^{page 33 note 1} Windisch, Hans, ‘Die göttliche Weisheit der Juden und die paulinische Christologie’, in Neutestamentliche Studien für Georg Heinrici (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 220–34. Windisch draws upon many Pauline texts in addition to I Cor. i f., but his viewpoint causes him to see the chapters as Paul's wisdom teaching. The weaknesses of his theory are plain. Not only are the key christological motifs not derivable from wisdom concepts, but also Paul treats the issue of sophia in any important way only in reaction to the situation in Corinth. For another view of the relation between Christ and sophia in PaulGoogle Scholar, cf. Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism(London, 1948), pp. 147–76.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} Wilckens, Ulrich, Weisheit and Torheit (Tübingen, 1959); T.W.N.T. VII, 497–523Google Scholar; also ‘Kreuz and Weisheit’, Kerygma and Dogma, III (1957), 77–108.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 3} Weisheit, , pp. 60, 216 f.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 4} Ibid.pp. 205–13, 216 f.

^{page 34 note 1} Cf. e.g. II Cor. i. 13. To judge from II Cor. x. 10, the Corinthians understood him well enough.

^{page 34 note 2} Weisheit, , p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} Ibid. pp. 92 f., 217.

^{page 34 note 4} The difficult problem of the opponents' views cannot be discussed here, but a fresh analysis is pressingly needed. Some light can be shed on the sophia by a study of gnosis and the spiritual gifts of the Corinthians. For a new treatment of the situation reflected in II Cor., cf. now Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im ₂. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 5} The author of Luke-Acts, for example, who is hardly a gnostic.

^{page 35 note 1} A similar critique of Wilckens has also been made by Niederwimmer, K. in ‘Erkennen and Lieben’, Kerygma and Dogma, XI (1965), 86 f. Niederwimmer rightly sees that Wilckens has misunderstood the situation and that Paul does have a teaching he imparts to the rPeuoi but not to the of νέπιοι.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Weisheit, , pp. 97–197. CfGoogle Scholar. also Arvedson, T., Das Mysterium Christi (Uppsala, 1937), pp. 170 f.Google Scholar, and now Georgi, D., ‘Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2, 6–11’, in Zeit and Geschichte (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 266 if. The relation between Jewish sophia and gnosticism, Wilckens believes, is complex. Both apparently stem from some common ancestor. The similarity thus already possessed made it easy for later wisdom theology to appropriate terms and concepts being developed in gnosticism proper (pp. 192–7). What the author seems to present as the background for I Cor. ii. 6–16 is a sophia speculation in name but gnostic in content. He works from the popular assumption that the whole Corinthian ‘heresy’ is gnostic in character. This view is well-known and finds its most detailed argument in Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (Gottingen, 1956). Evidence for the argument is of course drawn from all of the Corinthian materials, and it is certainy not Wilckens's obligation to argue the whole case. He even justifiably complains that Schmithals has neglected the wisdom sections in I Cor. (p. 3, n. 2). I might dare to intensify the complaint. I Cor. if. is so crucial that if Wilckens has not proved his argument, it may be that the whole gnostic theory of the Corinthian disturbance becomes untenable. For other comments on this theory, cfGoogle Scholar. my article, ‘The Exaltation of the Spirit by Some Early Christians’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 370–3.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} It is important to stress that the content of Paul's wisdom is apocalyptic not pragmatic or ethical, a fact that is continually in evidence in the following exegesis. Such a union of wisdom and apocalyptic, or heilsgeschichtliche motifs is of course common to many Jewish materials-Daniel, the parables in I Enoch, the Qumran writings, and Wisdom of Solomon.

