Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

brill.com/nt

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14*

Laura B. Dingeldein
Providence, RI

Abstract
Most English translations of and commentaries on Pauls first letter to the Corinthians interpret the final clause of 1 Cor 2:14 causally: the psychic man is unable to know the things of
Gods pneuma because they are pneumatically examined. Due to the flexibility of the
Greek, however, three alternative, grammatically acceptable translations exist. Although
the causal interpretation is supported by later Christian interpreters of the first centuries
CE, Pauls own grammatical preferences, the surrounding context of 1 Cor 2:6-16, and philosophical parallels contemporary with Pauls thought suggest that the following translation
best reflects Pauls intentions: the psychic man is unable to know that he is pneumatically
examined.
Keywords
Paul; 1 Cor 2:14; psychic man; translation; moral progress; pneuma

The claims that Paul makes about wisdom, Gods pneuma, and various
anthropological categories in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 render this passage a
metaphorical minefield for scholars: with each step taken into interpretive
territory, hermeneuts brace themselves for the next epistemic explosion.
Does Paul support the attainment of wisdom? Why does Paul claim that
Gods wisdom is a mystery and then reveal that mystery to his audience? Is
Paul contradicting himself by advocating an anthropological hierarchy in
this passage while supporting congregational unity elsewhere? Why does
Paul keep using imprecise neuter adjectives and articles?
*)I would like to thank Professors Stanley K. Stowers and Stratis Papaioannou, as well as
the editors at NovT, for their insightful feedback on my initial ideas and earlier drafts of this
article.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013

DOI: 10.1163/15685365-12341409

32

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

Solutions to the most vexing interpretive problems of this passage

require not only a careful contextualization of Pauls thought within the
cultural, religious, and intellectual frameworks of which he is a part, but
also a meticulous examination of the Greek text. In this essay I will focus
specifically on the translation and contextualization of 1 Corinthians 2:14 in
order to gain a better understanding of the relationship between Pauls
anthropological categories and his thoughts on moral progress.
Toward the end of his discourse about the wisdom of God and the
bestowal of Gods pneuma upon particular humans, Paul introduces the
concept of the psychic human ( )1 to his audience:

, .2

The meaning of Pauls opening statement in 1 Cor 2:14 is straightforward

enough: The psychic man does not accept the gifts of Gods pneuma, for
they are foolishness to him.3 The final clause of this verse (
), however, proves more diffficult to translate. Due to the grammatical flexibility of and the unspecified subject of , an interpreter could translate this clause in one of four ways. The standard
translation of , to which I will also refer as the
first option, interprets Pauls causally: the psychic human is unable to
know the things of Gods pneuma because they are pneumatically examined. The psychic human, according to this reading, cannot understand
divine afffairs because he lacks the divine mode of discernment. Virtually
all modern translations and commentaries translate the of 1 Cor 2:14 in
this way.4
1)I have chosen to translate as psychic human (or psychic man) rather
than natural man for a couple of reasons. Not only does the standard rendering natural
man obscure Pauls emphasis on the psyche (or soul) as the defining characteristic of the
, but it also carries with it modern connotations of a natural-supernatural
dualism to which the ancients, including Paul, do not subscribe.
2)1 Cor 2:14 (NA27); there exist no major textual discrepancies amongst the earliest
witnesses.
3)Translations are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
4)All major English translations of the NT (by which I mean popular and authoritative
translations that seek to follow, inasmuch as it is possible, the wording of the Greek text)
interpret causally. This includes the ESV, NIV, NLT, NJB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and
NASV. German translations of the NT (the Luther Bible and the Unity Translation) also read

