^{page 240 note 1} In The Origin of I Corinthians (London, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} There is no need for my purposes to define ‘tongues’ and ‘prophecy’ closely. The former seems to have been a normally unintelligible form of praying and singing, the latter speaking intelligibly in the name of the Lord. Both were ‘enthusiastic’, and probably had not been sharply distinguished up to this point (cf. Acts ii. 17–18; xix. 6).

^{page 240 note 3} See Martin, I. J. III, ‘Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church’, J.B.L. LXIII (1944), 123–30.Google Scholar He takes the restrictions on prophecy as part of the diplomacy, to soften Paul's strictures on tongues.

^{page 240 note 4} May 1966, p. 227.

^{page 241 note 1} Cf. most recently Hurd, , op. cit. pp. 186–93.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Cf.Hurd, , op. cit. p. 193Google Scholar: ‘It seems hardly likely that if cries of “Jesus be cursed!” had filled either the church or the synagogue, the Corinthians would have been at a loss to know whether such an utterance were the work of the Holy Spirit.’ He is probably right to take πνευματıκ⋯ν in xii. I as masculine (p. 194, note 1). I think xii. 2, 3 is a sarcastic statement of what should be obvious; see below, pp. 251–2.

^{page 241 note 3} There would be an easy slide from ‘a sign’ to ‘the sign’, then as now.

^{page 241 note 4} Paul three times mentions the traditional category σημεīα καί τέρατα Thess. ii. 9 (σημεıοıς καιτεέρασı ϕε⋯δους) and II Cor. xii. 12 (where έν πάσ⋯⋯πουμονῇare the operative words) show its ambivalence for him. Rom. xv. 19 stands in the shadow of II Cor. x–xii. The only other reference is the highly critical I Cor. i. 22, Ίουδαιοı σημεīον αιτο⋯σıν, except for II Thess. iii. 17 and Rom. iv. 11, which are not relevant.

^{page 241 note 5} DrFord, J. M., in J.T.S. XVII (1966), 71 ff.Google Scholar, argues that άπıοτος is not generally used for ‘unbeliever’ and in certain contexts may represent ‘am ha-’aretz. This is at first sight attractive for I Cor. xiv. 24, since ίδıώτης can also bear this meaning (S.-B. III, pp. 455–6), but xiv. 22 is decisive for ‘unbeliever’ (cf. II Cor. iv. 4). The ‘precise meaning of ίδıώτης is not important for my argument.

^{page 241 note 6} Expository Times, loc. cit.; cf. R. A. Knox's note in his translation of the N.T.

^{page 242 note 1} I.C.C. I Cor. (Edinburgh, 1914), p. 317.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} Cf. Isa. xxxiii. 19; Jer. v. 15; Deut. xxviii. 49.

^{page 242 note 3} Cf. Allo, E.-B., Première Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1934), p. 365Google Scholar: ‘ici σημἒιον est simplement un signe de l'activité divine, prodigieux ou non, donné en faveur ou en défaveur de quelqu'un, avec datif commodi ou incommodi’.

^{page 242 note 4} Cf. νμος, Rom. vii. 21–viii. 3. The Greek dative leaves much to the imagination; we could translate simply ‘with reference to’. Luke xi. 30 is similarly ambiguous; so is the dative after ειςμαρτ⋯ρıον.

^{page 242 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 365–6.

^{page 242 note 6} Various interpretations, of course, have been suggested. One of the most attractive is to take Isa. xxviii strictly in context, as Dr T. F. Glasson suggests in a letter: ‘The Corinthian Christians and the men of Isa. xxviii were alike in despising the plain word of preaching in their desire for something more advanced…it is the unbelieving among the community of God's people (as in Isa. xxviii) who are intended; similarly “the believers” could mean people like the hearer of I Cor. xiv. 24–5 who comes to faith through the word of prophecy. Isa. xxviii–xxix is a passage referred to a number of times in the N.T.…the readers could be expected to know the context.’ But (a) this involves a proleptic sense for οι πıστε⋯οντες, which is as far as I know without parallel, and surely impossible—though it is supported by Héring, J., La Première Épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchâtel, 1959)Google Scholar: ‘ceux qui sont en train de devenir chrétiens’. (b) The ‘prophecy’ discussed in xii–xiv is not ‘the plain word of preaching’, or the simple message of i–ii, but an enthusiastic and rowdy phenomenon; cf. Lake, K., The Earlier Epistles of St Paul ² (London, 1914), p. 204Google Scholar, ‘The difference between glossolalia and prophecy was only that glossolalia was unintelligible’. There is no hint that the Corinthians were over-valuing tongues at the expense of prophecy; those who despised prophecy would have despised tongues too (cf. I Thess. v. 19–20; I Cor. xiv. 39). Paul was perhaps the first to distinguish sharply between them. (c) ‘Knowledge of context’ in N.T. times is a doubtful quantity. It seems to be selective, related to the purpose for which the passage was used—in this case anti-Jewish apologetic. On the whole question see Barr, James, Old and New in Interpretation (London, 1966), pp. 142–3.Google Scholar ‘It seems that we generally have to see the use of quotations not against the context from which the quotations were taken, which is the modern literary approach, but against the context of what the early Christians were doing with them’ (p. 143).