^{page 35 note 4} Cf. Wilckens, , Kerygma and Dogma, III, p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} Also recently Schlier, H., ‘Kerygma and Sophia’, Ea. Theol. x (1950/1951), 481–9. What is at stake is the foolishness of preaching. Paul does not say the cross is foolishness; he says the word of the cross is foolishness (i. 18). In i. 21 it is the foolishness of the preaching that saves men. What is foolishness to the Gentiles is the proclamation of the crucified Christ (i.23). Thus the words τò μωρόν and τό οσθενές. 25 refer not to God's act on the cross itself but to the proclamation of this act. The contrast is so far clear. It is the recital of the events which saves men, not the eloquent wisdom of the missionary, which may even block the effectiveness of the cross (i. 17). The kerygma is the power of God to save men (cf. also Rom. i. 16). It is, furthermore, the power of God (I Cor. ii. 3–5).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} As do G. Bornkamm, T. W.N. T. iv, 826 f.; Wilckens, Weisheit, p. 220; E.Schweizer, T. W.N.T. VI, 422 f.

^{page 37 note 2} The v.1. μυστρήριον has strong witnesses, but μαρτύριον seems preferable as the more difficult reading and, in my opinion, more satisfactory within the context.

^{page 38 note 1} Cf. Jervell, J., Imago Dei (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 71 ff., for interesting examples.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Cf. IQS viii. 1–19, especially lines II f. So Plessis, P. Du, TEAEIOΣ: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen, 1959), pp. 106 f.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} Cf. Mark, iv. 10–20, where μνορήριον also appears, and Heb. v. 11 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 4} Paul cannot be charged with setting up a new division in the church at the same time as he is trying to destroy the ones that exist (a difficulty which forces Du Plessis to doubt Paul is making a distinction between kerygma and sophia, cf. p. 181). Paul nowhere denies that valid distinctions in maturity, spiritual gifts, intellectual levels, or productivity exist. What he attacks is rather divisions based upon a prideful evaluation of such distinctions. Paul can speak of his own spiritual gifts (I Cor. ii. 16; II Cor. xii. 1–4), but he knows himself to be a SoOros for the community (II Cor. iv. 5; I Cor. iii. 21–3).

^{page 38 note 5} Cf. e.g. Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (3rd ed.; Leipzig, 1927), pp. 338–40Google Scholar; Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther I.II (Tubingen, 1949), pp. II f.Google Scholar; Wilckens, , Weisheit, pp. 53–8.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 6} Cf. also I Cor. xiv. 20; Phil. iii. 15, and a tantalizingly similar passage in Heb. v. 11 if. Here is the τέλειος–νήπιος contrast, coupled with that of milk vs. solid food, in the midst of distinctions in the levels of Christian teaching. Schlier rejects a gnostic interpretation of this image in both Hebrews and I Corinthians, cf. T.W.N.T. 1, 644. Hebrews does not demonstrate a wisdom context here, but one can probably conclude that the contrasts were already by Paul's time embedded in the language of Christian post-baptismal instruction.

^{page 38 note 7} Sir. xliv. 17; xxxi. 10; xxxiv. 8.

^{page 39 note 1} A difference in thought exists between this verse and I Cor. ii. 6. at Paul in the latter verse limits to a few, in the former is said to be the goal of every Christian, in other words between the description of a real situation (I Corinthians) and that of an ideal striven for (Colossians), so also Rigaux, B., ‘Revelation des mystcres et perfection a Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament’, N.T.S. IV (1957–1958), 257.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Several studies have been devoted to this topic. Cf. Black, M., The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961), pp. 118–21, to whom acknowledgement is due for bibliographical aid on Qumran, Du Plessis, TEAEIOΣ, pp. 104–15Google Scholar; Rigaux, , N.T.S. IV (1957–1958), 237–47Google Scholar; Foerster, W., ‘Der heilige Geist im Spätjudentum’, N.T.S. VIII (1961–1962), 123 f.Google Scholar; also Prümm, K., review of Du Plessis, TEAEIOΣ, in Biblica, XLIV (1963), 82.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} E.g. IQS i. 8, ii. 2, iii. 9; IQH i. 36.

