¹ E.g. Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1971) 121–2Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 96Google Scholar; Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University, 1983) 129Google Scholar; Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 200Google Scholar; Countryman, L. W., Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 197Google Scholar; Harris, G., ‘The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5’, NTS 37 (1991) 1–21,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. p. 4; Chow, J. K., Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 130–2Google Scholar; Clarke, A. D., Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6 (AGJU 18; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993) 73Google Scholar; Witherington, B. III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 156.Google Scholar

² See Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 95Google Scholar; Fee, First Epistle, 200; Countryman, , Dirt, 73Google Scholar; Harris, , ‘Beginnings’, 3Google Scholar; Witherington, , Conflict, 156.Google Scholar

³ E.g. Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96Google Scholar; Countryman, , Dirt, 197.Google Scholar

⁴ Lattke, M., ‘Verfluchter Inzest: War der “Pornos” von 1 Kor 5 ein persischer “Magos”?’ Peregrina Curiositas:Eine Reise durch den orbis antiquus (ed. Kessler, A., Ricklin, T. and Wurst, G.; Freiburg: Universität Verlag, 1994) 37Google Scholar. Lattke presents a great deal of evidence to show that marriages between sons and their biological mothers were common among the Persian Magi (ibid., 39–40). However, his argument as to why this would have a bearing on this particular case is questionable. For he assumes that given Corinth's ethnic heterogeneity every culture must be represented and thus there must have been Persian Magi and that some of them may have been members of the church (ibid., 49–50). This is an argument entirely from silence. There is no evidence to suggest there were Persians settled at Corinth in either coins, pottery sherds or inscriptions. See Harris, J. M., ‘Coins Found at Corinth’, Hesp 10 (1941) 143–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, K. S., ‘A Tiberian Pottery Deposit from Corinth’,Hesp49 (1980) 135–77Google Scholar; and the three volumes of inscriptions edited by B. D. Merritt, A. B. West and J. H. Kent. Yet even if there were Persians at Corinth that still does not mean some were converted. There are far too many ‘ifs’ involved.

⁵ Cf. Lev 20.11; see Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96 n. 25Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 200Google Scholar; Countryman, , Dirt, 197Google Scholar; Harris, , ‘Beginnings’, 4Google Scholar; Chow, , Patronage, 130Google Scholar; Clarke, , Leadership, 73Google Scholar; Witherington, , Conflict, 156.Google Scholar Lattke's point that the phrase could be used to refer to one's biological mother in later rabbinic texts (‘Verfluchter Inzest’, 38) is irrelevant and anachronistic. He also ignores the apparent contrast between ‘mother’ and ‘stepmother’ in Lev 18.7–8.

⁶ Although Josephus uses the phrase γαμετὴ πατρόςrather than γυνῆ πατρός (AJ 3.274) the sense is clearly the same.

⁷ Barrett, , Commentary, 122Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 200Google Scholar; Countryman, , Dirt, 197Google Scholar; Harris, , ‘Beginnings’, 4Google Scholar; Chow, , Patronage, 132Google Scholar; Clarke, , Leadership, 73.Google ScholarMeeks, (First Urban, 129Google Scholar) and Fee, (First Epistle, 200Google Scholar) both explicitly claim that it must have been cohabitation, while Countryman, (Dirt, 197Google Scholar) assumes it was marriage. Under Roman law co-habitation with the intent of marriage between two people who were both citizens was considered a valid marriage. See Treggiari, S. M., Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 54–5Google Scholar; Dixon, S., The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1992) 61.Google Scholar

⁸ Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 200Google Scholar; Countryman, , Dirt, 197Google Scholar; Harris, , ‘Beginnings’, 4Google Scholar; Clarke, , Leadership, 73 n. 3Google Scholar. On the other hand, W. Schmithals claims that it could have taken place when the father was alive since this was common among the gnostics (Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians [Nashville: Abingdon, 1971] 237)Google Scholar. Yet he does not explain why Paul did not refer to it as adultery, given that he did use language associated with abulyery, and his position depends on reading full-blown second century gnosticism back into the text. I agree with a number of recent scholars, that there is no need to resort to (or no evidence for) gnosticism to explain the problems at Corinth. See, for example, L. L. Welborn, , ‘On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Ancient Polities’, JBL 106 (1987) 85–111, esp. 88–90.Google ScholarClarke, , Leadership, 89–91Google Scholar; Guenther, H. O., ‘Gnosticism in Corinth’, Origin and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity (ed. McLean, B. H.; JSNTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 45–51Google Scholar; Litfin, D., St Paul's Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (SNTSMS 79; Cambridge: University, 1994) 181, 188–90, 202–8.Google Scholar A gnostic (or even proto-gnostic interpretation) requires assuming that sophia – not an overtly gnostic term (1 Cor 1–4) – is equivalent to gnosis – which is only found in 1 Cor 8–10 and used in a decidedly non–gnostic way. Contra Schmithals, , Gnosticism, 114–15, 143–4, 151Google Scholar; Yeo, K.-K., Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross–Cultural Hermeneutic (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995) 119, 125–6, 130–1.Google Scholar

