4. The memory of in Paul’s autobiographical references: The figures of Moses in the letters of Paul

4.1. Introduction In recent years, a significant scholarly debate has taken place concerning Paul’s use of the figure of Moses. Whereas some scholars such as Peter Jones and Carol Stockhausen have claimed that Paul sees himself specifically as a “second Moses”,247 others such as Peter Oakes have asserted that Moses does not play any major role in Paul’s letter, “Moses, as a figure, is not as important as we might expect, despite being intimately identified with the law”.248 The discussion has primarily taken place in relation to only one of Paul’s letters, namely 2 Corinthians. In this chapter, I seek to contribute to the debate by examining Paul’s use of the figure of Moses in all his undisputed letters. On the face of it, the figure of Moses seems to turn up at rare intervals only in Paul’s letters. Paul just refers to Moses explicitly nine times in his letters, five times in the Corinthian correspondence and four in the letter to the Romans.249 In addition, he merely seems to allude to Moses only a few times.250 In contrast to Philo and Josephus, Paul nowhere presents a com- prehensive view of Moses. His use of Moses is provisional and sometimes even contradictory. Because of the multiplicity of meanings, I shall there- fore speak of the figures of Moses in the letters of Paul rather than a single figure. Actually, his use of Moses even seems to change within the Corinthian correspondence. Thus I shall argue that in 1 Corinthians Paul casts himself in a role as being on a par with Moses, whereas later in the correspondence, he asserts his superiority over Moses probably due to a shift in the situation within the Corinthian congregation. In the letter to the Romans, Paul uses the figure of Moses in chapters 9–11, in which he is concerned with the salvation of the Jews and the attitude to the Jews of the Gentile Christians. Moses is here acknowledged as God’s prophet who reveals important aspects of the history of salvation, and in his concern for his kinsmen Paul again presents himself after the model of Moses. In con- trast to Gal 3:19f., where Moses symbolizes the negative aspects of the law,

247 P. Jones, The Apostle Paul. A Second Moses According to II Corinthians 2:14–4:7 (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Princeton University Seminary 1973), 374–378; and C.K. Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant. The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor. 3,1–4,6, AnBib 116, Rome 1989, 169–175. Already in the 6th century, the presbyter Eustratius Constantinopolitanus labelled Paul a “second Moses” (De Statu Animarum post Mortem 141). 248 P. Oakes, Moses in Paul, in: T. Römer (ed.), La Construction de la Figure de Moïse. The Construction of the Figure of Moses, Supplement à Transeuphratène 13, Paris 2007, 249–261 (249). 249 For comparison, Paul refers to Abraham twelve times, five times in Rom 4:1–13 and seven times in the letter to the Galatians (six times in 3:6–18 and one in 4:22). 250 Though Paul does not mention Moses’ name in his letter to the Galatians, most interpreters find that the μεσίτης in Gal 3:19 is a reference to Moses. In this chapter, I shall mainly focus on Paul’s use of Moses in Romans and in the Corinthian correspondence. For Paul’s use of Moses in the Galatians, see, however, the excursus in 4.3.5. 90 The memory of Moses in Paul’s autobiographical references the positive functions of the law are here predominant in accordance with the chapters’ overall positive view of Moses. In spite of Paul’s infrequent use of Moses, I shall argue that Moses as a figure is actually quite important, but not as a theological figure. In view of the fact that Paul rarely turns to the figure of Moses, it is quite striking that the figure so often turns up precisely in relation to Paul’s autobiographical remarks. While for Paul other Biblical figures such as Adam and Abraham had major roles to play theologically,251 the figure of Moses instead seems to have played a major role in the autobiographical portions of Paul’s letters. Far from being digressions, Paul’s autobiographical remarks constitute a centre in his letters. The epistolary form was recognized in ancient critical theory as being especially effective for embodying and displaying character.252 As Michael Trapp has emphasized, “the letter form itself [scil. is] always potentially […] (auto)biographical”.253 Rather than examine the relationship between the figure of Moses and Paul’s theology, I shall therefore explore Paul’s autobiographical use of the figure of Moses. I do not agree that Paul is attempting to picture himself as the fulfilment of the Jewish expectation for a “second Moses” based on Deut 18:18, such as Jones has argued.254 There is no such expectation or fulfilment language in Paul’s use of Moses.255 The figure of Moses rather plays a crucial role as a figure of memory for Paul’s self-characterization. The figure, I claim, is used in his letters as a means of exerting pressure for particular courses of action. In addition, Paul applies the figure to himself in 1 Corinthians in order to support his redefinition of the categories of leadership and authority; later in the Corinthian correspondence his aim is to defend his authority; and finally in Romans 9–11 it is to strenghten his authority and get the Roman Christians’ support. 4.2. Moses and the Corinthian correspondence