^{page 40 note 1} In one way or another, I Cor. ii. 6, xiii. to, xiv. 20; Phil. iii. 15; Col. i. 28.

^{page 40 note 2} Schlier relates I Cor. i. 21 to Rom. i.18 ff., cf. Ev. Theol. x, 484–9.

^{page 41 note 1} Dibelius, M., Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen, 1909), pp. 89–98; cfGoogle Scholar. also Wilckens, , Weisheit, pp. 60–4.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} Weisheit, p. 71.

^{page 41 note 3} Likewise in Sir. x. 1–4 the success of the ruler is said to depend upon his wisdom. God establishes and destroys kings, according to their wickedness and his will. Cf. also Dan. ii.21; Bar. iii.16.

^{page 42 note 1} Cf. also xxxviii.; xlviii.

^{page 42 note 2} I have used Charles's translation throughout, Apoc. and Pseud. (Oxford, 1913), Vol. II.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} xxiv.3, according to text B of Charles, ibid.

^{page 42 note 4} i.9, 26 ff.; ii. 3; iii. 16; iv. 5.

^{page 42 note 5} i. 13, 16, 20; ii. 8, I0, 15, 20. Cf Dibelius, pp. 126–55.

^{page 43 note 1} Dibelius argues that i. 26, τό μυστήριον τό άποκεκρυμμένον άπό τ⋯ν αί⋯νων καί άπό τ⋯ν γεγ⋯ν, contains such a reference, cf. pp. 134–6. This is possible, but it seems to me a bit forced.

^{page 43 note 2} Cf.also Eph. i. 17–23.

^{page 43 note 3} One criticism of the theory that historical rulers are meant in I Cor. ii is that the ‘rulers of this age’ is too inclusive a category to apply to those few historical rulers implicated in the death of Jesus. The universal category found always in the wisdom literature makes this criticism much less certain.

^{page 43 note 4} As argued strongly by Cullmann, O., Der Staat im Neuen Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen, 1961), PP. 75 f.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 5} An instructive parallel here may be Wisd. i. i6-v. 23, which is moulded after Isa. lii. 13-liii. 12, cf. Suggs, J., J.B.L. LXXVI (1957), 26–33. In the servant passage the kings are related to the suffering of the righteous man. To be sure, in Wisdom the persecutors of the righteous are said only to be unrighteous men (i. 16). Yet the book has just opened with an appeal to the rulers of the earth, and the end of the section depicts the end of the powers of wicked kings. Thus the unrighteous persecutors may by implication be the kings of the earth. Note that these men bewail, once they see the salvation of the righteous, their own ignorance of God's will (v. 1–8).Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} This interpretation is consistent with what Paul says in Rom. viii. 38 f. and I Cor. xv. 24 f. about the powers. They are considered to be evil and no future other than annihilation lies in store for them. In Colossians and Ephesians, as well as in Phil. ii. 6–11, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the thought moves in the direction of an eschatological reconciliation with these powers. Another inconsistency is also found with Rom. xiii. 1–8, where the human rulers are called έξονυσιαι and άρχοντες and yet are considered in the strongest positive way. They are ministers of God and do not seem to be related to the angelic powers. For the problems here, cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Romer (Gottingen, 1963), pp. 313–23. The gnostic interpretation of I Cor. ii. 6, however, comes no closer to making all these passages agree.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Cf. ii. 19, 28–30, 47; iv 9.

^{page 44 note 3} The Hebrew is ambiguous as to whether God or the gods is meant. The Greek translators of course had no doubt and so translated πνε⋯μα θεο⋯(θεο⋯ in v. II, 14) or πνε⋯μα άλιον (LXX in v. 12 lacking v. 14 entirely).

^{page 45 note 1} P. 110. So also Rigaux, pp. 242 f.

^{page 45 note 2} There are many passages of.similar view in other Jewish and Christian writings. Cf. I Enoch xvi. 3; li. 3; lxiii. 3; civ.10, 12; II Enoch xxiv. 3; Mark iv. ii; Rev. x. 7.