⁹ See Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96 n. 24Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 200–1Google Scholar; Lattke, , ‘Verfluchter Inzest’, 36.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Josephus also claims that τò μίσγεσθαι δὲ μητράσιν ώς ĸαĸòν μέγιστον ó νόμος άπεῖπεν όμοίωςδὲ ĸατρòς συνεῖναι γαμετῆ ĸαì τηθίσι ĸαì ὰδελφαῖς ĸαì παίδων γυναιξìν ώς ἒĸφυλον ἒϰον τὴν ὰδιĸίαν μεμίσηĸεν(AJ 3.274); cf. Philo, De spec. 3. 13–14Google Scholar; Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Country man, Dirt, 197.

¹¹ E.g. Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Lattke, , ‘Verfiuchter Inzest’, 39.Google Scholar

¹² Gaius, Inst. 1. 63Google Scholar states that it is not legal to marry a woman quae mihi quondam socrus aut nurus aut privigna aut noverca fuit. ideo autem diximus ‘quondam’, quia, si adhuc constant eae nuptiae, per quas talis adfinitas quaesita est, alia ratione mihi nupta esse not potest, quia neque eadem duobus nupta esse potest neque duas uxores habere. Such a relationship, between stepmother and stepson, was also banned by the Lex Iulia. See Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96 n. 29Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 200–1 n. 24Google Scholar; Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 38–9, 286Google Scholar; Chow, , Patronage, 132 n. 2Google Scholar; Clarke, , Leadership, 77–8.Google Scholar

¹³ Lattke cites Treggiari to argue that women were not punished for simply committing incest of this kind (‘Verfluchter Inzest’, 38) but he ignores Treggiari's qualification concerning ignorance in this regard.

¹⁴ See Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 39.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Apuleius, Met. 10.2–12.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Martial, Epig. 4.16Google Scholar: Privignum non esse tuae te, Galle, novercae rumor erat, coniunx dum fuit ilia patris. non tamen hoc poterat vivo genitore probari. iam nusquam pater est, Galle, noverea domi est. magnus ab infernis revocetur Tullius umbris et te defendat Regulus ipse licet, non potest absolvi.

¹⁷ Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 281.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 265–8, 286, 297–8Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 80, 209 n. 90Google Scholar; cf. Clarke, , Leadership, 83Google Scholar; Ulpian, Dig. 48.5.2.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Clarke, , Leadership, 84.Google Scholar Although most scholars take the adverb (őλως) to mean ‘actually’ or ‘indeed’, given the way it is used in 6.7 and 15.29 (e.g. Barrett, , Commentary, 120–1Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 94 n. 1Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 199Google Scholar; Countryman, , Dirt, 198Google Scholar; but see Clarke, Leadership, 84; Witherington, , Conflict, 156)Google Scholar, the verb itself and the manner in which the case has been reported to Paul suggests that it was far from a well-kept secret.

²⁰ Chow, , Patronage, 129, 140Google Scholar; Clarke, , Leadership, 27, 84–6.Google Scholar On the legal system see Mitchell, A. C., ‘1 Corinthians 6.1–11: Group Boundaries and the Courts of Corinth’, (Unpublished dissertation, Yale University, 1986) 75–8, 95–6Google Scholar; Gill, D. W. J., ‘In Search of the Social Élite in the Corinthian Church’, TynBull 44 (1993) 323–38, esp. p. 330Google Scholar; Nicolet, C., ‘The Citizen; The Political Man’, The Romans (ed. Giardina, A.: Chicago: Chicago University, 1993) 21–2Google Scholar; Winter, B. W., Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 111–13.Google Scholar

²¹ There was probably a greater incidence of remarriage among the elite since divorce was more prevalent, there was normally a larger age difference beween husbands and wives, and the penalties and incentives of the Augustan legislation that encouraged remarriage particularly affected the wealthy. See Rawson, B., ‘The Roman Family’, The Family in Ancient Rome (ed. Rawson, B.; London: Routledge, 1986) 31, 36–7Google Scholar; Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 411–12, 481–2, 499–501Google Scholar; Chow, , Patronage, 136–7Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 143–4Google Scholar; Parkin, T. G., Demography and Roman Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1992) 114–15, 132–3Google Scholar; cf. ILS 8393 1.27–9; Pliny, Ep. 4.2. 6–7Google Scholar. Besides, it is also difficult to imagine how such a relationship could have involved commoners if it were illegal.

²² E.g. Welborn, , ‘Discord’, 89–92Google Scholar; Stansbury, H. A. III, ‘Corinthian Honor, Corinthian Conflict: A Social History of Early Roman Corinth and Its Pauline Community’ (Unpublished dissertation, University of California, 1990) 20, 275–6, 424Google Scholar; Gill, , ‘Social Élite’, 337Google Scholar. This point is also acknowledged by Chow, (Patronage, 7, 97Google Scholar) and Clarke, (Leadership, 91–4Google Scholar) but they fail to consider the role of these factions in this instance.