4.2.1. Previous research on Paul’s use of the figure of Moses in the Corinthian correspondence While much has been said about Paul’s use of the figure of Moses in 2 Corinthians, his use of Moses in 1 Corinthians has been more unfairly treated. Commentators seem to confine themselves to a few brief remarks concerning Paul’s phrase “into Moses” in 1 Cor 10:2, which is often taken as

251 Adam is important for Paul’s anthropology and Christology, and Abraham for Paul’s soteriology – as has also been pointed out by Oakes, Moses in Paul, 2007, 249. 252 Perhaps this explains why ancient biographies sometimes appear in the fictional context of a letter. 253 Trapp, Biography in Letters, 2006, 347. 254 Jones, The Apostle Paul. A Second Moses According to II Corinthians 2:14–4:7, 1973, 374–378. See also his article, The Apostle Paul. Second Moses to the New Covenant Community, in: J.W. Montgomery (ed.), God’s Inerrant Word, Minneapolis 1974, 219–241. 255 Compare S.J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81, Tuebingen 1995, 102 n. 32. Moses and the Corinthian correspondence 91 reflecting the Jewish belief that the later redeemer (the Messiah) would be as the former redeemer (Moses).256 However, as Rudolf Schnackenburg argued long ago such a comparison is not really introduced into this text.257 The passage through the Red Sea is to be viewed as more than a mere figure for Christian baptism; rather, it is considered as an event that united the with Moses and as a paradigm of Christian redemption.258 While most comments on 1 Cor 10:2 examine the close relationship between Moses as Israel’s deliverer and Christ as that of the Corinthians, to my knowledge no one has discussed the possibility that in alluding to Moses Paul also implicitly points out a parallel between himself and Moses. I shall claim, however, that Paul presents himself as a figure parallel to Moses both in 1 Cor 10:2 and in other places in 1 Corinthians.259 With regard to Paul’s use of the figure of Moses in 2 Corinthians, the scholarly field has been substantially improved in recent years through the works of Carol K. Stockhausen, Linda Belleville and Scott J. Hafemann.260 They all seek to explain the picture of Moses in 2 Corinthians 3 on other grounds than in Dieter Georgi’s influential study, in which he claimed that Paul’s picture of Moses was essentially created by other Jewish missionaries who took Moses as the focal point of their own proclamation.261 However, since there is no evidence of any such groups operating in the early Christian communities, it seems better to explain the picture of Moses on other grounds. In contrast to Georgi, Stockhausen sees Paul’s picture of Moses as his own interpretation in which he depends on a complex of Septuagint texts from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel by using the methods of gezera shawa (catchword-linkage), qal wa-homer (arguing from a lesser case to

