^{page 140 note 1} See especially Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther I/II (Tübingen, 1949 ⁴), p. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} For a short history of the problem and proposed solutions, with full bibliography up to 1956, see Allo, E. -B., Saint Paul, Seconde Epître aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1956 ²), pp. 189–93.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 3} See the excellent summary in Hurd, J. C., The Origin of I Corinthians (London, 1965), pp. 43–7.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 4} έμπερıπατήσω (vi. 16) and εισδέξομαı (vi. 17) are also hapax legomena and are sometimes listed; but these are wholly irrelevant since they occur in citations of the LXX.

^{page 141 note 1} μερις is found elsewhere in Paul only in Col. i. 12, and is therefore considered a hapax legomenon by Betz, H. D., ‘2 Cor. 6: 14–7: I: an anti-Pauline fragment?’, J.B.L. xcii (1973), 91Google Scholar, n. 13. How-ever, the authorship of Colossians is a moot point; and since the epistle is Pauline, even if deutero-Pauline, the question of the relationship of its vocabulary to the other Pauline letters must remain open.

^{page 141 note 2} See the discussion in Braun, H., Qumran und das Neue Testament, I (Tübingen, 1966), 201–4.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} E.g. Kuhn, K. G., ‘Les rouleaux de cuivre de Qumran’, R.B. LXI (1954), 193–205.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 4} Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6: 14–7: I’, in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971), pp. 205–17Google Scholar [originally published in C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 271–80].Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 5} E.g. Gnilka, J., ‘2 Kor 6, 14–7, I im Lichte der Qumranschriften and der Zwölf-Patriarchen-Testamente’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (Festschrift für J. Schmid, eds. Blinzler, J. et al. , Regensburg, 1963), pp. 86–99Google Scholar; cited here from ET in Murphy-O'Connor, J., ed., Paul and Qumran (Chicago, 1968), pp. 48–68.Google Scholar More recently, Klinzing, G. (Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament [Göttingen, 1971], pp. 172–82)Google Scholar has argued that it came to Paul by way of a Qumran baptismal liturgy. But as with others he offers no explanation as to how Paul may have received it or why it was inserted here.

^{page 141 note 6} Enigmes de la Deuxième Epître de Paul aux Corinthiens (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series 18; Cambridge, 1972), esp. pp. 302–17.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 7} ‘An anti-Pauline fragment?’, J.B.L. XCII (1973), 88–108.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 8} Ibid. p. 108.

^{page 142 note 1} ‘Qumrân et le Nouveau Testament’, N.T.S. VII (1961), 279 (ET inGoogle ScholarMurphy-O'Connor, J., ed., Paul and Qumran [Chicago, 1968], p. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} ‘The History of the Origin of the so-called Second Letter to the Corinthians’, N.T.S. VIII (1962), 258–64.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Cf. his Paul (New York, 1971), pp. 244–6.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 4} Exceptions are Whitelaw, R., ‘A Fragment of the Lost Epistle to the Corinthians’, Classical Review IV (1890), 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milligan, G., The New Testament Documents (1913), pp. 181–3Google Scholar; and Howard, W. F., ‘Second Corinthians’, The Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York, 1929).Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 5} I.C.C. (Edinburgh, 1915), p. XXV.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} It should be noted that this argument is otherwise invalid. For if the compilation of II Corinthians was by a redactor, then the interpolation belongs to the ‘original’ text. The lack of textual variation therefore becomes irrelevant.

^{page 143 note 2} This stichometry, of course, is arbitrary. But by any other stichometry, including one where one column on the scroll concluded with ΥМΕІΣ and the top of the next column began with ΧωΡΗΣАΤΕ, the fact remains that the copyist had to insert this piece of parenesis by copying it into his basic text at a most illogical juncture.

^{page 143 note 3} ‘2 Corinthians vi. 14–vii. 1’, Classical Review IV (1890), 359–60.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} I am not the first to see the connection beteeen this passage and I Cor. viii–x. After I had finished the major portion of the exegesis for this paper, I discovered that this interpretation had been suggested by Calvin in his commentary. Since then it has received only slight notice. To my knowledge the only other commentator who has taken it seriously was Lias, J. J. (Cambridge, 1897).Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} Cf. Schlatter, A., Paulus der Bote Jesu, eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart, 1956), pp. 580–1Google Scholar, who previously noted this conjunction of μετοχή and κοıνωνια, but did not go on to note its implications for the exegesis of this passage.

^{page 145 note 2} I consider the word to be an appellation, not a proper name.

^{page 146 note 1} See especially the excellent discussion in Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), PP. 98–113.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} Cf. Ibid. p. 113: ‘The λέγεı κυῤıος quotations and a few other striking parallels indicate that some OT texts were already in stereotyped form when Paul used them.’

^{page 146 note 3} Op. cit. p. 208.

^{page 146 note 4} The contrast, Christ and Beliar, of course, does not exist elsewhere in Paul or the NT.

^{page 146 note 5} See the discussion by Charles, R. H., The Ascension of Isaiah (London, 1900), pp. lv–lvii, 6–7.Google Scholar The term appears as a name for the devil in Jubilees (i. 20), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Reub. iv, vi; Lev. iii, xix; Dan. v), and the Ascension of Isaiah (passim). Charles notes: ‘At the beginning of the Christian era, if not much earlier, Beliar was regarded as a Satanic spirit’ (p. lvii).

^{page 147 note 1} Chase, F. H., ‘On 2 Cor. vi. 14–vii. I’, Classical Review iv (1890), 317Google Scholar; Schlatter, A., op. cit. PP. 580–!.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} For the latest evaluation of the attempts to divide I Corinthians see Hurd, J. C., The Origin of I Corinthians, pp. 43–70Google ScholarHurd, and Barrett, (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [London, 1968], pp. 13–17)Google Scholar independently present strong cases for unity.