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14

33

The three remaining, alternative translations of 1 Cor 2:14 are rarely

noted by scholars.5 In what I shall call the second option, is translated
as an indefinite relative pronoun: the psychic human is unable to know
whatever is examined pneumatically. Such a translation fits within the
context of 1 Cor 2:6-16 if whatever is understood as an alternative rendering of all things () in 1 Cor 2:10. Yet, as we shall see, Pauls grammatical habits and later Christians lack of support for this translation strongly
suggest that the second option is unlikely to reflect Pauls intent. The third
and fourth options of translation, however, possess more merit. According
to the third option, introduces a dependent statement, and the subject
of is understood to be , as in the standard translation. Thus the psychic human is unable to know that they [the
things of the pneuma of God] are pneumatically examined. The fourth
option, like the third, interprets as the marker of a dependent statement, but presumes the subject of to be the psychic man himself: he is unable to know that he is pneumatically examined.
In the end there can only be one translation that best reflects Pauls
intent, and in what follows I argue in favor of the fourth option. Though
Greek-speaking Christian elites and leaders from the third and fourth centuries CE appear to support the standard, causal reading of
, a thorough examination of Pauls grammatical preferences, the
surrounding context of this verse, and philosophical notions of moral progress contemporary with Pauls thought will demonstrate that the fourth
option is superior to the standard translation.

causally, translating denn and weil, respectively. The majority of commentaries on 1 Corinthians interpret the of 1 Cor 2:14 causally as well. See, for example, C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 77;
H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans.
J.W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 56, 69; G.D. Fee, The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987) 118;
R.A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998) 61; C.S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 39; and A.C. Thiselton, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2000) 224.
5)A few scholars do suggest alternatives to the causal reading of
, but they do not offfer sustained arguments in support of these alternative
translations. See, for example, R.F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville, Minn.:
The Liturgical Press, 1999) 136; and J.A. Fitzmyer, S.J., First Corinthians: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (AYB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008) 184.

34

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

Evidence from Christian Sources of Late Antiquity

Many Christian authors of the first centuries CE cite 1 Cor 2:14, but only
fourOrigen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, and John
Chrysostomexplain the meaning of this verse in a way that makes clear,
at least to a modern interpreter, the force of .6
Undoubtedly important witnesses to early Christian understandings of
Pauls letters, these later Christian leaders and innovators also often provide insight regarding Pauls own intentions: by virtue of their temporal
and cultural proximity to Paul, Christians of the first centuries CE are much
better equipped to understand Pauls arguments than are modern interpreters. Yet these later Christian elites also operate with preconceptions
and agendas that color their readings of Pauls letters, and we must remain
alert to the efffect of such interpretive biases.
Origen provides support for the causal reading of 1 Cor 2:14 in his commentary on Pauls first letter to the Corinthians. Preserved in catenae, Origens commentary states:
<> .7
(And the psychic man is unable to know . He
does not know because of this <which> he hears:
.) Origens use of strongly suggests that he interpreted
as a causal statement. The psychic man, according to Origen, does not know the things of Gods pneuma because such
things are pneumatically examined.
Eusebius of Caesarea, in his treatise against Marcellus, demonstrates his
preference for the causal reading of by reformulating 1 Cor 2:14 to eliminate the obscurities present in Pauls statement.
Eusebius writes:
, .8 By specifying the object of
6)In fact, the great majority of ancient writers quoting 1 Cor 2:14 excise its final clause from
their citations; see, for example, John Chrysostom, Virginit. 14, Compunct. Stel. 2, Proph.
obscurit. 2; Origen, Comm. Jo. 2.138, Hom. Jer. 12.1; Hippolytus, Haer. 5.8.26, 6.34.8; and Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio 8.6. Such omissions could very well indicate general disinterest in the latter part of Pauls statement or pervasive confusion over the final clauses
exact interpretation.
7)Origen, Fr. 1 Cor. 11 (Claude Jenkins, Documents: Origen on I Corinthians, JTS 9 [1908]
240).
8)Eusebius, Marc. 1.3.12 (G.C. Hansen and E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, Band 4: Gegen
Marcell, ber die kirchliche Theologie, Die Fragmente Marcells [2nd ed.; GCS 14; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972] 16).