256 See e.g. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, London 21994, 221; and W. Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12–11,16). 2. Teilband, EKK 7/2, Neukirchen 1995, 391. 257 R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul. A Study in Pauline Theology. Transl. by G.R. Beasley-Murray, Oxford 1964, 93. As Schnackenburg explains in his preface, the English translation is a “drastically revised new edition” of his id., Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus. Eine Studie zur Paulinischen Theologie, MThS 1, Munich 1950. The passage which I refer to is missing in the German edition, cf. Schnackenburg, Heilsgeschehen, 1950, 88. 258 Schnackenburg, Baptism, 1964, 93. Schnackenburg’s interpretation has recently been fol- lowed by A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC 7/1, Grand Rapids 2000, 724. 259 Peter Oakes argues against such a view (which he cannot, however, find in the scholarly literature – a deficiency I shall make good here), because both Christ and Paul would then occupy the place of Moses, cf. Oakes, Moses in Paul, 2007, 252. Though there may be an implicit parallel between Moses and Christ in the expression “baptised into” (1 Cor 10:2), I do not think that Paul’s aim is to identify Christ as a new Moses in Cor 10:1–11, since he also explicitly identifies Christ with the rock. 260 As also argued by Oakes in his excellent summary of Georgi’s, Stockhausen’s, Belleville’s and Hafemann’s works in Oakes, Moses in Paul, 2007, 255. In my summary of these works I rely on Oakes, Moses in Paul, 2007, 255–260. 261 D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike, WMANT 11, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964, 252. 92 The memory of Moses in Paul’s autobiographical references a greater) and pesher (a particular technique of interpretation found in certain Qumran texts, the so-called pesharim, where historical and eschatological events are read into the Biblical texts).262 In this way Paul develops a scheme in which his ministry (and Christian ministry in general) is described and justified through comparison with that of Moses.263 Whereas for Stockhausen Paul is most like Moses, for Belleville he is most unlike Moses. Like Georgi, Belleville finds that it was the situation that Paul faced at Corinth which gave rise to his interpretation. However, rather than representing the exegetical tradition of his opponents, the picture of Moses is brought into the argument by Paul himself in order to contribute to his apologetic task in chapters 1–7, which Belleville finds constitutes an apologetic letter of self-commendation.264 Like Belleville, I think that it is immediate concerns in Corinth that led Paul to his comparison with Moses, and I shall suggest that 1 Corinthians may actually have played a crucial role for Paul’s construction of 2 Cor 3:7–18. In contrast to Stockhausen and Belleville, Hafemann argues that there is both similarity and contrast between Paul and Moses in 2 Corinthians 3. While the similarity lies in the prophetic call and their similar recognition of their own insufficiency for the task,265 the difference lies in the presence of the spirit in Paul’s ministry. According to Hafemann, Paul is asserting that not having the spirit Israel did not keep the law.266 Moreover, Hafemann claims that in 2 Corinthians Paul is facing the same situation that he also faced in Galatia, and he understands the strong, theological emphasis in 2 Corinthians 3 on the old and new covenants in this light. If Paul is tackling a situation related to that in Galatia, Moses comes naturally into the argument because of his close identification with the law.267 In my reading of 2 Cor 3:7–18, I shall examine Paul’s use of the figure of Moses in relation to the specific content of 1 Corinthians, something which the studies just mentioned have not done. In my view, we may here find the motive for Paul’s comparison with Moses in 2 Corinthians 3. I shall argue that a potential Corinthian misreading of 1 Corinthians may have incited Paul to write the way he does in 2 Cor 3:7–18.

262 Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 1989, 24–31. 109–153. 263 Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 1989, 167–175. 264 L.L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory. Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18, JSNT.S 52, Sheffield 1991, 120–135. 265 Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 1995, 97–106. 266 Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 1995, 438–440. 267 Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 1995, 444–449. Moses and the Corinthian correspondence 93

4.2.2. “Written down for our instruction” (1 Corinthians 10:11)

4.2.2.1. Introduction to 1 Corinthians The major issue which Paul felt called to address in 1 Corinthians seems to have been the problem of discord and splits.268 In 1 Cor 1:10, Paul thus presents the thesis statement of the entire letter,269 Now I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement (τὸ αὐτό λέγητε) and that there be no divisions (σχίσματα) among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose270 While the parties in the Corinthian congregation were earlier seen as repre- senting different positions in a dogmatic controversy, the problem underly- ing the divisions was apparently rather one of personal adherence pledged to particular leaders than being theological in character (cf. 1 Cor 1:11f.).271 As L.L. Welborn has argued, Paul’s strategy in dealing with the parties makes it impossible to differentiate between them: “Paul refuses to analyze the opinions of the various factions, but speaks to the community as a whole, as though all the parties had coalesced in his mind”.272 Paul seems to have been concerned with the phenomenon of factionalism itself rather than with any individual faction. While earlier scholarship had predominantly taken factionalism to be an issue in chapters 1–4 only, Margaret Mitchell has demonstrated that “dissension is at issue throughout all sixteen chapters of the letter”.273 In his attempt to urge the Corinthians to unity, Paul twice in the letter (1 Cor 4:16 and 11:1) explicitly tells them to imitate him. However, his use of himself as an example seems rather risky given that the Corinthians were exactly divided on the issue of leadership. Even though Paul refers to himself as an example to be followed in his self-lowering and in his non-divisive course of action, it seems to me that his use of himself could easily have been misun- derstood. I shall come back to this issue in my interpretation of 2 Corinthians. 4.2.2.2. The context: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 The two explicit references to Moses in First Corinthians come within the sec- tion of 8:1–11:1 “concerning food sacrificed to idols” (1 Cor 8:1), an issue which

