Whodunnit Paul S Peculiar Passion and I

15
Whodunnit? Paul’s Peculiar Passion and

Its Implications
A.J. Droge
in t ro du c ti on
Amid the bluster and banality so characteristic of the letters attributed

to Paul, there are also remarkable flashes of extraordinary mythmak-
ing. Yet because these passages occur in such scattered and tantalizingly
small clusters, they present a challenge to readers interested in develop-
ing a coherent religious vision, or Pauline myth, based upon them. The
problem is compounded by the fact that time and again these passages
are themselves contradicted by others. Too often, the attempt to make
Paul make sense feels rather like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle of
which most of the pieces have gone missing, while many of the existing
pieces seem to belong to other puzzles.
Paul’s disclosure of “secret wisdom” regarding the crucifixion of Jesus
at 1 Cor. 2:6–16 is one such case, where, paradoxically, we are told too
much and too little. It demands full quotation.1
2:6 (There is) a wisdom [σοφία], however, (that) we speak [λαλοῦμεν]

about among the Perfect Ones [τέλειοι], though (it is) a wisdom not
of this Aeon, nor of the Archons of this Aeon [οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου], who are being abolished. 7 But we speak about God’s wis-
dom, which is hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before (the
creation of) the Aeons (πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων) for our glory, 8 which none
of the Archons of this Aeon knew. For if they had known (it), they
would not have crucified the Lord of Glory [ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης]. 9
But as it is written,
Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 305 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

306 A.J. Droge
“(The) things that eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
and (that) have not arisen in the human heart,
(all the) things that God has prepared for those who love him” —
10 to us (Perfect Ones), however, God has revealed (these things)

through the Spirit. For the Spirit fathoms all things, even the deep
things of God [τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ]. 11 For who among humans knows
the (deep) things of the human except the spirit of the human [τὸ
πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] that is in him? So, too, the (deep) things of God
no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 We (Perfect Ones), however,
have received not the Spirit of the Cosmos [τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου],
but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may know the (deep) things
given to us by God, 13 things that we also speak about, not in words
taught by human wisdom, but in (words) taught [διδακτοί] by the
Spirit, interpreting spiritual things in spiritual (words). 14 A (mere)
physical human [ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος], however, does not receive the
(deep) things of the Spirit,2 for they are foolishness to him, and he
cannot know (them), because they are (only) spiritually [πνευματικῶς]
discerned. 15 The Spirit Being [πνευματικός], however, discerns all
things, though he himself is discerned by no one. 16 For “who has
known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him?” We (Spirit
Beings), however, possess the Mind [νοῦς] of Christ.
Our passage bristles with peculiarities and problems. Not only does it
stand out from its context in language, style, and theme,3 it also appears
to contradict what Paul had just written about the exclusive catego-
ries of the “saved” and “lost” at 1 Cor. 1:184 by abruptly introducing
two more groups, now comprising the “Perfect Ones” (τέλειοι), whom
Paul also calls “Spirit Beings” (πνευματικοί), in contrast to mere “Phys-
ical Beings” (ψυχικοί). No attempt is made in our passage, or anywhere
else in 1 Corinthians, to reconcile these two classification schemes. They
remain juxtaposed and in unresolved tension. Along with the sudden
appearance of the Perfect Ones, there is an equally sudden shift in voice,
from the first-person singular (κἀγώ) at 2:1 and 2:3, to the first-person
plural (λαλοῦμεν) at 2:6, accompanied by a switch from aorist to present
tense. The “we” perspective is maintained throughout 2:6–16, but then
just as suddenly shifts back again to the first-person singular (κἀγώ) at
3:1, accompanied once more by a switch in tense, this time from the
present back to the past.5
The use of οἱ τέλειοι as a substantive here (and only here in Paul)
sounds like a gnostic technical term,6 as does the unprecedented contrast