²³ Stansbury, , ‘Corinthian Honor’, 278Google Scholar; Gill, , ‘Social Élite’, 330Google Scholar; Winter, , Seek the Welfare, 111Google Scholar. In fact, even Clarke seems to be aware that lawsuits were important means of gaining honour and destroying rivals (Leadership, 59, 63–7) but fails to take this into consideration.

²⁴ Witherington, , Conflict, 152–3, 157Google Scholar; cf. Fee, , First Epistle, 196–7, 200–1Google Scholar; Harris, , ‘Beginnings’, 8.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 300–1Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 79–81Google Scholar. Furthermore, although the actual number of trials of sexual charges appears to have been small, such relationships were regarded as socially aberrant and affected one's honour and status within the community. This point was suggested to me in a personal communication from Dr Suzanne Dixon.

²⁶ E.g. Barrett, , Commentary, 120–2Google Scholar; Schmithals, , Gnosticism, 237Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , 1 Corinthians, 96Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 202Google Scholar; Countryman, , Dirt, 198Google Scholar; Harris, , ‘Beginnings’, 8, 14.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Chow, , Patronage, 131, 134.Google Scholar Harris, however, takes the slogan of 6.12, πάντα μοι ἕξεστιν, as applying here (‘Beginnings’, 14). Although it is not at all clear that this is related, it is also unnecessary to read this in terms of gnostic or libertinist thought. For, as Peter Marshall has shown, terms such as this were traditionally used by the elite to justify excessive behaviour and the abuse of their power and privilege (Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians [WUNT 2.23; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987] 215, 284–5, 289–90Google Scholar; cf. Winter, , Seek the Welfare, 166–7).Google Scholar

²⁸ Chow, , Patronage, 136–9Google Scholar; Clarke, , Leadership, 80–5Google Scholar; cf. Witherington, , Conflict, 156.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Dixon, , Roman Family, 69–70Google Scholar; cf. Dio Cassius 56.3.3; Tacitus, Ann. 3.15.2,Google Scholar 3.34, 12.5.5.

³⁰ Dixon, , Roman Family, 62–4, 72.Google Scholar

³¹ Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 50Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 61, 91.Google Scholar

³² Cf. Fee, , First Epistle, 201Google Scholar. In a private communication Dr Suzanne Dixon agreed that the potential motives of the woman have been largely ignored.

³³ See Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 52, 499Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 93–4, 143–4.Google Scholar In fact Treggiari goes so far as to suggest that ‘remarriage at an advanced age was remarkable’ (Roman Marriage, 499).Google Scholar

³⁴ Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 52Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 93.Google Scholar

³⁵ Treggiari, , Roman Marriage, 52Google Scholar; Dixon, , Roman Family, 93–4.Google Scholar

³⁶ Dixon, , Roman Family, 91.Google Scholar

³⁷ E.g. Livy 39.9–10; Dixon, , Roman Family, 94Google Scholar. Under the Augustan legislation men were expected to be married by the age of twenty–five (Clarke, , Leadership, 82).Google Scholar

³⁸ In a personal communication, Dr Suzanne Dixon suggests that such a relationship would actually have been fairly normal in ancient Athens, but it is not possible to know the response in Roman Corinth.

³⁹ See Barrett, , Commentary, 121Google Scholar; Fee, , First Epistle, 200Google Scholar; Witherington, , Conflict, 153.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the use of rhetorical exaggeration in the ancient world see, in particular, Schlueter, C. J., Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16 (JSNTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994) 75–110.Google Scholar Although she has not considered this particular text, it fits her description of the category.

⁴¹ E.g. Gen 22.24, 25.6, 35.22, 36.12; Judg 8.31; 2 Sam 5.13,15.16,19.6, 20.3; 1 Kings 11.1; 1 Chron 1.32, 2.46–8, 3.9; 2 Chron 11.21; Cant 6.8–9; Job 19.17; Dan 5.2–3, 23; 2 Mace 4.30.

⁴² E.g. Judg 19.1–20.6 (especially 19.3, 9); 1 Esdr 4.29. Countryman claims that among the Jews, a concubine may have been taken as a young man's first sexual partner before marrying (Dirt, 154–5) but there is no real evidence of this in the OT. The usual understanding of concubines is, as mentioned, additional sexual partners that were kept alongside wives.

⁴³ E.g. Ap. 1.98–100; BJ 1.97, 511, 7.247; AJ 1.153, 214; 2.5, 5.233, 7.70,199, 213–14, 279, 8.193,10.232, 242,13.380,18.40, 44.

⁴⁴ E.g. Leg. all. 3.197; Sacr. AC 43; Deus imm. 121; Migr. abr. 94; Rer. div. her. 175; De congr. 23–4, 34; De virt. 223.

⁴⁵ E.g. De congr. 23–4, 29–31, 33, 36, 59; De virt. 223.

⁴⁶ Dixon, , Roman Family, 94.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid, 93–4.