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14

35

as , Eusebius makes it clear that does not introduce a

dependent statement: such a reading, after all, would unintelligibly equate
pneumatic things with the fact that pneumatic things are examined pneumatically. That is, a causal translation of Eusebiuss statement (The psychic man is unable to know the pneumatic things because they are
examined pneumatically) makes far more sense than a translation rendering the final clause as a dependent statement (The psychic man is unable
to know the pneumatic things, that they are examined pneumatically).
According to Eusebius, then, introduces the cause, rather than the
object, of the psychic mans ignorance.
Epiphanius of Salamis, in his extensive heresiology, also explicitly interprets causally by rephrasing 1 Cor 2:14. His
Panarion states: , , ,
, .9 By omitting the phrase
, Epiphanius eliminates the verb () that grounds the
dependent statement . Without this introductory verb, is best translated causally. The surrounding context of Epiphanius reference to 1 Cor 2:14 also suggests a causal reading. Epiphanius cites
1 Cor 2:14 in an attempt to explain the cause of a certain heresys fallacious
nature. A particular Origen called Adamantius, according to Epiphanius,
holds perverse beliefs; the cause of these fallacies is Adamantius source of
knowledge, the Greeks. Epiphanius focus on the cause of Adamantius
heretical beliefs confirms the causal reading of
suggested by his rephrasing of 1 Cor 2:14.
Our final early Christian witness to the causal reading of
comes from John Chrysostom, who supports the first option of
translation in his commentary on Pauls first letter to the Corinthians:
, . ,
,
.10
Next, he [Paul] states for comparison the cause, saying, He does not know
. That is, the aforementioned things require faith, and to grasp
these things with reasoning is not possible. For their greatness surpasses by a great deal
the meanness of our thought.

9)Epiphanius, Pan. 64.65.5 (K. Holl, Epiphanius, Band 2: Panarion, Haer. 34-64 [GCS 31;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922] 505).
10)John Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Cor. 7.11 (PG 61:61).

36

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

Chrysostoms causal rendering of can be gleaned from the surrounding

context of the biblical citation. First, he states at the outset his intention to
explain the cause ( ) of the psychic mans refusal to accept the
things of Gods pneuma. Secondly, he expounds upon the meaning of Pauls
statement by asserting that the psychic man cannot know the things of
Gods pneuma because they require faith. Both Chrysostoms introduction
to this citation, as well as his expansion upon it, suggest that he interpreted
the final clause of 1 Cor 2:14 causally.11
Thus the first option of translation, because it is pneumatically examined, receives overwhelming support from Greek-speaking Christian
scholars of the first centuries CE. Presumably these ancient interpreters
favor the first option because their knowledge of the Greek language indicates that this causal translation is the most coherent and grammatically
acceptable rendering of . Yet might these later
Christian writers be operating with any agendas, unconnected to grammatical and stylistic concerns, that incline them to accept the causal rendering of as the most coherent translation?
Id like to briefly suggest that these Christians emphases on the causes
of incorrect knowledge partly account for their causal interpretations of
1 Cor 2:14. The overarching purpose of the aforementioned passages written
by Eusebius and Epiphanius is to forcefully deny proper knowledge of
divine afffairs to certain individuals (Marcellus and a particular Origen,
respectively). Eusebius and Epiphanius, therefore, are predisposed to interpret causally because such a rendering explains
why their opponents, influenced by the Greeks rather than by Gods
pneuma, wrongly interpret divine things. Eusebius and Epiphanius, at least
in the immediate contexts of the above citations, are not concerned with
what heretics do not know; rather they are concerned with why heretics
cannot know. Both Origen and John Chrysostom, though their discourses
on 1 Cor 2:14 do not engage in heresiology proper, also display similar concerns: they focus not on what the psychic man does not know, but why he
cannot fathom the greatness of Gods wisdom. Taken alone, of course, the
particular emphases of these later Christian authors are not enough to call
into question the validity of the standard, first option. By considering these
11)Chrysostom also seems to suggest a causal reading of in his
fragmentary commentary on Proverbs, but the context surrounding Chrysostoms citation
of 1 Cor 2:14 does not definitively support the causal reading. See John Chrysostom, Fragmenta in Proverbia cod. f. 5a (PG 64:661).

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14

37

agendas in conjunction with an examination of evidence internal to the

authentic Pauline corpus, however, we may have just enough to tip the
scales in favor of another translation.

