Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>]

Nathan McGovern said:

>>Jeffrey Gibson recommended that I post this query to this list (for which 
I thank him). I realize that my use of a translation is a bit of a breach 
of protocol; but I don't know very much Greek, and in verse 29b, this seems 
to be the main problem.<<

Don't worry, using an English translation is not a breach of protocol. 
However, if the point you are trying to make about a passage is dependent 
upon the original Greek, it is expected that the passage be given in Greek. 
It appears to me that English conveys the meaning quite adequately here.

Nathan's original XTalk post:

> 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"?
>
> Reading just up to verse 22, it seems clear that he is saying the latter.
> But in verses 23-29a, he seems to reverse course and say, "You can eat meat
> sacrificed to idols, but if someone (presumably a Jewish Christian who
> might complain to James) says something to you about it, don't eat it. But
> verse 29b doesn't make any sense at all: He seems to be saying, "Don't eat
> meat sacrificed to idols if someone says something to you about it, not on
> account of your own conscience but on account of the other person's,
> BECAUSE you shouldn't be ruled by another person's conscience," which is
> self-contradictory. Maybe my translation is just confusing. In any case,
> Paul returns again in verse 32 to his policy of "When in Rome, do as the
> Romans do," which again suggests that he is telling people to eat meat
> sacrificed to idols if they can get away with it.

What you have is one of many examples within the Pauiline corpus where a 
contradictory passage exists within an argument or stream of thought. The 
RSV encloses verses 28-29a within brackets in order to soften the 
contradiction, I would think. Actually, vss 28-29a are not at variance with 
vs 24 ("Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor"), but 
rather it is 29b-31 that goes against it.

The latter passage sounds like an angry outburst *critical* of the idea of 
not doing what you know is lawful for you if it will offend another 
person:

"29b For why should my liberty be determined by another man's 
scruples? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced 
because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you eat or drink, 
or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

In other words, "it is their problem, not mine, I am doing what God has 
told me is right". I suppose he is referring to practicing Jews here.

If 29b-31 were eliminated, vs 32 would pick up the theme left off at 28a.

Why introduce a contradiction? Paul was a genius, of course! By means of a 
clever rhetorical device, he has sharpened the clarity of his theme by 
introducing a clause ment to provide contrast, and in the end has 
forcefully driven the point home (whatever the point was) even though you 
did not know it! Amazing.

Either that or it is an interpolation. But, of course, that would be out of 
the question ...

Regards,

Dave Hindley (who is being a tad sarcastic this evening)
Cleveland, Ohio, USA