Corpus-Paul

[Anders Eriksson <Anders.Eriksson AT teol.lu.se>]

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