CHRONICA THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XLIII (1994) The 43rd session of the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, August 8-10, 1994, was devoted to the study of the Corinthian Correspondence1. This was not the first time that the Colloquium took up Pauline studies as a topic for study and dis- cussion. In 1959 A. Descamps presided over the conference devoted to Littéra- ture et théologie pauliniennes. In 1984 the Colloquium focused on the apostle Paul in general under the presidency of A. Vanhoye (Rome). R.F. Collins (then Leuven, now Washington, D.C.) chaired the 1988 session on the Thessalonian Correspondence2. Fourteen scholars were invited to deliver main papers or to conduct seminars. Twenty-eight short papers were offered3. About 160 exegetes from more than 20 countries were in attendance. Exceptionally the Colloquium was held simultane- ously with the Society of Biblical Literature 1994 International Meeting. This opened up the possibility for cross participation in program units of either con- ference. Many scholars made ample use of this opportunity. In my opening address, Die beiden Korintherbriefe in ihrer Beziehung zueinander nach der neueren Forschung, I gave a systematic overview over the way recent research has viewed the interrelatedness of the different letters in the Corinthian correspondence. Since the beginning of the 19th century it has been discussed whether the historical situation of 2 Cor (or the letter fragments con- tained in it) is just a continuation of the one in 1 Cor, or whether we have to assume and reconstruct events between the two letters which witness to a com- pletely new historical situation. The key issues of this discussion can be summa- rized in three questions: Are 1 and 2 Cor to be seen in continuity or discontinu- ity to each other? Are we to assume continuity or discontinuity on the level of the historical situation and/or on the level of content? What are the implications of intermediary events between 1 and 2 Cor? The hypothesis of intermediary events between 1 and 2 Cor (or between the letter fragments gathered into either of these 1. The Colloquium was sponsored by the Universities of Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve and the National Fund for Scientific Research (Brussels). 2. A. DESCAMPS (ed.), Littérature et théologie pauliniennes (Recherches bibliques, 5), Bruges, 1960; A. VANHOYE (ed.), L’Apôtre Paul. Personnalité, style et conception du mi- nistère (BETL, 73), Leuven, 1986; R.F. COLLINS (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (BETL, 87), Leuven, 1990. 3. The papers delivered at the Colloquium will be published in the BETL series: The Corinthian Correspondence. In 1995 M. Vervenne (Leuven) will chair the 44th Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, August 22-24, 1995, on “The Book of Exodus”. The 45th Colloquium, July 31 - August 2, 1996, will focus on “The Scriptures in the Gospels. Intertextuality: The Use of the Old Testament in the Four Gospels”; chair: C.M. Tuckett (Manchester). THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 267 canonical letters) as worked out by F. Bleek, H. Ewald and C. Weizsäcker has gained almost universal acceptance in recent scholarship. The assumption of a visit, an unfortunate incident and a letter between our canonical letters (not men- tioned in Acts) led most exegetes to assume a different historical situation and a new content focus for 2 Cor in comparison with 1 Cor (e.g., G. Bornkamm, C.K. Barrett). Others continue to accept continuity on the level of content, while defending the discontinuity of the historical situation (e.g., H.D. Betz, G. Theißen). Finally there are scholars who combine the hypothesis of intermedi- ary events with the assumption of both historical and content-level continuity (e.g., H.-J. Klauck, F. Watson, P. Marshall). Continuity or discontinuity between 1 and 2 Cor is usually discussed in the light of the identity of the opponents and of the wrong-doer (2 Cor 2,5-11; 7,12). On the basis of my investigation I con- cluded that “intermediary events” remain a hypothetical construction. To accept this hypothesis can include, but does not necessitate, the assumption of strict his- torical or content-level discontinuity. The primary locus of continuity is the rela- tionship between Paul and the Corinthian community. Nonetheless also a certain degree of discontinuity can be detected in the way Paul sees this relationship in 1 and 2 Cor. While the Corinthians were still living up to Paul’s expectations in the relationship with him at the time of 1 Cor, the apostle is expressing passionate appeals to the community to reciprocate his love for them in 2 Cor. These insights led to the conclusion that the aspects of continuity and discontinuity call into question the common practice of commentators and interpreters to study 1 and 2 Cor separately. Any historical and literary-critical approach to whatever part of 1 or 2 Cor can greatly benefit from accepting the entire correspondence as interpretative horizon. While the opening address was trying to relate the two Corinthian letters to each other, six of the remaining nine main papers focused (almost exclusively) on 1 Cor, three on 2 Cor. Except for two papers, the contributions on 1 Cor dealt with general problems of the entire letter. 