^{page 243 note 1} Philocalia IX, 2. The LXX has…δıά φαυλıσμν χεıλέων δıά γλώσσης έτέρας οτı λαλήσουσıν τῷ λαῷ το⋯τ, λέγοντες α⋯τῷ το⋯το τό άνάπαυμα τῷ πεıν⋯ντı κι το⋯το τ σ⋯ντρıμμα κι ο⋯κ ήθέλησαν άκο⋯εıν.

^{page 243 note 2} Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 107–13.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 3} Cf. Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), pp. 41–3, 83–4.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 4} (a) Rom. xii. 19 = Deut. xxxii. 35: Έμóι έκδıκησıς, έγω 'άνταποδώσω, λέγεı. This citation is closer to MT and Aramaic Targum than to LXX. It occurs also at Heb. x. 30, which adds κρıνεī Κ⋯ρıος τνλαόν α⋯το⋯ from the following verse. In context, verse 35 refers not to Israel but her enemies, and κρıνει in verse 36 means ‘vindicate’. But taken out of context the five lines verses 35–6a make a very satisfactory warning of divine judgement impending on Israel (or later, as in Hebrews, the Church). (b) Rom. xiv. 11 = Isa. xlv. 23+xlix. 18 or Deut. xxxii. 40: τı έμóι κάμψεı πν γόνυ, καί πσα γλ⋯σσα έξομολογήσεταı τῷ θεῷ—the LXX A text, apart from a change in word-order, used again christologically at Phil. ii. 10–11. The citation is preceded by ℑ⋯ έγώ, λέγεı Κ⋯ρıος, perhaps a conflation of xlix.18, though the phrase is quite common—in which case λέγεı Κ⋯ρıος does belong to the O.T. text cited. The words may at one stage have been used in context, to justify the Gentile Mission as a sign of the eschatological glorification of Israel; this is the reference of xlix. 18 and of xlv. 14, alluded to at I Cor. xiv. 25. On the other hand, ℑ⋯ έγώ may have been conflated from Deut. xxxii.40, and γέγεı Κ⋯ρıος added, as to Deut. xxxii. 35, under the conditions of Christian prophecy discussed by Ellis. The two passages are fairly similar in language and spirit, and were perhaps used together as announcing judgement on Israel—or rather misused: the Isaiah passage in context announces salvation to Israel even more obviously than Deut. xxxii. It is interesting that they were both used by Paul so close together with so similar a purpose.

^{page 244 note 1} Grant, R. M., in Harvard Theological Review, XXXIX (1946), 71 ff.Google Scholar, suggests that the enthusiasts at Corinth were using the saying of Jesus which lies behind Mark x. 15 and parallels to justify their emphasis on glossolalia. Jeremias interprets ‘unless you become like little children’ as ‘unless you learn to say Abba’, and many connect Gal. iv. 6 and Rom. viii. 15 (κράℑομν Аββα Πατήρ) with glossolalia. But this ‘cry’, however enthusiastic, is still intelligible, and Paul connects tongues not with childish babble but with foreign languages, in particular that of the angels (xiii. 1), cf. Davies, J. G., J.T.S. N.S. III (1952), 228–31.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} It is beside the point to object that prophecy does have value for unbelievers also. Ο⋯ τõıς άπιστοıς is put in for rhetorical balance, and anyway the point is not value in general but sign-value.

^{page 244 note 3} Ίδı⋯ταı are introduced simply to weave in the argument about ‘edification’ from v. 16.