268 As shown by M.M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, Louisville 1992. 269 Cf. Mitchell, Paul, 1992, 68–80. 270 Translation slightly modified. Unless otherwise noted, the English translation of Paul’s letters is from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The Greek text is from Nestle- Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart 271993. 271 L.L. Welborn, On the Discord in Corinth. 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Ancient Politics, in: JBL 106 (1987), 85–111 (91f.). See also A.D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, A Socio- Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6, AGJU 18, Leiden 1993, 94. 272 Welborn, On the Discord in Corinth, 1987, 89. 273 Mitchell, Paul, 1992, 67. 94 The memory of Moses in Paul’s autobiographical references has apparently divided the community. Some of the Corinthians found that there was nothing wrong with eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols, whilst others argued against this practice on the grounds of the prohibition of idolatry. As has often been asserted, Paul grants concessions to each side as far as he is able to; hence the different points of view expressed in 8:1–13 and 10:1–22: in 8:1–13 Paul permits the eating of idol meat, unless it hurts a fellow Christian, and in 10:1–22 he condemns idolatry. As Margaret Mitchell has argued, Paul’s convoluted attempt to solve the problem may originate in the fact that his “overriding concern here is not merely idol meats in them- selves, but the impact of conflicts over idol meats on the concord of the church com mu n it y ”. 274 As part of his rhetorical strategy, Paul presents himself as a positive example of the proper use of freedom for the common good (9:1–27). The chapter is not an autobiographical digression, but is closely connected with the question of Christian eating at sacrificial meals.275 The autobiographical remarks are a piece of deliberative rhetoric in which Paul answers the question of sacrificial meals by demonstrating how Christians must express their freedom for the benefit of others. His concern is to redefine the categories of leadership and authority by holding himself up as an example of self- sacrificial behaviour.276 In his refusal of maintaining a high-status position as a non-labouring free man, Paul presents himself as an example to be followed by those who despise manual labour. Throughout the chapter he claims that he has repeatedly lowered himself in order to gain those who are themselves of lower status. In spite of the fact that Paul is here drawing on a portrait of himself, he emphasizes that he does not speak on the basis of a merely human authority. Instead, he asks rhetorically “Does not the law also say the same?” (1 Cor 9:8). Interestingly, Paul is eager to qualify the law in the next verse as “the law of Moses” (ὁ Μωϋσέως νόμος, 1 Cor 9:9).277 In this way I suggest, he explicitly introduces Moses into the letter in order to prepare for his argument in 10:1–11, where he will adduce the deaths of the Israelites in the wilderness as a warning to the Corinthians because of the similarity between the Corinthians and the Israelites with regard to factionalism. The expression “the law of Moses” (9:9) thus points to the normative function of the Moses narratives, a function that Paul will also argue in favour of in 10:11. Just as he presents himself in 9:1–27 as a positive example of non-divisive behaviour, so he uses the Israelites in 10:1–11 as negative examples of divisive behaviour. In both instances, however, it is Moses who supports his claims: in

274 Mitchell, Paul, 1992, 238. See also W.A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven 1983, 160. 275 As has been convincingly demonstrated by W. Willis, An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9, in: JSNT 24 (1985), 33–48. 276 See also Dale B. Martin’s study of Paul’s portrait of himself as Christ’s οἰκονόμος in 1 Corinthians 9: D.B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation. The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity, New Haven 1990. 277 This is the only place in Paul’s letter in which he makes such a qualification. Moses and the Corinthian correspondence 95