^{page 148 note 2} Although the text is ambiguous, Paul is probably referring to a fellow believer's conscience, who was also invited to dinner, rather than that of the host or another pagan. Cf. the discussion in Barrett, , op. cit. p. 242.Google Scholar This means that this is the only exception specifically mentioned with regard to idol food in general.

^{page 148 note 3} E.g. Lake, Kirsopp, The Earlier Epistles of St Paul (London, 1914 ²), pp. 199–200Google Scholar; cf. the discussion in Hurd, , op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 115 ff.

^{page 148 note 4} E.g. Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1925 ²), pp. xl–xliiiGoogle Scholar; cf. Héring, J., The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (London, 1962), pp. xii–xvGoogle Scholar, and all others who hold to a partition theory of I Corinthians (e.g. Loisy, A., Goguel, M., Zwaan, J. de, Schmithals, W., Dinkler, E.).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 146–9.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} First Corinthians, p. 239.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Description of Greece, Book II, 2–5 (Loeb, pp. 253–73).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} Pausanias does not make such distinctions, but Paul apparently does (see I Cor. viii. 5–6); cf. Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (ET, Nashville, 1970), pp. 146–7.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} Jones, W. H. S., Pausanias' Description of Greece (London, 1818)Google Scholar, Loeb, , I, xxi.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 5} P. Oxy. I. 110² (ii/A.D.) (‘Chaeremon requests your company at the table of the lord Serapes at the Serapeum tomorrow, the 15th, at 9 o'clock’); cf. P.Oxy. III. 523 (ii/A.D.) (‘Antonius, son of Ptolemy, requests your company at the table of the lord Serapis in the house of Claudius Serapion on the 16th at 9 o'clock’).

^{page 150 note 1} De phil. ex orac. hour. See Cumont, F., Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (New York, 1911Google Scholar; repr. 1956), p. 266Google Scholar, n. 37.

^{page 150 note 2} Op. cit. p. 143.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 3} It is perhaps of special significance that the second μηδέ (x. 8), which immediately follows the prohibition against idolatry with its sitting down to eat and drink, is a prohibition against fornication. One is tempted to see here the problem of temple prostitution brought into close proximity with eating at the idol temple. This is almost certainly how one is to understand the combination of ειδωλóθυτον and πορνεία elsewhere in the NT (Acts xv. 29 [cf. xv. 20]; Rev. ii. 14, 20). This combination, plus several interesting parallels between I Cor. vi. 12–20 and x. 1–22, strengthens the conviction that Paul is dealing with temple prostitution in the former passage.

^{page 153 note 1} See the various texts listed in Strack-Billerbeck, , III, 51–2Google Scholar; inter alia Deut. xxxii. 17Google Scholar; Ps. xevi. 5 (LXX xcv. 5), cvi. 37 (LXX cv. 37); Isa. lxvi. i i; I En. xix. i, xcix. 7; Jub. xxii. 17.

^{page 153 note 2} A similar logical sequence is found in Gal. iv, where ‘beings which by nature are not gods’ (= idols?) are in turn called ‘weak and beggarly elemental spirits’ (RSV) to which the Galatians are seen to ‘return’ in their new enslavement.

^{page 154 note 1} One might observe further that the prohibition in Galatians v. 16, ‘do not gratify the desires of the flesh’, follows an understanding of grace: ‘faith working through love’ and ‘through love be servants of one another’.

^{page 154 note 2} A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1973), pp. 5–21.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} This assumes that chapters x–xiii follow i–ix. Barrett has convincingly demonstrated this, even if one is not necessarily convinced that it represents a fifth letter, which followed hard on the heels of the fourth (II Cor, i–ix).

^{page 155 note 2} So called by Bornkamm, G., N.T.S. VIII (1962), 260.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 1} Thus Gnilka, , op. cit.Google Scholar, on the one hand, and Betz, H. D., op. cit.Google Scholar, on the other.

^{page 157 note 2} Op. cit. p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 3} Ibid. p. 89.

^{page 158 note 1} For another view see Ibid. pp. 89–90.

^{page 158 note 2} As does G, B.ärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (S.N.T.S. Monograph Series 1; Cambridge, 1965), p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 3} Fitzmyer, (op. cit. pp. 209–10)Google Scholar has seen μερις as reflecting the concept of ‘lot’ in Qumran, as in the ‘lot of light’ or ‘lot of God’. But the word also means precisely what is suggested here, a ‘share of food’. Cf. Moulton-Milligan, , p. 398.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} I grant that this substantival usage of πıστóς is unusual for Paul; but it is surely not impossible – nor improbable. When he says that one who is justified by faith is blessed (Gal. iii. 9), he uses the adjective with nearly the same meaning as he does the substantive here.

^{page 159 note 2} E.g. in Jewish Christianity as Betz, , op. cit. pp. 92–9Google Scholar (cf. Cerfaux, L., The Church in the Theology of St Paul [New York, 1959], pp. 151–2)Google Scholar; in Qumran as Fitzmyer, , op. cit. pp. 215–16.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 3} For a discussion of the options which led to the choice ‘in the one Spirit’ as over against ‘by the one Spirit’, see Dunn, J. D. G., Baptism in the Holy Spirit (S.B.T. 15 [second series], London, 1970), PP. 127–31.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} McKelvey, R. J. suggests this in The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford, 1969), p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} Second Corinthians, p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} One might compare the resumptive ηλο⋯τε δέ τά πνευματıκά in I Cor. xiv. I after the long digression on love.