¹ See, for example, Conzelmann, Hans, First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ed. MacRae, George W.; trans. Leiten, James W.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1976) 170Google Scholar, 193, 202; Mitchell, Margaret M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of I Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991) 151–57.Google Scholar

² Aristotle Poet. 1448b. 17; Nagy, Gregory, Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) 42–44.Google Scholar

³ It is important not to restrict this cult legend to the story of the Exodus from Egypt per se or to think of the observance of Passover as the sole cultic action that is connected with this narrative. Such a narrowness of understanding is one of the difficulties with the approach of Jeremias, Joachim in The Eucharistie Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner's, 1966).Google Scholar Jeremias argued (41–84) that the accounts of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels and in 1 Corinthians are best understood as describing a Passover meal and thus that Jesus' death was interpreted in terms of the Passover sacrifice. Rather, the cult legend in its fullness comprises all the events from the departure from Egypt to the entry into the promised land, particular moments of which may be the focus of reenactment in cultic observance and in the self-understanding of the community.

⁴ Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw, “Morphology of the Passion Narrative” (Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1997).Google Scholar

⁵ Meeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 99.Google Scholar Meeks presents a detailed development of this observation in idem, “‘And Rose up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22,” JSNT 16 (1982) 64–78.Google Scholar Meeks adopts the terminology of “midrash” for this passage from Weiss, Johannes, Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK 5; 9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 250.Google Scholar

⁶ Wills, Lawrence, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77 (1984) 288–89, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Although Meeks asserts that 1 Cor 10:1–13 was composed prior to its use in the epistle, he is equivocal as to whether Paul himself composed it or used an existing source. Conzelmann (First Corinthians, 165) describes 1 Cor 10:1–11 as “a self-contained, scribal discourse on passages from the biblical exodus narrative”; his comments on this passage appear to presume that the author is Paul. Jeske, Richard (“The Rock was Christ: The Ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians 10,” in Luhrmann, Dieter and Strecker, Georg, eds., Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag [Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1980] 251)Google Scholar argues that in 1 Cor 10:1–17 it is possible to perceive an exegesis of the Exodus as the Corinthian community understood it. He thereby isolates vv. 1–4, 6a, 11, 13, and 16–17 as a Vorlage that Paul adapted by interjecting comments. In the Corinthians' ecclesiology, according to Jeske, they were the “eschatological community… which was free from the dangers that beset it” (p. 249), whose salvation was secure, and who could thus embrace a lifestyle characterized by “conscious engagement with the demons of the ages.” Mitchell (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 138 n. 438), while agreeing with Jeske that the focus of the passage is ecclesiology, attributes the authorship to Paul, who “introduced the scriptural references himself… to respond to Corinthian factionalism.” Most recently, Schrage, Wolfgang (Der erste Brief an die Korinther [2 vols.; EKKNT 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995] 2. 383–84)Google Scholar has acknowledged that there may be a Vorlage employed here but that Paul has so reworked it that it is not possible to distinguish between the source and the redaction.

⁸ 1 Cor 10:6, τα⋯τα δέ τ⋯ποι ήμ⋯ν έγενήθησαν (“And these things occurred as types for us”) forms an inclusio with 1 Cor 10:11, τα⋯τα δέ τυπικ⋯ς συνέβαινεν έκείνοις, έγράϕη δέ πρός νουθεσίαν ήμ⋯ν (“And these things happened to them by way of types, and were written for our admonition”). See Meeks, “‘And Rose up to Play,’” 65.

⁹ See the discussion of typology in Zwettler, Michael, “A Mantic Manifesto: The Sura of the Poets and the Qur'anic Foundations of Prophetic Authority,” in Kugel, James L., ed., Poetry and Prophecy: The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition (Myth and Poetics; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990) 95–101.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For the purposes of understanding how the reenactment of scriptural memory contributes to the formation of the passion narrative, it is worth noting that the semantic range of παίζειν and έμπαίζειν includes “to mock, to make fun of” and that έμπαίζειν is used for the mocking of Jesus in Mark 15:20, 31. Meeks notes that the use of παίζειν in the quotation would readily suggest the episodes of “testing Christ” and “grumbling” in 1 Cor 10:9–10, but does not explicitly connect this use with the passion narrative.

¹¹ Exod 32:4–7: κα⋯ έδέξατο έκ τ⋯ν χειρ⋯ν α⋯τ⋯ν κα⋯ ἕπλασεν α⋯τά έν τ⋯ γραϕίδι κα⋯ έποί ησεν α⋯τά μόσχον χωνευτòν κα⋯ εἶπεν οὗτοι οί θεοί σου, 'Iσραήλ, οἴτινες ⋯νεβίβασάν σε έκ γ⋯ς Аίγ⋯πτου. κα⋯ ⋯δὼν 'Аαρὼν ῲκοδόμησεν θυσαστήριον κατέναντι αὺτο⋯, κα⋯ ⋯κήρυξεν 'Аαρὼν λέγων έορτ⋯ το⋯ κυρίιυ αὔριον. κα⋯ όρθρίσας τῇ ⋯πα⋯ριον ⋯νεγβίβασεν όλοκαυτὡματα κα⋯ προσήνεγεν θυσίαν θυσίαν σωτηρίου, κα⋯ ⋯κάθισεν ⋯ λα⋯ς ϕαγεῖν κα⋯ πιεῖν κα⋯ άνέστησαν παίζειν.

¹² See especially Leviticus 3 and 7:11–18.

¹³ Exod 24:5 LXX.

¹⁴ Exod 24:8 LXX.