Grammatical, Stylistic, and Contextual Evidence from Pauls Letters

Pauls grammatical preferences indicate that the of 1 Cor 2:14 introduces
a dependent statement; such evidence strongly militates against the standard and second options of translation. Paul uses various forms of the construction seven times in his letters (not including 1 Cor 2:14);
in every instance marks a dependent statement.12 In three of these cases,
takes a direct object and introduces a dependent statement
that explains or clarifies the direct object. Thus in Rom 6:6 Paul specifies
the nature of our knowledge:
(Knowing this, that our old man was crucified). In 2 Cor 8:9
he identifies the grace known by his audience:
, (For you
know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that on account of you he became
poor). And in Phil 2:22 Paul clarifies the substance of Timothys worth:
,
(You know his worth, that like a son with a father he served
with me for the good news).
In the four remaining instances of , this phrase directly
introduces the content of the subjects knowledge. Thus Paul writes in
2 Cor 13:6: (I hope
that you will know that we have not failed). Paul elaborates on the
knowledge he wishes his audience to possess in Phil 1:12:
, ,
(I want you to know, brothers, that the things that have
happened to me have come rather for the progress of the good news).
In Gal 3:7 Paul describes the knowledge that his audience should possess: , (So you
12)See also Pauls use of in Rom 1:32, 2 Cor 1:14 and 13:5: in all three instances
introduces a dependent statement. Constructions with other verbs of knowing (
, , and ) also consistently introduce dependent statements. It is also
perhaps worth mentioning, with regard to the second option of translation, that nowhere in
the authentic Pauline corpus are indefinite relative pronouns used as the objects of verbs of
knowing.

38

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

know that the ones from faith, these are sons of Abraham). And in 1 Cor
3:20, although Paul supplies a direct object for , he again uses
to describe the content of a body of knowledge:
(The Lord knows the thoughts of
the wise, that they are futile). Pauls own grammatical preferences, therefore, overwhelmingly support our third and fourth options of translation.
Paul never uses , together with , as a causal conjunction or an
indefinite relative pronoun. Additionally, whenever lacks
an explicitly defined direct object, as it does in 1 Cor 2:14, introduces a
dependent statement that explains the content of the subjects knowledge.
With our third and fourth options equally supported by evidence derived
from Pauls grammatical style, adjudication over which option best reflects
Pauls intentions must be based on an examination of 1 Cor 2:14s surrounding context. Since the third and fourth options are distinguishable from
one another only on the basis of their presumed subjects of ,
I shall first consider the level of coherence achieved when the subject of
is taken to be the neuter plural . I shall
then proceed to consider the level of coherence achieved when the subject
of is presumed to be the psychic man himself.
He is unable to know that they [ ] are pneumatically examined. If this third option is the correct translation of
, Paul is explaining why the psychic man thinks
that the things of Gods pneuma are foolish: the psychic man simply
does not understand that he must accept Gods pneuma in order to properly examine divine afffairs. Paul is also applying his previous claims in
1 Cor 2:11-12 to the psychic man: Gods pneuma helps humans to know the
things given freely to them, and the psychic man does not understand that
he cannot examine such things without Gods pneuma. Following the third
option, then, 1 Cor 2:14 mostly restates and rephrases Pauls previous claims.
No egregious contradictions with the surrounding context arise.
But what if we were to accept the fourth option, He is unable to know
that he [ ] is pneumatically examined? Immediately the parallelism between 1 Cor 2:14 and 1 Cor 2:15 jumps out at the reader: the psychic
man is examined pneumatically, and the pneumatic man is examined by
no one.13 The third option does not provide such parallelism. Moreover, the
parallelism introduced by the fourth option advances Pauls argument in
13)Collins, First Corinthians, 136, notes this parallelism and cites it in favor of our fourth
option of translation.