Paul’s Peculiar Passion and Its Implications 307
between the πνευματικός and ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος.7 Indeed, I can find no

parallel to the use of these terms prior to the second century ce . One is
tempted, then, to gloss the τέλειοι as something like “true gnostics,” or
“those who possess the true gnosis,” and to construe πνευματικός and
ψυχικός as “Pneumatic” and “Psychic” in a gnostic sense, if for no other
reason than to defamiliarize the terms. But to go any further with that
strategy means immediately facing the problem of having to explain the
presence of a second-century vocabulary in a text ostensibly written in
the mid-first. Scholars have long struggled to explain away the gnos-
tic terminology of our passage. Some try to downplay it,8 a few simply
ignore it,9 but most contend that Paul is here “borrowing” the language
of his Corinthian “opponents,” variously described as “enthusiasts,”
“pneumatics,” “proto-gnostics,” or “Gnostics” tout court, in order to
criticize them.10 Yet I can detect no criticism of the τέλειοι/πνευματικοί
or their σοφία in our passage, or anywhere else in 1 Corinthians, and
I remain skeptical that the views of Paul’s so-called “opponents” can be
so easily extracted from his letters. Even so, we would still have roughly
the same problem on our hands, namely, how to explain a second-century
vocabulary now being deployed by Paul’s mid-first-century opponents.
I find more persuasive a suggestion by E. Earle Ellis, who proposes
that 2:6–16 may have been a set piece “created within a (Pauline) group
of pneumatics prior to its use in 1 Cor 2.”11 If he is right, then we might
think of 2:6–16 as a Pauline interpolation, though Ellis prefers the des-
ignation “Pauline tradition.” Bolder, and more intriguing still, is Martin
Widmann’s contention that 2:6–16 was originally “a longer gloss,”
composed by a “pneumatic group” of “Corinthian enthusiasts” as a
response to what they saw as Paul’s distortion of their position, which
only became part of 1 Corinthians when the letter was later copied.12
While both Ellis and Widmann provide considerable insights, neither
takes seriously enough how unprecedented and unparalleled (in a word,
late) the vocabulary and ideas of 2:6–16 truly are.13 Nor have they, or
anyone else, given sufficient attention to what is the most peculiar fea-
ture of our passage, namely, the astonishing claim that the crucifixion
was a crime perpetrated by the “Archons of this Aeon.” My objections
hardly detract from the contributions of Ellis and Widmann, so it is all
the more regrettable that their arguments have had little impact. This
is not surprising, given the conservative state of Pauline studies, but it
is unfortunate because their work has implications that go far beyond
an otherwise very small piece of the 1 Corinthians puzzle. There have
been exceptions, like Richard Reitzenstein, who considered Paul a “cap-
ital G” Gnostic because he wrote 2:6–16,14 but nearly all scholars since

308 A.J. Droge
have insisted that this passage was written by Paul and that Paul was no
Gnostic. In my view, it cannot be had both ways; one side will have to
go. In what follows, I shall urge that we jettison the idea that 2:6–16 was
written by Paul, and deal with the consequences.
t he p e r f e c t o n e s a n d o ther gnos ti c cant
Because the “Perfect Ones” (τέλειοι) and “Spirit Beings” (πνευματικοί)

make such a sudden appearance in our passage, it is not clear who they
are. One would presume that Paul is to be included among them, but
the identity of the others behind the “we” and “us” remains a mystery.15
In fact, there is no apparent reason for the shift from singular to plural.
Paul could just as easily have written, “But I speak about God’s wisdom”
and have had the same effect.16 As it stands, the first-person plural comes
off as stilted, and the terms Perfect Ones and Spirit Beings have a theo-
retical ring to them, but it is not clear to what rhetorical purpose. As we
shall see, the aim is not polemical or pedagogical. Nor is the identity of
their counterparts, the ψυχικοί, evident.
One is tempted to say that they are the Corinthians, at least implicitly
so. But were this the case, then they would have been placed beyond
the pale in the new taxonomy. That is, the Corinthians would no lon-
ger rank among the σωζόμενοι mentioned at 1:18, but now among the
ψυχικοί, mere physical beings devoid of the divine πνεῦμα. Yet that
seems unlikely in a letter in which they are otherwise referred to as
“brothers.”17 The designation ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος, which, like τέλειοι,
occurs only here in Paul, also sounds theoretical. One has only to
compare the πνευματικός and ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος to Paul’s distinction
between the σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν at 15:44–46 to see
how different their use in our passage is. At 15:44–46 these terms
apply to an unspecified future (i.e., to the transformation of the dead
“physical body” into a resurrected “spirit body”). In 2:6–16, however,
πνευματικός and ψυχικός designate two separate categories of being
in the present, without the possibility of movement, or even commu-
nication, between them.18 Whereas the former usage is eschatological,
the latter is strikingly gnostic. By now our passage is beginning to read
more like a treatise than an actual letter. The shift in language and
style is so abrupt that modern readers might feel they have wandered
into another text, or alternative world, scarcely able to remember what
the letter was originally about.19 In any case, the previous distinction
between the “saved” and “lost” (1:18) has now been eclipsed by a new
binary opposition between an elite cadre of insiders, called Perfect