1 Cor R.F. COLLINS (Washington, D.C.) defended the hypothesis that 1 Cor is a letter written in the Hellenistic manner of his day: 1 Corinthians as a First-Century Hellenistic Letter. As 1,10 shows, Paul’s concern in the letter was the unity of the Corinthian community. Collins demonstrated how Paul approaches this topic in various ways all the time making use of Hellenistic epistolary conventions. In 1 Cor there is clear evidence that Paul was familiar with the letter genre. The epis- tolary types of a letter of recommendation and a letter of admonition were known to the apostle as well. In 1 Cor there is evidence that Paul is self-consciously engaged in letter writing and that he perceives his letter as part of an ongoing dia- logue. The parousía motif, one of the basic functions of the Hellenistic letter, can also be detected in 1 Cor. Paul, however, has significantly transformed it. In the letter, Paul is not simply present as fílov, but as âpóstolov. Paul is not try- ing to establish his own presence in the community, but the presence of the one who sent him. This is particularly obvious in Paul’s adaptations to the epistolary form in the beginning of his letters and 1 Cor in particular. Paul writes as one called to be an apostle to a community called to be saints. He offers not his own greetings, but greetings from God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul does not write 268 CHRONICA to the community in his own name, but by the name of Jesus Christ. Like many ancient letters, 1 Cor is a speech in the form of a letter. 1,10 expresses Paul’s over-riding concern in the entire letter, that is, the admonition that the community exist as God’s holy people in union with all those who call on the name of Jesus Christ and that they resolve their divisions. Collins concluded by cautioning against too quickly using the variety of form and content found in the letter as an argument against its literary unity. He supported this view by pointing out that even the ancient epistolary theorist Pseudo-Libanius wrote letters of a mixed type of rhetoric. In his presentation La gnose à Corinthe. Questions de méthode et observations sur 1 Co 1,17–3,3, J.-M. SEVRIN (Louvain-la-Neuve) arrived at the conclusion that neither the dualist expressions in 1 Cor 1–3 are gnostic, nor do any of the Corinthian parties belong to gnosticism. In the first part of his paper he sketched the problem by reviewing the positions of W. Schmithals and L. Schottroff. Schmithals’ view of gnosticism is based on a reconstruction of the myth of the primordial human person which he locates within a pre-Christian Jewish gnostic system. Sevrin criticizes Schmithals for reducing the evidence found in the Corinthian correspondence to this gnostic system, not even allowing any room for any evolution. Schottroff, in the line of C. Colpe, opposes the reconstruction of a gnostic myth and favors an approach that concentrates on the dualistic struc- ture of gnosticism. While Sevrin applauds the elimination of the “myth” of a gnostic myth, he is sceptical of Schottroff’s reconstruction of gnostic dualism as strictly existential and decision-oriented. This notion of dualism, says Sevrin, is so close to the Christian understanding that it is not surprising that Schottroff finds a lot of elements of gnostic dualism in Paul and John. In the second part Sevrin put forward three methodological considerations. He begins with a focus on the question how to reconstruct the positions against which Paul reacts. Sevrin suggests that the starting-point has to be a collection of elements concerning the situation at Corinth supplied by the Corinthian correspondence itself instead of reading back into the Pauline text the gnostic system of the end of the second century. A history-of-religions approach can at best be a secondary approach after a text has been interpreted in its own right. Sevrin considers the existence of gnosticism in the middle of the first century as unknown and even unlikely. A gnostic hypothesis would only be acceptable in the absence of any other more “economical” solution. Finally Sevrin presents a theoretical definition of gnosti- cism. He reminds us of the fact that what we might call “gnostic” is not a unified system and whatever definition of gnosticism is a literary construct.