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14

39

1 Cor 2:14-16 in a way that the third option does not. If we accept the third
option, Pauls argument in 1 Cor 2:14-16 runs like this: The psychic man finds
foolish the things of Gods pneuma, not knowing that these things are pneumatically examined; the pneumatic man, by accepting Gods pneuma,
examines all things (including the mind of the Lord) and is examined by
no one. This is a coherent set of statements, but it is also repetitive and
does not exactly explain Pauls employment of Isa 40:13 in 1 Cor 2:16 (Who
has known the mind of the Lord? Who instructs him? But we have the
mind of Christ). If we accept the fourth option, however, Pauls claims in
1 Cor 2:15-16 follow more naturally out of his claims in 1 Cor 2:14. Following
the fourth option, Pauls argument amounts to this: Though the psychic
man believes that he has conducted an accurate assessment of divine
afffairs, in reality he is the one being accurately assessed. It is the pneumatic
man who correctly assesses all things, including psychic humans, while
remaining impervious to or exempt from examination himself. As scripture
demonstrates, the psychic man may think his wisdom superior to that of
the Lord, posturing as one who is discerning, but it is the Lord and the
pneumatic humans alone who instruct and examine.
Grammatical evidence from within Pauls letters, therefore, suggests
that our third and fourth options of translation reflect Pauls intentions better than do the first and second options. And although the third option
certainly makes sense within the larger framework of 1 Cor 2:6-16, the fourth
option fits better within its immediate context, anticipating Pauls claims
in 1 Cor 2:15-16 in a way that the third option does not.

The Psychic Man, Examination, and Moral Progress: Final Thoughts

The fourth option of translation, however, begs for clarification on two
fronts if it is to be defended as the preferred translation of 1 Cor 2:14. What
exactly constitutes the examination performed on the psychic man? And
what is the psychic mans relationship to the Corinthian assemblyis he
in Christ or is he opposed to Christs teachings? Determining the sense of
in 1 Cor 2:14 will help us to resolve the first interpretive issue.
Standardly translated to examine (closely), to interrogate, or to judge,
and its inflected forms appear ten times in five passages in 1 Cor
(including 1 Cor 2:14-15); nowhere else in his letters does Paul employ this
verb.14 In three of these passages, refers to acts of judgment that
14)BDAG, s.v. ; LSJ, s.v. .

40

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

are to be avoided by humans: judgment of a persons faithfulness (1 Cor 4:3-4),

judgment of Pauls status as an apostle (1 Cor 9:3), and judgment of meat
sold in the market (1 Cor 10:25-27). Pauls use of in 1 Cor 14:23-25,
however, carries with it connotations similar to those conveyed in 1 Cor
2:14. As he brings his discussion of the gifts of prophesy and glossolalia to a
close in 1 Cor 14, Paul describes an action that should be performed upon an
outsider who enters into communion with the Corinthian assembly:
If, then, the whole assembly comes together to the same place and all speak in tongues,
and unbelievers or outsiders enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and some unbeliever or outsider comes in, he is corrected () by all, he is
examined () by all, the secrets of his heart become manifest, and in
this way he will fall down to God and worship him, proclaiming, Truly, God is among
you.15

Here Paul describes an ideal situation. If the Corinthians begin worshipping in the orderly manner he suggests, an outsider who happens upon the
groups activities will be impressed by the assembly. This outsider will submit himself for correction and examination by all, and these practices will
culminate in the revelation of the outsiders secrets and his worship of God.
In light of Pauls statement in 1 Cor 2:15 regarding the role of the pneumatic
human as examiner, the all who conduct these examinations must be
pneumatic humans. Once again, however, the hypothetical nature of the
situation Paul is describing in 1 Cor 14:23-25 should be stressed: in Pauls
ideal world all of the Corinthians would be pneumatic people who conduct
examinations, but for now they are nothing more than fleshly people who
cannot yet understand the wisdom Paul espouses.16
Of significant note in this passage is the intimate connection posited
between the examination of an individual, the revelation of his secrets, and
the correction of his false beliefs. A pneumatic human possesses the mind
of Christ: this enables him to examine an outsider, reveal the outsiders
moral capabilities and religious dispositions, and finally correct the outsiders false beliefs. This process is similar, in many ways, to the steps taken
by a physician in diagnosing the maladies of a patient. A physician today
possesses knowledge and skills that enable her to examine an X-ray, judge
that her patient has a penchant for cigarettes, confront her patient about

15)1 Cor 14:23-25.

16)1 Cor 3:1-3.