^{page 46 note 1} Muller, C. relates this speculation to Rev. xi. 13 and to Jewish apocalyptic texts, cf. Cotes Gerechtigkeit and Gottes Volk (Gottingen, 1964), pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Niederwimmer calls attention to another passage, I Thess. iv. 13–17, where Paul reveals an apocalyptic mystery, although the word uvari ptov does not occur, cf. p. 87.

^{page 46 note 3} Cf. passages where it is through Christ that the believer is to be transformed into a glorious existence: Rom. viii. i6 f., 29 f.; II Cor. iii. 18; Phil. iii. 20 f.

^{page 46 note 4} Besides ch. lxiii, cf. also xxii. 14; 3, 7, and others noted by Wilckens, Weisheit, p. 73, n. 1. The term is found almost without exception in a liturgical setting.

^{page 46 note 5} The v.l. & also has strong witnesses.

^{page 47 note 1} The aorist in verse 9 is best understood as a parallel to προ⋯ρισψν in verse 7 and refers to God's determination before the ages.

^{page 47 note 2} ‘From of old no one has heard or perceived by the ear, no eye has seen a God besides thee, who works for those who wait for him’ (RSV). The LXX, however, reads somewhat differently. ’Aπò το⋯ αι⋯νος οὐκ ἠκοὐσαμεν οὐδέ οι óφθαλμοι ήμ⋯ν ειδον θεòν πλήν σο⋯ καί τί ⋯ρλα σου, ά ποιήσεις τοĪς ὐπομενουσιν ⋯λεον

^{page 47 note 3} Prigent, P. has presented a strong case for this view, cf. ‘Ce que l'oeil n'a pas vu, I Cor. 2, 9’, Th., Z'. xiv (1958), 416–29. Christian sources, he argues, contain the words in such varied order and with such lack of acknowledgement to Paul that it is impossible to conceive of the apostle as the author. In the Gospel of Thomas, log. 17, for instance, it is ascribed to Jesus. Prigent believes it likely that the logion originally came from the liturgy of the synagogue. He is forced to acknowledge, however, that rabbinic citations, which would presumably have the closest relation to the Synagogue, all refer to Isa. 1xiv. 4 and have an interpretation similar to that of Paul, pp. 424 f. On this cf. the next note.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} In I Cor. xv. 45 Paul has virtually the same introductory formula, followed by a targumic translation of Gen. ii. 7 which varies at least as much from the text (if one allows 45 b as part of the targum) as does I Cor. ii. 9 from Isa. lxiv. 4. Paul is much freer in his use of the quoted text than is often assumed, as can be demonstrated from what surely is his most carefully composed letter, Romans. The LXX of Isa. Ixiv. 3 (= M.T.lxiv.4) also differs noticeably from the M.T. Most import-ant, the LXX and the rabbis (cf. Sifre, Num. xxvii. 12, sec. 135 and the Targum) give an eschatological interpretation to the verse, although the particular nuance may vary from one interpretation to another. Thus Paul varies the text in the same direction as it was, apparently, customarily done by the Jews of his day. In both structure and content the passage can be seen without too much difficulty as a free midrash by Paul.

^{page 47 note 5} τελείοις in ii.6 really contrasts with νηπίοις in iii. 1, while πνευματικοις with σαρκινοίς. These are two separate sets of images and one cannot so simply bring τέλειος into identity with πνενματικóς as Wilckens does, Weisheit, p. 53, n. 3.

^{page 48 note 1} For a study of this development, cf. Rylaarsdam, C., Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature (Chicago, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Sir. xxiv. 23; Bar. iv. 1.