^{page 245 note 1} It is possible that many were disposed to accept their claims. Chap. xii. 15, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, may indicate self-depreciation in those who had not received the gift—or, more likely, incontinent seeking of the gift. Does xiv. 12, ℑηλωται έστε πνευμάτων (cf. xii. 31, xiii. 4, xiv. 1), point to rivalries about charismata?

^{page 245 note 2} Cf., in addition to the O.T. examples, John iv. 19 and ii. 25; and Luke vii. 39, 40, where Jesus reads the thoughts of the Pharisee, who said to himself that if Jesus were a prophet he would be able to ‘read’ the woman who was touching him.

^{page 245 note 3} Op. cit. p. 367.

^{page 246 note 1} Cf. Munck, J., Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, E.T. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London, 1959), pp. 301–5Google Scholar; Nickle, K., The Collection (London, 1966), pp. 129–42.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} Cf. Hurd, , op. cit. pp. 103–6.Google Scholar He also regards Cephas as a red herring.

^{page 246 note 3} In ‘The Corinthian Correspondence (I)’, B.J.R.L. XXVI (1941)Google Scholar, reprinted in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), esp. pp. 197–207.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 4} In Abraham Unser Vater, Festschrift for Michel, O. (Leiden, 1963), pp. 1–12Google Scholar; cf. his own Rylands lecture of Nov. 1963 ( B.J.R.L. XLVI, 269–97), p. 296Google Scholar, n. 3, where he mentioned Manson's suggestion without qualifying his approval.

^{page 246 note 5} See La Naissance du Christianisme (Paris, 1946), pp. 112–15Google Scholar, and his essay in Mélanges Franz Cumont (Brussels, 1936), pp. 209–23.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} See, e.g., Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism ² (London, 1955), pp. 204–17.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} ‘Die Anfänge christlicher Theologie’, Z.Th.K. (Nov. 1960), p. 168.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 3} Käsemann, , op. cit. p. 167.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 4} See above, p. 244, n. 1.

^{page 247 note 5} Not strictly relevant to my immediate inquiry, since the Church at Rome was not a Pauline foundation. But he appeals where he can to common ground, and if xvi is part of the letter to Rome a large number of Christians there came from his sphere.

^{page 248 note 1} The New English Bible is surely right to take πνε⋯μα as subject.

^{page 248 note 2} The ᾠδαι πνευμτıκαί of Col. iii. 16 could be ‘in tongues’ (cf. I Cor. xiv. 15)—provided we take them with ᾂδοντες, like the N.E.B., and not with δıδέσκοντες καί έουθετο⋯ντες έαυτο⋯ς, like Lightfoot. At Eph. v. 19 πνευματıκαις is omitted by B d, and by N.E.B. If it is retained, the Pentecostal flavour of verse 18 makes a reference to tongues possible. In neither case is there a necessary reference. At Eph. vi. 18, έν παντı καıρῷ makes a reference to ‘praying in tongues’ (I Cor. xiv. 14) impossible.

^{page 248 note 3} If this can be accepted, then Rom. xii. 11, τῷ πνε⋯ματı ℑέουτες, could be a reference too.

^{page 248 note 4} It is hard to see how a sudden outburst of glossolalia, hitherto unexperienced, could have been at once interpreted as the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy. Passages about the unintelligible language of foreign invaders lay readier to hand (Isa. xxviii. 11, xxxiii. 19; Jer. v. 15; Deut. xxviii. 49, cf. above p. 242), and the original interpretation is more likely to have been as a warning of judgement against unrepentant Israel. But Peter's speech in Acts ii is widely recognized to be a later construction—cf. Barnabas, Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961), pp. 36–59Google Scholar —and so the coupling of tongues and prophecy there is evidence only for Luke's view. But there is no reason why this should not have been a primitive, even if not the original, view. Πνευ⋯μα and πνευματıκς may well for a time have carried a primary reference to tongues as the most obvious φανερωσıς of the Spirit; cf. I Cor. xiv. 37, ει τıς ποφήτης ειναı ή τνευματıκς: tongues and prophecy are the two activities which have just been regulated, so πνευματıκıς may be used by Paul here sarcastically as the self-designation of a tongue-speaker.