9:9, “the law of Moses” says the same (as Paul is saying by using himself as an example), and in 10:11, Moses is implied as the one who has written these things concerning the Israelites “to instruct us”. Thus Paul uses the memory of Moses and the Israelites in order to make certain points about the proper behaviour of the Corinthian community. 4.2.2.3. Situational similarity However, such a use of Moses may also be found in some rather subtle allusions to the collective memory of Moses earlier in the letter, namely in 1 Cor 4:1–5. In his attempt to turn the Corinthians’ perception of leader- ship upside-down, Paul uses a house-hold image (as he also does in 9:16–18). Rather than exalting their various leaders, the Corinthians should think of them as household servants of God, Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries (οὕτως ἡμᾶς λογιζέσθω ἄνθρωπος ὡς ὑπηρέτας Χριστοῦ καὶ οἰκονόμους μυστηρίων θεοῦ). Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful (ὧδε λοιπὸν ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις, ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ). But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:1–4) The metaphor of οἰκονόμος (steward) is important here. The word itself derives from the language and functions of the ancient household, and usually the word referred to a slave who ran the house for his master. Paul thus depicts himself and his fellow leaders as Christ’s slave stewards. However, as Thomas L. Brodie and Jin K. Hwang have shown, in these verses Paul may also be alluding to Numbers 12.278 In this text, Moses does not seek to justify himself against the accusation raised by and , but is judged by God to be his faithful servant,

278 While household management in small households was the domain of women, high-status households were normally managed by a skilled slave or freedman. The title extended, however, beyond persons who managed households and was also used to designate administrative roles and positions within municipal government and civic organizations. The common use of the term in the ancient Mediterranean world reflects the centrality of the household as a model for the organization of society in general. In popular Hellenistic discourse, the term οἰκονομία τοῦ θεοῦ was a common phrase denoting God’s administra- tion of the universe, cf. R.H. Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers of the Word. Leadership in the Early Church, Peabody 2006, 55. 84. Concerning Paul’s use of the term in this passage, see also B. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Grand Rapids 1995, 138–140. Though Philo does not himself use the title in relation to Moses in De Vita Mosis, the well-known passage in Mos. 1.148–162 may well embrace the sense of the term in which Paul uses it in 1 Cor 4:1 as one who is entrusted with management in relation to transcendent matters. The somehow related term οἰκέτης is used as a title in relation to Moses in DeutLXX 34:5. 96 The memory of Moses in Paul’s autobiographical references

And he [scil. the Lord] said to them [scil. Miriam and Aaron], “Hear my words: If there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision I will be known to him, and in sleep I will speak to him. Not so my atten- dant Moses; in my whole house he is faithful (οὐχ οὕτως ὁ θεράπων μου Μωυσῆς. ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός ἐστιν). Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in visible form and not through riddles. And he has seen the glory of the Lord. And why were you not afraid to speak against my attendant Moses?” (NumLXX 12:6–8) Just as God asserts that Moses is a faithful attendant (NumLXX 12:7), so Paul presents himself as a faithful servant (ὑπηρέτης and οἰκονόμος) of God (1 Cor 4:1). Though he does not use the same word for himself as the one applied to Moses (θεράπων) in NumLXX 12:7, the term οἰκονόμος may well embrace the phrase ὁ θεράπων ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ in NumLXX 12:7, and as God judged Moses to be faithful (πιστός), so Paul claims that it is God who judges stewards to be faithful (πιστός).279 Thus Paul might allude to NumLXX 12:7 and the figure of Moses in support of his portrait of leaders as servants and stewards. In 1 Cor 15:9, too, Paul seems to base his redefinition of leadership and authority on the figure of Moses when he claims to be “the least of the apostles, not qualified to be called an apostle (ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων ὅς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος)” (my translation), a claim that probably plays on ExodLXX 4:10 where Moses also claims that he is not ἱκανὸς. Brodie has suggested that Paul may also have alluded to Numbers in 1 Cor 4:1–5 and in other places in 1 Cor 3:1–5:8 because of the situational similarity between the community of Israel and the community in Corinth: in both communities people were divided among themselves with regard to who should lead, and in both communities there were various religious and ethi- cal problems which the leader had to deal with.280 In turning to the memory of Moses, Paul matches the present conflict with the historical reference, since the Biblical Moses was exposed to great pressure by the community he had himself founded, just as Paul himself was. The Biblical portrait of Moses and the way he handled the various crises may thus form the frame- work of Paul’s self-portrait in 1 Corinthians. Similarly, when Paul asks the Corinthians which reaction they will prefer when he comes to them, his rod (ῥάβδος) or his humility (πραΰτης, 1 Cor 4:21), the choice once again seems to echo the Moses narratives, which also use ῥάβδος in relation to factionalism (e.g. NumLXX 17:10)281 and the term πραὺς for Moses (NumLXX 12:3).