^{page 48 note 3} Cf. Rylaarsdam, , pp. 100–17Google Scholar, Feldmann, F., Das Buch der Weisheit (Bonn, 1926), pp. 17 f.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 4} Cf. IQS iv. 2–6, IQH xii. II f., xiii. 18 f. and many others. So also Nötscher, , ‘Geist and Geister in den Texten von Qumran’, Mélanges Bibliques en l' Honneur de Andre Robert (Paris, 1957), pp. 306 f.Google Scholar, and Foerster, , pp. 126–9, 132. The latter believes the Psalms and the ‘Two Spirits’ section of IQS (iii. 13-iv. 26) have a particular interest in this idea.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 5} Cf. here Fichtner, J., Weisheit Salomos (Tubingen, 1938), pp 8 f.Google Scholar, and Zeuner, G., Die theologische Begriffssprache im Buche der Weisheit (Bonn, 1956), pp. 109 f.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} E.g. Fichtner, , who suggests, p. 9, Rom. i. 18 ff. with chs. xi, xiii, xv; Rom. ii. 4 with xi. 23, XII. 10, 19; Rom. ix. 21 with xv. 7; II Cor. V. 5, 7 with ix. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} Here is one clear difference between Wisdom of Solomon and Paul. For the former sophia is not in content the eschatological plan of God but his will for ethical conduct. Nor is sophia revealed only at the end of the days.

^{page 50 note 1} The closest is βουλή in Wisdom of Solomon and σὐμβουλος in Isaiah.

^{page 50 note 2} The temptation to contrast ψυχη with Paul's ψυχικóς in I Cor. ii. 14 must be resisted. In Wisdom of Solomon ψυχή does mean the higher part of man (identified with νο⋯ς and contrasted with σ⋯μα), while ψυχικóς in I Cor. ii. 14 means the entire man as he exists without God's spirit. Yet the end result is the same. The burdened ψυχή is no more able without the holy spirit to know the sophia of God than is the ψυχικòς άνθρωπος.

^{page 50 note 3} Fichtner and Feldmann, however, believe chapters vi-ix and x-xix are two separate, unrelated parts of the book, although written by the same author. In this case ix. 18 is a general summary and conclusion and the following chapters cannot be used to determine what is the saving activity of sophia.

^{page 50 note 4} The same use of the plural is found in iv. 1

^{page 51 note 1} (1) In both sections the T1vevua is a revelatory agent, although in Rom. viii it reveals man's heart to God (verses 26 f.; cf. Wisd. i. 7) as well as revealing to man his sonship (verses 15 f.). (2) In both sections a human spirit is introduced in addition to the divine spirit. (3) In both places and only here Paul uses the word έρευνάω. Note a similar use of έρευνάω in I Clem. xxi. 2, whose author changes Prov. xx. 27 in the direction of Paul's usage. Either Clement is influenced by Paul or he knows a similar context of πν?ε⋯μα as revelatory to God.

^{page 51 note 2} E.g. Rom. i. 18–25; viii. 28–30; xi. 7–10; II Cor. iv. 3 f.; I Cor. xii. 3.

^{page 51 note 3} Cf. Wilckens, , Weisheit, pp. 82 f., and Schlier, T.W.N.T. 1, 515 f.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 4} Trans. by Charles, . The question reappears at II Bar. liv. 12. Notice the close similarity with I Cor. ii. 10. Cf. Wilckens, Weisheit, p. 82, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 5} Cf. Bultmann, R., New Testament Theology, 1 (New York, 1954), 205–7.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 6} Similar rhetoric is found abundantly in the Qumran literature.

^{page 52 note 1} Wilckens is correct in stressing τά ὐπò το⋯ θεο⋯ χαρισθέντα ήμίν as a Pauline limitation of knowledge, but incorrect, I believe, in saying this corrects the gnostic language of earlier verses. He is forced to admit that one can read the whole section in the light of 12 b, cf. Weisheit, p. 86, n. 1. Verse 7, e.g., implies the same limitation: Paul knows only the things that God has in store for human history and the glorification of the saints.

^{page 52 note 2} E.g. Reitzenstein, pp. 342 ff.