^{page 249 note 1} Op. cit. p. 205.Google Scholar Cf. Munck, , op. cit. p. 35Google Scholar, n. 1: ‘Did the Corinthians know, before Paul wrote those words (I Cor. xiv. 18ff.), that he had the gift of tongues?’

^{page 249 note 2} On this view, the likelihood that II Cor. vi. 14–vii. I belongs to the ‘Previous Letter’ is very strong; cf. Hurd, pp. 235–7.

^{page 250 note 1} Hurd can claim the support of Munck—op. cit. ch. v, ‘Die Gemeinde ohne Parteien’—and the parties must not be over-emphasized: they could still meet and be addressed as one Church. But his treatment of Cephas and his party is unsatisfactory (pp. 99–101, 269–70). Barrett's articles were not available to him, and he barely mentions Manson's theory about the introduction of tongues (p. 101).

^{page 250 note 2} p. 192. He shows brilliantly that the purpose of xii is not to defend the unity of the Church but to encourage diversity, against the narrowness of the Corinthians' view of the operation of the Spirit (pp. 190–2). He is also very good on the fervour of Paul's denigration of tongues and the variety of his arguments in xiv (pp. 188–9).

^{page 251 note 1} I think he is right to take πνευmgr;ατıκ⋯ν as masculine (p. 194, n. 1).

^{page 251 note 2} He reconstructs its gist as ‘Do not quench the Spirit, but test everything. Do not abandon yourselves to pagan enthusiasm’ (p. 292), and thinks I Thess. v. 19–22 contains the substance of what Paul must have said (p. 227, n. 2). His theory that I Thessalonians had a special relationship to the Previous Letter (pp. 231–3) is very interesting.

^{page 251 note 3} Cf. Héring, , op. cit. p. 108Google Scholar, ‘II va sans dire que le critère indiqué n'est pas suffisant’; Lake, K., The Earlier Epistles of St Paul (London, 1914)Google Scholar, says ‘it is obvious that this simple test was likely to prove insufficient’ (p. 205), without drawing the equally obvious conclusion that Paul's intention was different.

^{page 252 note 1} Άφωνα is not merely epitheton ornans (in which case it would be ill chosen): Paul is consciously exercising his Jewish contempt for pagan stupidity.

^{page 252 note 2} Is there a reference to a saying of Jesus like Mark ix. 39? I Cor. xiv. 39 indicates there were some who would like to ‘forbid’ tongues altogether. Paul's instructions are ντολή Κυριου (verse 37).

^{page 252 note 3} Op. cit. p. 204. It is worth noting for contemporary discussion that there is no objection to tongues on the grounds of ‘ecstasy’, or loss of control. Chap. xiv presupposes that both tongues and prophecy are under control—verses 26–32. The objections are (i) that tongues are unintelligible, and therefore unhelpful to others; (ii) the νος κρπο—the man is therefore not making the most of himself.

^{page 252 note 4} Robertson and Plummer compare Gal. iv. 3. Paul may have in mind the poverty as well as the blindness of the old situation, in contrast with the richness of the new (cf. I Cor. i. 4–9). In Gal. iv. 3–4 the danger is of renouncing the new, here of limiting it.

^{page 252 note 5} Hering's reading ώς άνήγεσθε, άπαγμενοı, is attractive: ‘vous croyiez être transportés au ciel (άνήγεσθε), mais en réalité vous étiez victimes des forces du mal (άπαγμενοı) qui vous entraînaient’ (op. cit. p. 108). There are similar insinuations at xiii. 1, where he compares tongues to the gongs and cymbals of pagan worship; at xiv. 21–2, if εις σημεıον τοις άπιστοıς refers to the delusion of unbelievers, as in II Thess. ii. 9 ff.; at xiv. 23, where μαινεσθε could suggest demon-possession (cf. John x. 20); and at xiv. 39 if, as Hurd thinks, ε⋯ημνως hints at the indecency of pagan worship.

^{page 253 note 1} Cf. Hooker, M. D., Theology, LXIX (Jan. 1966), 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 253 note 2} It is worth noting that Hurd's view also requires considerable development in Paul's doctrine of Baptism, which by the time he wrote I Cor. xii was the one necessary and sufficient mark of being πνευματıκς. This is by no means impossible (I Cor. i. 17?)—cf. Weiss, J., History of Primitive Christianity (London, 1937), II, 622–9.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 3} Cf. Schweizer, E., The Body of Christ (London, 1965), p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 4} Contrast Phil. iii. 12; Eph. iv. 13.