Ones and Spirit Beings, who possess a σοφία heretofore unknown, and
an ignorant group of outsiders, who are dismissed as merely physical
(i.e., pneuma-less) creatures.20
Not even that distinction, however, holds for very long, since the
πνευματικοί/ψυχικοί binary is in turn superseded by yet another in the
passage immediately following 2:6–16. And, once again, it is accompa-
nied by another abrupt shift in voice, this time from the first-person plu-
ral back to the first-person singular (the κἀγώ at 3:1 linking up with the
κἀγώ at 2:1–3), as well as by another reversal in tense, from the present
back to the past. Now the contrast involves πνευματικοί and σάρκινοι
(“fleshly ones”), not ψυχικοί.21 Furthermore, the meaning of the terms
seems to have shifted. Rather than designating two mutually exclusive
ontological states, there is now the possibility of movement from one cat-
egory to the other, metaphorized as growth from infancy (the σάρκινοι
are merely νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ) to adulthood. This is an entirely different
understanding from the one expressed in 2:6–16, where πνευματικός and
ψυχικός remain discrete categories. The whole tone of this new section
sounds dissimilar as well – conversational and almost folksy – in con-
trast to the heavy ontotheological discourse of the previous one, which
has now entirely faded away. Put simply, it feels like we are reading a
real letter again, not a treatise. The return to the first-person singular
makes it seem as if we are hearing a real Paul behind the “I,” addressing
real Corinthians, whom he calls “brothers,” in contrast to the stilted,
almost pontificating, voice of the anonymous “we” of 2:6–16. In other
words, 3:1–4 resumes the kind of style and tone characteristic of 1:10–
2:5, which 2:6–16 had interrupted.
The use of σάρκινοι, instead of ψυχικοί, at 3:1 is worth lingering over,
since it comes as a surprise. A reader of the previous section would have
anticipated a different contrast to πνευματικοί, considering the distinction
drawn there between the πνευματικός and ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (2:14–15).
One would have expected ψυχικοί to be the opposite of πνευματικοί at
3:1, not σάρκινοι. And yet, the latter contrast sounds again much more
like the Paul we read elsewhere, given his typical distinction between flesh
(σάρξ) and spirit (πνεῦμα).22 Indeed, we can almost hear Paul thinking
at 3:1–3, casting about for the right word to contrast with πνευματικοί,
initially choosing σάρκινοι before realizing that σαρκικοί sounded a little
better. But my question is, why? Why did Paul have to give any thought
to finding the right word as a contrast to πνευματικοί, when he had
already used ψυχικός a mere three verses earlier at 2:14? Recall that
ψυχικός occurs only in our passage. It is distinctive enough that it should
have stood out to Paul. It should still have been in his mind and ready

310 A.J. Droge
to use only three verses later. How then do we explain the surprising
appearance of σάρκινοι at 3:1, and then of σαρκικοί at 3:3, instead of
the expected ψυχικοί? The answer, I contend, is that ψυχικός was simply
not to be found there. The surprising (to us) occurrences of σάρκινοι and
σαρκικοί can be attributed to the fact that there was no ψυχικός at 2:14,
since the entire passage was not originally present. Now, it is much too
soon to make a final determination, but in light of the differences already
noted, 2:6–16 appears suspect. It looks like an interpolation.
w h at is a n in t e r polati on?
By interpolation I simply mean a retrospective change in an older text,

usually introduced with the intention of “improving” it by bringing out
what is thought to be its “real” meaning. The change may have taken
place when a work was copied and perhaps re-edited at some point after
its original composition. While the identification of interpolations is
unremarkable in other disciplines whose canons likewise derive from
manuscripts, scholars of the New Testament look down upon it. At least
over the last century the tendency has been to underestimate their extent
and importance on the assumption that we have as pure a text of the
New Testament as we are ever likely to get.23 Consequently, for most
New Testament scholars, text-critical evidence is the only basis for an
interpolation hypothesis. Anything less, they say, is mere conjecture.
Yet this supposition smacks of hubris, insofar as the first and sec-
ond centuries are a textual dark age. In the case of the letters to the
Corinthians, there is at least a century and a half between their puta-
tive date of composition until their first appearance in a collection of
letters known as P46. How and when and under what circumstances
that collection came to be, and what alterations were made in Paul’s
letters prior to, and in the process of, their collection and transmission,
are matters about which it is better to confess our ignorance than feign
knowledge. Given the efforts beginning in the second century to con-
struct and contest the figure of “Paul, the Messenger of God,” one can
only imagine how far interpolations and other textual strategies might
have gone for the sake of “improving” his letters. Or consider the issue
another way. No text-critical evidence exists that letters like Ephesians
or Colossians are Pauline fakes. Nevertheless, most scholars judge them
to be “deutero-Pauline” (a more polite term), even though both appear
in the earliest extant collections of Paul’s letters. There is no necessity,
therefore, to find a text-critical basis for an interpolation hypothesis.
Everything depends on argument and evidence, but there is no extra