279 Cf. T.L. Brodie, The Systematic Use of the Pentateuch in 1 Corinthians, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, EThL 125, Leuven 1996, 441–457 (456); and J.K. Hwang, The Crisis at Corinth and Paul’s Use of Numbers in 1 Corinthians, Unpublished SBL-paper (2006), 1–14 (8f.). 280 Brodie, Pentateuch in 1 Corinthians, 1996, 446. 281 And the Lord said to Moses, “Deposit the rod (ῥάβδος) of Aaron before the witnesses for safekeeping, as a sign to the sons of the disobedient (ἀνήκοος) ones, and let their complaining (γογγυσμός) cease from me, and they will certainly not die.” (NumLXX 17:10). Moses and the Corinthian correspondence 97

When Paul then explicitly mentions Moses later, in 1 Cor 10:2, it should there- fore come as no surprise that he turns to the memory of the wilderness gen- eration in order to warn the Corinthians against activities which divide them: idolatry, sexual immorality, testing the Lord and grumbling. In fact, he seems already to have anticipated some of these negative examples earlier in the letter. Thus when he addresses the negative impact that individual πορνεία has on the community as a whole (1 Cor 5:1, 9, 11), the situational similarity with NumLXX 25:1–9 seems quite clear: NumLXX 25 also addresses the negative impact that πορνεία (cf. ἐκπορνεῦσαι, NumLXX 25:1) has on the community, and in both passages the crisis of authority is a significant concern (1 Cor 5:2, 9 and Num 25:5f.). But perhaps the fact that in both passages mourning is closely connected to disciplinary action gives the strongest support for seeing a par- allel between the two passages. On the face of it, at least, it seems strange that Paul should indicate in 1 Cor 5:2 that the Corinthians’ mourning (πενθέω) should have led them to disciplinary action. J.K. Hwang has argued that Numbers 25 may help us understand the nature of this connection.282 When the congregation saw Zimri challenge Moses by doing exactly that for which Moses had instructed him to mete out punishment, it is said that the people wept (αὐτοι δὲ ἔκλαιον, NumLXX 25:6) at the door of the of witness. In Num 25:7, it seems quite obvious that their mourning led to carry out disciplinary action toward Zimri. When Paul expected the Corinthians to mourn with a view to appropriate disciplinary action, this may very likely have had its background in the story of NumLXX 25:1–9. That Paul really had the Pentateuch in mind and applied it to the Corinthians in this passage is also indicated by his use of the words of DeutLXX 17:7 in 1 Cor 5:13 as a direct word of exhortation to the Corinthians to guard the purity of the community. These rather implicit parallels (even the quotation in 1 Cor 5:13 is inexplicit, since Paul does not himself introduce the words as a quotation) are, however, made explicit in 1 Cor 10:1–11, a text to which we shall now turn.283 4.2.2.4. The Corinthian community and Israel: 1 Corinthians 10:1–11 In 1 Cor 10:1–11, Paul explicitly keys the Corinthian community to Israel, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all (πάντες) under the cloud, all (πάντες) passed through the sea, and all (πάντες) were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all (πάντες) ate the same (τὸ αὐτό) spiritual food, and all (πάντες) drank the same (τὸ αὐτό) spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them (ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν), and they were strewed (καταστρώννυμι) in the wilderness. Now these things

282 Hwang, Crisis, 2006, 7f. 283 Concerning the quotation of DeutLXX 17:7 in 1 Cor 5:13 as an implicit claim which is made explicit in 1 Cor 10:1–11, see Hays, Echoes, 1989, 97.