^{page 254 note 1} Op. cit. p. 192.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 2} At Rom. xii. 9, ή άγάπη άνυπκρıτος does not refer back to χαρισματα in v. 6, but begins a new section addressed to all, cf. Cranfield, C. E. B., A Commentary on Romans 12–13 (Scottish journal of Theology, Occasional Papers no. 12, Edinburgh, 1965), p. 38.Google Scholar At I Cor. xiv. δıώκετε τήν άγάπην και ℑηλσ⋯τε τάπνευματıκά, the N.E.B. blurs the sense by rendering: ‘Put love first; but there are other gifts of the Spirit at which you should also aim.’ Δıώκεıν and ℑηλο⋯ν can be practically synonymous, but δıώkgr;εıν is more suitable for cases of duty, ℑηλο⋯ν for cases of desire. At xii. 31 b, ἓτı καθ' ⋯περβολήν ⋯περβολήν δν must in the context be a different kind of way (cf. Matt. v. 20—a different kind of righteousness?). In xiii love is not alternative to tongues, prophecy, knowledge, etc., but a sine qua non. Love cannot exist unless expressed in activities, any more than faith can, cf. Jas. ii. 18.

^{page 254 note 3} This exclusive valuation of tongues does need explanation. There is no reason to think it would happen naturally—certainly, to Greeks, tongues would be evidence of Spirit-control, but prophecy, for example, was just as ‘inspired’. If it cannot be traced to Paul we must look elsewhere, and ‘Cephas’ fits. Hurd's basic contention is that all the questions at issue in I Corinthians can be traced to Paul's original teaching and subsequent development: there is no need to postulate Hellenistic reinterpretation at Corinth, or the influence of Cephas or anyone else. Therefore, if my arguments with regard to glossolalia are sound, they undermine his whole position. But even if this be so, his book is still stimulating and instructive, with a great deal of acute and original perception, especially in the literary analysis.

^{page 254 note 4} In Z.N.T.W. XLI (1942), 33–71.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 5} Cf. above, p. 253, on έν άποδειξεı πνε⋯ματος (I Cor. ii. 4).

^{page 255 note 1} Käsemann, , op. cit. pp. 61–3Google Scholar; for ⋯πομονή, cf. xi. 23ff.

^{page 255 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 66–8, ‘Glossolalie und Ekstase…repräsentieren das noch nicht enthüllte göttliche Mysterium, sind Hinweise auf bisher nicht angebrochene eschatologische Ereignisse, die mit der Verborgenheit des Paradieses zusammenhängen’ (p. 68).

^{page 255 note 3} It is possible Paul had kept so quiet about his gift of tongues that his pneumatic status could be called in question—Manson and Munck both think I Cor. xiv. 18 could be the first the Corinthians had heard of it (above, pp. 249 n. 1). Schoeps, H. J., Paulus, E.T. (London, 1961) pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar, thinks ‘it is just this spirit-derived character of his apostolic ministry—he calls it an office of the Holy Ghost (I Cor. xii. 4)—which has made him so suspect in the eyes of his Judaizing opponents’, and finds confirmation in the pseudo-Clementine literature. But Käsemann is surely right that both Jerusalem and Paul were equally based on the Spirit (above, p. 247). Paul did not parade his private experiences till forced to do so in the Corinthian letters, and it is a later polemic, based on these letters, which the Pseudo-Clementines reflect.

^{page 255 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 68–9.

^{page 255 note 5} ‘Denn die Agape kann nicht ohne Einsicht, nicht ohne das σωφρονειν sein und nicht ohne den νσς, der sich aus der Bezogenheit auf den andern versteht’ (p. 69). This is not to say that glossolalia is incompatible with agape, but that glossolalia by itself is.

^{page 255 note 6} Op. cit. (above, p. 254, n. 2), p. 14.

^{page 256 note 1} Cf. above, p. 254, n. 2. ‘Genuine love’ is unfolded in what follows, as at I Cor. xiii. 4–7.

^{page 256 note 2} Op. cit. p. 43. I think he is right to read Πνε⋯ματı, against N.E.B.—cf. τ Πνε⋯μα μή σβέννυτε (I Thess. v. 19), which may well refer to tongues, cf. above, p. 248.