Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and meat sacrificed to idols

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Anders Eriksson <Anders.Eriksson AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Paul and meat sacrificed to idols
  • Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:32:45 +0200


Nathan McGovern summarized the problem as follows:

I'm a bit confused as to what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 10:14-32. Is he
> > saying, "Eat meat sacrificed to idols," or "Don't eat meat sacrificed to
> > idols"?

My response is that it completely depends on what you mean by eidolothuta,
usually translated as "meat sacrificed to idols." The term by itself does
not say that it has to be meat, it only designates something that has been
offered to an idol. Maybe it would be better to translate "idol food."

It is often assumed that the real issue is the eating of meat from the
macellum, i e meat from animals slaughtered in a temple and thereby tainted
by idolatry. This interpretation is too narrow.

I agree with John Hurd that the term eidolothuta has a wide range of
meanings. As Paul discusses the issue of idol food in Corinth it had at
least four aspects: 1) eating in an idol's temple (8:10); 2) partaking in the
table of daimonia (10:21); 3) eating what is sold at the macellum (10:25);
and 4) eating when invited to do so by an unbeliever (10:27).

The term needs to be defined. Quintilian states that there is general
agreement that "everything that can form the subject of dispute or discussion
is covered by the three questions, whether it is, what it is and of what kind
it is" Institutio Oratoria 3.6.44. These are the three stases of a question.

My understanding is that Paul in 8:1 -10:22 is working with a definition of
eidolothuta as idolatry. It is seen in a cultic setting and should be
avoided. Flee idoltry 10:14.

In 10:23-30 he discusses two instances outside of the cultic setting where he
allows the eating. He discusses it in the qualitative stasis, i.e. the value
of the act and the circumstances.

My interpretation of 1 Cor 8 as really dealing with a type of eating Paul
prohibits in the end (10:14) agrees with Gordon Fee and the unanimous early
Christian rejection of idol food, Acts 15:29, 21:25 and Rev 2:14, 20. On the
negative view of idolfood and idolatry in early Judaism and Christianity see
Peter Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law.

The problem with my interpretation is to account for the positive things Paul
says in 1 Cor 8. We modern interpreters like a tolerant Paul who is liberated
from fear of gods who do not exist. We share the radical monotheism of the
wise Corinthians. We wants him to say the same here as he does in Romans
14. But he does not.

Paul starts his discussion by agreeing with points scored by the wise.
Gradually he turns the table on them and states his view on the issue of
participation in cultic meals. He forbids it.

The rhetorical strategy Paul uses is called the insinuatio, the strategy
used
"when our cause is discreditable ... when the hearer has apparently been won
over by the previous speakers of the opposition" (Ad Her 1.4.6).

More on this in my "Traditions as Rhetorical Proof," 135-173.







Dr. Anders Eriksson, Th. D Anders.Eriksson AT teol.lu.se
Forskarassistent hem dpb983c AT tninet.se
Teologiska Institutionen
Lunds Universitet
Allhelgona Kyrkogata 8
223 62 Lund, Sweden






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page