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14

41

his addiction, and help her patient rid himself of his injurious habit. So, too,
does specific knowledge derived from Gods pneuma allow the pneumatic
human in a Pauline assembly to assess the extent of an outsiders illness,
reveal his disease, and take the actions necessary to cure him.17
These successive stages of therapeutic action described by Paul find
contemporary parallel in processes of virtue acquisition formulated by philosophers of the ancient Mediterranean. Philosophers from the Hellenistic
period onward, casting philosophy as therapy for the soul, view practices
of examination, revelation, and correction as integral to the enactment
and stimulation of moral progress amongst the philosophically-inclined.18
According to Philodemus of Gadara, for example, moral progress amongst
those in the Epicurean sect requires that all members participate in examinations and corrections of one another. Whether an Epicurean is fully wise
or still hampered by vice, he corrects others and submits himself for correction in order to increase others virtue and his own.19 Though Philodemus
makes use of a wide vocabulary in referencing acts of examination, revelation, and correction,20 he does once deploy in reference to
an Epicurean teachers act of examination. Many of the companions will
somehow voluntarily disclose {their secrets} (), states Philodemus, even without the teacher examining {them} ().21 The
Stoic statesman Seneca similarly upholds the necessity of examination
and correction for an individuals moral progress. Self-examination is a
17) Of course Paul does not use overtly medical language in 1 Cor 14:23-25, nor does he typically employ distinctly medical terminology elsewhere in his letters (cf. 1 Thess 2:7); he does,
however, often speak in language amenable to medical contexts (see, for example, Pauls
use of the terms and ).
18)The pervasiveness of the therapeutic metaphor amongst Hellenistic philosophers is concisely documented in M.C. Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) 13-47, and A.J. Malherbe, Medical
Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and
Early Church Fathers (ed. W.E. March; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980) 24-31; see
C.E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy
(Supp. to NovT 81; Atlanta: SBL, 1995) 152-160, for an important corrective to Nussbaums
statements regarding the asymmetry inherent in such medical models.
19) Philodemus, Lib.
20)Among the verbs that Philodemus uses to describe such actions: , ,
, , , , , , , and .
21) Philodemus, Lib. fr. 42 (translation slightly modified from D. Konstan, D. Clay, C.E. Glad,
J.C. Thom, and J. Ware, eds., Philodemus, On Frank Criticism: Introduction, Translation, and
Notes [Texts and Translations 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998] 55).

42

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

fundamental philosophical practice, according to Seneca, and a teachers

correction of his students requires that he accurately assess their abilities and dispositions before instruction is attempted.22 These processes of
examination and correction may be mutually beneficial if both parties are
well-advanced in virtue: Good men are mutually helpful, writes Seneca,
for each gives practice to the others virtues and thus maintains wisdom
at its proper level. Each needs someone with whom he may make comparisons and investigations.23 The philosopher Plutarch, a Platonist and
Delphic priest, also claims that advanced philosophers must examine and
censure the less virtuous in order to aid the latter in their journey toward
moral progress.24 Plutarch, too, connects acts of examination to practices of correction when addressing individuals who may be tempted to
reject the teachings of a lecturing philosopher: We must not run away to
other kinds of discourse to escape refutation ( ), but we must
listen to the discussion of these very matters both at the formal lectures,
and after the lectures, when we approach the men privately and examine them further ().25 In light of 1 Cor 14:23-25 and the
evidence derived from the ethical writings of ancient philosophers, then,
I would like to suggest that Paul envisions in 1 Cor 2:14 an examination similar to the assessments performed by ancient philosophers in the service
of moral progress. Just as ancient philosophers examined their students
and themselves in hopes of encouraging advancement in virtue, Paul envisions a system of moral progress in which pneumatic individuals examine
psychic individuals in order to help the latter recognize their foolishness
and accept Gods wisdom.26
22)Senecas letters to Lucilius, for example, are replete with such assertions; see, in particular, Seneca, Ep. 6.1, 16.2, 25.1-2, 34.2, and 52.3-6. Note also Senecas description of his nightly
self-examinations in Ira 3.36.1-4.
23)Seneca, Ep. 109.1 (Gummere, LCL); cf. Ep. 7.8.
24)References to this process are scattered throughout Plutarchs works; see, for example,
Plutarch, Virt. prof. 82A.
25)Plutarch, Rect. rat. aud. 43E (Babbitt, LCL, slightly modified).
26)The philosophical underpinnings of Pauls thought have been so thoroughly evidenced
in scholarly literature of the past generation that I do not consider it necessary to provide
further support for the assertion that philosophical ideas about moral progress likely influenced Pauls ideas about religious and moral progress. I should stress, however, that Pauls
use of philosophical ideas, concepts, and practices does not entail his adherence to a particular philosophical school. I am not arguing here that Paul himself was an Epicurean, a
Stoic, or a Platonist; rather I am simply claiming that he drew upon ideas espoused by these
schools in order to formulate his own thoughts regarding moral and religious progress.