^{page 52 note 3} E.g. II Cor. i. 23. In all cases Paul speaks out of the O.T. Even in I Cor. xv. 45 the word keeps its biblical meaning, contra Bultmann, Theology, 1, 204 f.

^{page 52 note 4} The word ‘natural’ must be used carefully, since Paul really knew only condemned (distorted) existences and saved (restored) existences. The ψυχικóς man is not really ‘natural’ since he lives in a distorted existence subject to death. On the other hand ψυχικóς does not refer in any of Paul's uses to man in his hostility to God. Thus the phrase ψυχικòς άνθρωπος seems to mean the entire man in his biological-historical life in the world, not primarily as a sinner but as a distorted existence subject to death.

^{page 52 note 5} Ψυχικóς is not particularly a wisdom word, but it may not be accidental that in one of the other two places in the N.T. where it occurs, James iii. 15, the word is definitely in a wisdom context. Here James opposes a wisdom teaching which he calls boastful, ambitious, provoking to jealousy, and ψυχική The word here has definitely more of a negative meaning than it has in I Cor. ii. 14, but the context is strikingly similar to Paul's judgement on the wisdom of the Corinthians.

^{page 53 note 1} It must mean, ‘all the things God has given to us’ (verse 12).

^{page 53 note 2} This perspective aids in determining the meaning of άνακρινεταı in 15 b. The polemical quality of the section points towards a comparable section in iv. 1–3, where άνακρίνω is used clearly with the sense of ‘judging’. Verse 15 b thus hints at a meaning which Paul intends later to make explicit. Note that in iv. i Paul introduces his defence by again referring to his wisdom. The plural there must be taken to refer specifically to Paul, even though Apollos is reintroduced into the discussion in iv. 6.

^{page 53 note 3} In Rom. xi. 25 if. Paul reveals his μυστήρıον, a fragment of his wisdom teaching. At the end of this revelation Paul praises the wisdom of God in verses 33–6. The wisdom context is seen not only in the quotation from Isa. xl. 13 and the words ßάθος, σοφια, and γν⋯σıς, but also from άνεξıχνιαστος, ‘untraceable’. The notion of tracing out wisdom, or the inability to trace it, is very common in the wisdom literature, cf. the various appearances of as it is used in Job v. 9, xxxiv. 24, and especially Eph. iii. 8, where the word appears in a wisdom context that cannot be simply dependent upon Paul.

^{page 54 note 1} Scholars might well be a bit more cautious towards a too facile identification of νο⋯ς with πνε⋯μα in Paul. Such an identification in the Hermetica ought not to obscure the fact that Paul nowhere else uses νο⋯ς in such a way to refer to God or Christ, as πνε⋯μα usually does. The renewal of the νο⋯ς is an important concept for Paul, but it always remains for him the human mind or inner man. That Paul speaks as he does in I Cor. ii. 16 is certainly due to the exigencies of Scripture and perhaps the likelihood that he remembered the Hebrew wording as well as the LXX.

^{page 54 note 2} This paper should not in any sense be construed as an attempt to return to Bousset's view of Paul as a religious superman and prideful mystagogue, cf. Kyrios Christos (2nd ed.; Göttingen, 1921), esp. pp. 118–24. Bousset is certainly correct in seeing that such elements exist in the apostle, and perhaps in the light of some recent tendencies in scholarship these aspects need to be re-emphasized. Nevertheless Bousset evaluates the personal so highly that it effectually takes precedence over the apostolic. For Paul it is rather the case that whenever the personal appears in his letters it is made to serve the cause of the apostolic.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} Cf. Schlier, who seems to believe that Paul opens up here the possibility for a genuine and true philosophy (and science?), so long as it adheres to the kerygma as beginning point, Ev. Theol. III, 490–507. As far as I can see, Paul is concerned only with a theological knowledge that is revelatory. What he might say about what we call ‘secular’ knowledge and how that should be related to the kerygma is hardly to be derived exegetically from I Cor. ii.