¹⁵ Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 199; Héring, Jean, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (trans. Heathcote, A. W. and Allcock, P. J.; London: Epworth, 1962) 116–17Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 268–69Google Scholar; Lietzmann, Hans, An die Korinther I-II (HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1949) 57.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Exod 24:9–11 LXX: κα⋯ ⋯νέβη Мωüσ⋯ς κα⋯ 'Аαρων κα⋯ Ναδ⋯β κα⋯ 'Аβιοὺδ κα⋯ έβδομήκοντα τ⋯ς γερουσίας 'Iσρα⋯λ κα⋯ εἶδον τ⋯πον, οὖ είστήκει ⋯κεῖ ό θε⋯ς το⋯ 'Iσραήγ. κα⋯ τ⋯ ύπ⋯ τοὺς πόδας αύτο⋯ ὡσε⋯ ἔργον πλίνθου σαπϕείρου κα⋯ ⋯σπερ εἶδος στερεὡματος το⋯ οὺρανο⋯ τ⋯ καθαριότητι. κα⋯ τ⋯ν έπιλέκτων το⋯ 'Iσρα⋯λ ο⋯ διεϕὡνησεν οοδ⋯ εἶς κα⋯ ⋯ϕθησαν ⋯ν τῷ τόπῳ το⋯ θεο⋯ κα⋯ ἔϕαγον κα⋯ ἔπιον. The differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are striking. The latter text reads, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. He did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Exod 24:9–11 NRSV). As is frequently the case, the Septuagint avoids the directness of seeing God. The phrase, “not one of those summoned of Israel deserted,” in place of “he did not lay his hand on the chief men of Israel” is significant in light of the emphasis in 1 Cor 10:1–4 upon all the ancestors. Because of their subsequent desertion and quarreling, 1 Cor 10:6–11 shifts the emphasis (διεϕὡνησεν may also be translated “disagreed”).

¹⁷ Exod 13:21.

¹⁸ See, for example, Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 165.

¹⁹ Christiansen, Ellen Juhl, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (AGJU 27; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 291–93.Google Scholar

²⁰ Note the allusion to Deut 32:17a: ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις κα⋯οὐ θεῷ (“They sacrificed to demons and not to God”) in 1 Cor 10:20a: ⋯λλ' ⋯τι ἄ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις κα⋯ οὐ θεῷ (“but that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God”), as well as the use of παραζηλόω (“provoke to anger”) in 1 Cor 10:22 and Deut 32:21.

²¹ Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 138–39 n. 439.

²² See Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 197–98; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 156; Koester, Helmut, “The Historical Jesus and the Cult of the Kyrios Christos,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin 24 (1995) 13–18.Google Scholar

²³ Nagy, Pindar's Homer, 147. With particular reference to Pindar, Nagy offers (ibid.) the following definitions: the σοϕοί are “those who are ‘skilled’ in decoding the message encoded by the poet in his poetry”; the ⋯γαθοί are “those who are intrinsically ‘noble’ by virtue of having been raised on proper ethical standards, which are the message encoded in the poetry”; and the ϕιλοί are “those who are ‘near and dear’ and who are thereby interconnected to the poet and to each other, so that the message that is encoded in the poetry may be transmitted to them and through them.” It is important to note that to a large extent each capability requires the others.

²⁴ This way of analyzing traditional utterances draws upon the work of Roman Jakobson and other members of the Prague School of Linguistics. See, for example, Jakobson, Roman, Selected Writings, vol. 2: Word and Language (The Hague: Mouton, 1971) 136Google Scholar; idem and Pomorska, Krystyna, “The Concept of Mark,” in idem, On Language (ed. Waugh, Linda R. and Monville-Burston, Monique; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995) 134–40.Google Scholar The performance of Greek lyric and epic poetry provides a suitable analogy for exploring the formal characteristics of the performance of cult in ritual and narrative in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere in early Christianity.

²⁵ 1 Cor 11:23.

²⁶ The imperfect form παρεδίδετο is striking. Elsewhere when forms of παραδίδωμι are employed in connection with Jesus' death, the aorist is customary, as it is in Isa 53:6. The only other instance of the imperfect in this connection is in the hymn in 1 Pet 2:23, παρεδίδου δ⋯ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως (“he handed [himself] over to the one who judges justly”). Since both 1 Pet 2:21–24 and 1 Cor 11:23–26 employ early liturgical traditions about Jesus' passion, one may suspect that the use of the imperfect of παραδίδωμι belongs to the early cultic tradition of Jesus' death.

²⁷ Koester, “The Historical Jesus and the Cult of Kyrios Christos,” 16.

²⁸ See especially Jer 38:31 (LXX). Cf. also Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 199.

²⁹ 1 Cor 11:24–25.

³⁰ This appears to be the consistent pattern in Acts; καταγγέλλω refers to the process of proclaiming Jesus as the actualization of the writings of the law and prophets (Acts 3:24; 4:2; 13:38; 17:3) or as the true reference of a cultic inscription (Acts 17:23). The other occurrences of the verb in Acts describe activity in particular connection with Jewish worship (Acts 13:5; 15:36; 17:13) or in close connection to the interpretation of the scriptures (Acts 26:23). The other uses of καταγγέλλω in Pauline writings do not explicitly refer to this process, but in 1 Cor 2:1 and 9:14 refer particularly to apostolic activity.

³¹ Nagy (Pindar's Homer, 60, 388) remarks upon the phenomenon of ritual referring to itself as a sign of a crisis of genre and practice. With reference to Euripides, he correlates the phenomenon with the changes in Athenian society at the end of the fifth century BCE and the decline in the importance of the city Dionysiac. I would propose that as cultic practice incorporates the new event of Jesus' death into its reenactment, it too faces a crisis of genre and practice and similarly becomes self-referential.