burden of proof that an interpolation hypothesis must bear. Overall, I

think it would be good for the field if there were more of a fight between
conservative and skeptical critics when it comes to hypotheses of inter-
polation, conjectural emendations, and the like. If nothing else, this
paper aspires to incite such a quarrel.24
For a passage to be judged an interpolation, two criteria must be met.
First, it must show significant differences in language, style, and subject
matter. We have already noticed a considerable number of these differ-
ences in our first pass through 2:6–16, and there will be more to follow
as the analysis proceeds, but just to provide an initial reckoning of how
numerous and striking these differences are, it is useful here simply to
list the words and expressions occurring in our passage that are found
nowhere else in Paul: οἱ τέλειοι (2:6, 2:8), οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου
(2:6, 8), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (2:7), ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης (2:8), τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ
(2:10), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (2:11), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου (2:12), τὸ
πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (2:12), διδακτοί (2:13), ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (2:14),
πνευματικῶς (2:14), and νοῦς Χριστοῦ (2:16).25 All these words and
phrases occur in the span of a mere eleven verses, comprising a total of
only 201 words. What is more, with just two exceptions, none of them
occurs anywhere else in the entire New Testament.26 Still, we are dealing
with much more than just a distinctive vocabulary; we also encounter
an entirely different religious imaginary from the one typically found
in Paul. We may have to search for the right word to label it – esoteric,
anti-cosmic, gnostic, perhaps all the above – but one thing is clear: like
the vocabulary it is built upon, it is an imaginary that flourishes in the
mid-second century rather than in the mid-first. But there is still more.
We shall also discover that even those words that do occur elsewhere in
Paul (e.g., αἰών, ἄρχοντες, πνευματικός, σοφία) have radically different
meanings when they are deployed in our passage. The anomalies will
continue to pile up, but the differences in language, style, and subject
matter gathered so far point in the direction of an interpolation.
The second criterion is that the removal of the suspect passage must
make the resultant rejoining of the surrounding material more cogent,
smoother, and better integrated. The evidence again suggests an inter-
polation. If we remove 2:6–16, the linkage at 2:5 and 3:1 is secure, and
certainly reads more smoothly than the abrupt transitions from 2:5 to
2:6 and from 2:16 to 3:1. In fact, what is left after 2:6–16 is removed
is a “real” letter about Paul and Apollos that now runs coherently from
1:10 to 4:21. Furthermore, what better place than between 2:5 and 3:1,
with their respective references to σοφία and πνευματικοί, could one find
to introduce an extended reflection on the cosmic background of σοφία

312 A.J. Droge
and the true nature of the πνευματικός? But notice that I asked, what
better place? For as good as 3:1 is, it is not the perfect location for
our passage – no place ever is for an interpolation – simply because
it makes utter nonsense of Paul’s statement at 3:1. When Paul writes,
“And I, brothers, I could not speak to you as πνευματικοί, etc.” – well,
excuse me, but that is precisely what “Paul” had been doing in the pre-
vious eleven verses, with their sonorous reflections on σοφία and the
πνευματικοί who possess it.27 No one, I wager, who had just written
2:6–16 could then write 3:1.28 Remove 2:6–16, however, and 3:1 (and
following) makes perfect sense in continuing the discussion begun about
Paul and Apollos in 1:10–2:5.29
a s e c r e t w isdom
We are now in a better position to make a second pass through 2:6–16.