Examining Translations of 1 Corinthians 2:14

43

Who, then, are the psychic humans described by Paul? The question of
whether or not psychic humans are a subset of the Corinthian assembly is,
I think, incorrectly formulated, for it assumes static categories that do not
reflect the dynamic reality of the situation with which Paul is dealing. In
Pauls ideal world, all those in Christ would be pneumatic individuals,
having received Gods pneuma at baptism and having been promised a
pneumatic body upon resurrection. But Paul repeatedly reminds his audience that this ideal has yet to be achieved: the Corinthians are quarrelling
and dividing into factions, a man is sleeping with his step-mother, people
are babbling incoherently and disrupting worship, and the Corinthians are
so infantile in their knowledge that Paul has to spoon-feed them their
lessons. Thus although in Pauls ideal world psychic humans are not fully
in Christ, in reality psychic humans are gathering at the Corinthian assembly, worshipping Christ, and eating meals with their fellow worshippers.
What Paul is beginning to formulate in 1 Cor 2:14, then, is a categorization
of humans according to their moral and religious progress. Psychic humans
are those who act as if they have not received Gods pneuma (regardless of
whether or not they have actually received the pneuma through baptism).
These individuals are less progressed with regard to their moral capabilities
than are pneumatic humans, who have accepted Gods pneuma and whose
actions are wholly informed by Gods pneuma. Because pneumatic humans
are closer to moral perfection than psychic humans, one of their duties is to
aid psychic humans (or even fleshly humans, as Paul describes the
Corinthians)27 toward recognition of Gods wisdom.28
Seminal works and recent explorations of the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Paul
and the structural similarities between ancient philosophies and Pauline Christianity
include: J.T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of
Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBL Diss. 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988);
A.J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Glad, Paul
and Philodemus; D.B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995);
T. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000);
S.K. Stowers, Does Pauline Christianity Resemble a Hellenistic Philosophy? in Paul Beyond
the Hellenism-Judaism Divide (ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2001) 81-102; G.H. Van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology in Context: The Image of God,
Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early
Christianity (WUNT 232; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); and E. Wasserman, The Death of
the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death, and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology (WUNT
256; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
27)1 Cor 3:1.
28)Gal 6:1.

44

L.B. Dingeldein / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 31-44

The evidence in favor of the fourth option of translation, therefore, is

substantial. Though the standard, causal translation of
coheres well with its surrounding context and is supported by
Greek-speaking Christians of the third and fourth centuries CE who were
close to Paul in culture, time, and space, it runs counter to Pauls grammatical preferences. The second option of translation accords decently with its
surrounding context, but it is unsupported by later Christian interpreters
and Pauls own grammatical style. And while the third option of translation is supported by Pauls grammatical habits, it renders Pauls statements
in 1 Cor 2:6-16 a bit repetitive. Our fourth option of translation, that he is
pneumatically examined, however, takes into account Pauls grammatical
preferences, sets the stage for Pauls comments in 1 Cor 2:15-16, and makes
sense within the Hellenistic philosophical framework that so often undergirds Pauls thought. While no definitive case can be made for the absolute
superiority of the fourth option of translation over the first, second, and
third, this examination of 1 Cor 2:14 has demonstrated, at the very least, the
need for a more careful translation and contextualization of 1 Cor 2:6-16.
For without a better grasp of the reconstructed Greek text of Pauls letters
and the influences upon his thought, we cannot hope to examine Pauls
arguments with superior wisdom.