propose a more probable background for the concept of sophia. Gnosticism The claim that the Corinthians held to a Gnostic belief is a by-product of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule as represented particularly by Bultmann and the discoveries of the Nag Hammadi texts in the late 1940s (Dunn 1995:34). The works of two scholars in particular have shaped subsequent debate over the origins of Gnosticism and its influence especially in Corinth: Ulrich Wilckens and Walter Schmithals. Wilckens’ position is argued in his monograph Weisheit und Torheit, where the discussion revolves around the development of the Gnostic Sophia myth. This myth was the main tenet of Valentinian Gnosticism, but Wilckens argues that it had roots that predate Christianity (e.g., 1 Enoch 42). He sees this myth as underlying Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 2:6- 16. This text, according to Wilckens, presents the idea of the descent of the heavenly Redeemer through the realms of the archontes who gives spiritual wisdom to God’s people. The most provocative aspect of his argument is that in this text Paul seeks to critique the Corinthians’ Gnostic wisdom by using their terminology, but ironically, in exposing his own view he actually puts forth the Corinthians’ own position with which he essentially agrees (Wilckens 1959: 216f). In other words, Paul got too carried away with his Gnostic parody to the point of sounding Gnostic himself, and for good rea- sons, argues Wilckens: Paul actually shared many ideas with the Gnostics. Schmithals brought the Gnostic thesis to its full expression in his disser- tation Die Gnosis in Corinth, written under Bultmann. Like Wilckens, Schmithals sees a developed Jewish Gnosticism behind the Corinthian wisdom and an appropriation by Paul of the Corinthians’ Gnostic terminology (Schmithals 1956: 152-55). In distinction from Wilckens, Schmithals de- scribes the Christ as a suffering revealer rather than as a redemptive Messi- ah (Schmithals 1956: 138-41). Both, however, base their arguments especially on the terminology in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, so that any evaluation of a Gnostic background must begin with an explanation of these terms. PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019) The Gnostic and Hellenistic Backgrounds of Sophia in 1 Corinthians 1-4 5 Some of the terminology that presumably provides prime evidence of early Gnostic thought in 1 Corinthians is as follows. First, the advocates of a Gnostic background tend to associate gnōsis with sophia. In this regard, the Gnostic Corinthians, it is argued, were boasting of a higher knowledge and wisdom against those lacking them (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:1ff) (Schmithals 1956: 229). The term gnōsis, thus, is taken in a technical sense, referring both to form and content. Second, it is argued that this esoteric knowledge belonging to an elite group of Christians is clearly seen in the distinction between two classes of Christians—teleiois pneumatikois and nēpiois (Wilckens 1959: 52-96). This distinction, it is argued, is supported by the use of the term mystēriov (Wilckens 1959: 206). Thus, only the upper echelons of Christians have the capacity to apprehend deeper and more mysterious teaching, something that the Gnostics also preached. Thirdly, it is argued that pneumatikois is a key term of identification in later Gnosticism which presumably proves that the Corinthians regarding themselves as pneumatikois is evidence that they held to a Gnostic teaching. In nuce, the constellation of these terms in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, terms used also by Gnostics, seemingly proves that the Corinthians (and Paul by his appropriation of them) were holding to Gnostic teaching. The argument that the background of this passage is Gnostic is apparently strengthened by the use of 1 Corinthians 2:9 in the seventeenth saying of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, as if to suggest that the authors of such Gnostic writings regarded 1 Corinthi- ans as a source of Gnostic teachings (Collins 1995: 17). To this use of these terms in an allegedly Gnostic sense in 1 Corinthians 2:6-3:1 two types of response are in order. First, the literary context is determinative of meaning. The context and not the presuppositions of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule must guide one’s exegesis and search into the meaning of these terms as used by Paul in this passage. Just because many terms used by Paul are also present in Gnostic writings, does not guarantee that these different contexts give the terms similar meanings (Thiselton 2000: 226, 240, 269). Terms do not have meanings in isolation but in rela- tion to each other, their semantic content being dependent on their context and frame of reference. Thus, while Hans Conzelmann favors a distinction of classes in 1 Corinthians 2:6-3:1, he rightly states that, ‘The position in Corinth cannot be reconstructed on the basis of the possibility of the gen- eral history of religion… Certainty attaches only to what we can learn from the text’ (Conzelmann 1975: 15). The Gnostic hypothesis will prove to be an imposition upon the text that distorts the natural meaning of these terms in their context. But what is the natural meaning of these words as deter- mined by the literary context? The passage that allegedly contains a constellation of Gnostic terms (i.e., 1 Corinthians 2:6-16), seeks to explain two ways of relating to the wisdom PERICHORESIS 17.SAS 2 (2019) 6 CORIN MIHĂILĂ proclaimed by Paul. Since from the beginning of his argument Paul has been working with contrasts between the world and Christians, it is hard to see Paul switching to distinctions between Christians in this passage, as the advocates of a Gnostic background argue (Fee 1987: 99-100). Paul is still speaking about divine wisdom, which is unacceptable to the world. As such, he speaks of mystery, which we have identified with the wisdom of God and the cross, vis-à-vis the world. It is the world with its system of values that cannot and will not accept the wisdom of God. The reason Paul gives is because such mystery can be known only by revelation through the agency of God’s Spirit. Only those who have the Spirit of God (i.e., pneumatikois) can perceive the wisdom of God. But, as Fee argues, ‘The gift of the Spirit does not lead to special status among believers; rather, it leads to special status vis-à-vis the world’ (Fee 1987: 120). Therefore, while it may be correct to associate gnōsis with sophia and to argue that sophia in this passage refers to both form and content, sophia refers not to a Gnostic, esoteric knowledge that differentiates between classes of Christians, but to the proclamation of the cross that makes an eschatological distinction between Christians and unbelievers.

Load more