Let us begin this time by considering the important theme of “wisdom.”
Although σοφία at 2:6 is taken up as a catchword that had already
appeared in the previous section, it is used differently in our passage. This
is reflected even at the syntactical level, with the emphatic positioning
of σοφία twice in the accusative at the beginning of clauses (2:6), and
twice as the direct object of λαλοῦμεν (2:6, 2:7). This is not typical of Pau-
line style. Moreover, wisdom’s cause is now being championed, whereas
“worldly wisdom” is denigrated at 1:20 and 3:19. Although there is a
slightly confusing reference to the “wisdom of God” at 1:21,30 and Christ
is called “God’s wisdom” at 1:24, σοφία at 2:6–8 is different still. It is
a σοφία “not of this Aeon, nor of the Archons of this Aeon.” It is also a
secret σοφία, “hidden in a mystery,” a σοφία “which God ordained before
(the creation of) the Aeons for our glory.” This is a strikingly different con-
ception of wisdom than one would have anticipated from the surrounding
context.31 To distinguish it from the “worldly wisdom” he mentions in
1:20 and 3:19, for example, Paul could have simply written, “It is not a
wisdom of this world.” Instead, the discourse on σοφία is given a cosmic
inflection, antithetical to all other uses of the word in 1 Cor. 1–3. This
discourse is much closer, in fact, to the language and ideas of the so-called
deutero-Pauline letters than to the so-called authentic ones.32
Possession of this secret wisdom is one of the distinguishing marks of
the Perfect Ones. It is theirs, however, not because of what they have been
taught, but because of who they are. This idea, too, differs from what
Paul will say immediately following our passage, with his milk/solid food
metaphor (3:1–4), suggesting that the Corinthian σάρκινοι are “children”
who can progress toward “maturity” and become πνευματικοί through

instruction. That this is not the understanding of our passage is made

clear at 2:11–16 in a series of dualisms, or antitheses, drawn between
“human wisdom” and “spirit(ual) wisdom,” and between the “spirit of
the human/cosmos” and the “Spirit of God,” as well as by the emphatic
pronouncement that “the ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος cannot know” [οὐ δύναται
γνῶναι] the (deep) things of the Spirit (2:14).33 The Perfect Ones, by con-
trast, are able to “fathom” (ἐραυνάω) these depths (2:10, 2:12) precisely
because of their status as Spirit Beings. Moreover, the content and man-
ner of their speech is expressed “in (words) taught by the Spirit” (2:13),
and thus they have the capacity to “interpret spiritual things in spiritual
(words).”34 They are also autonomous beings, who need no instructor or
pedagogue, because they are already capable of “discerning all things,
while not being discerned by anyone” (2:15). Whereas the physical qua
physical is utterly incapable of grasping “the (deep) things of the Spirit”
or “of God,” the Perfect Ones are privy to all manner of knowledge and
able to apprehend “things that eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
and (that) have not arisen in the human heart.”35
This is not conventional wisdom or knowledge; it is neither Pauline
kerygma nor didache. It is glossed at 2:10 as “the deep things of God”
(τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ), which must mean something like the “ideas in the
mind of God.” This expression occurs only here in the letters and is
once again evocative of later gnostic language and thought.36 In order
to gauge just how distinctive it is, consider how differently the “depth
(βάθος) of God’s wisdom and knowledge” is understood at Rom.
11:33. There the emphasis is placed on God’s inscrutability. No one
can fathom his ways. Not so in our passage. The emphatic positioning
of “to us, however” (ἡμῖν δέ) at 2:10 (cf. 2:12, 2:16) makes it patently
clear that it is the Perfect Ones – neither believers in general nor the
Corinthians in particular – who have unique access to the “deep things
of God.” It turns out, then, that there is after all a “superior discourse
and wisdom,” despite what Paul had previously disclaimed at 2:1.37 But
only the Perfect Ones – only those who possess the “Mind of Christ”
(νοῦς Χριστοῦ) – are able to comprehend it and engage in discourse
about it. Insofar as νοῦς and πνεῦμα are used interchangeably, one can
only conclude that the Perfect Ones have access to the very thoughts of
God. In other words, the question posed by the quotation of Isa. 40:13,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?” is answered with an unqual-
ified, “We, the πνευματικοί, do, because we possess the νοῦς Χριστοῦ”
(2:16). Notice once again how sharply this contradicts Paul’s use of the
same quotation at Rom. 11:34, where the implied answer is that no
one knows the mind of the Lord.

314 A.J. Droge
In general, the secret σοφία of our passage remains just that, a secret
whose existence is asserted but whose content is never fully revealed.
Still, whether by chance or by design, the reader catches the briefest
glimpse of one astonishing element of it. It is a secret that concerns
the crucifixion of Jesus, which was the key episode in a plot devised
by God primordially, or as our passage describes it, ordained “before
(the creation of) the Aeons” (πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων).38 God had deliberately
kept this plot “hidden in a mystery,” we are told, not only from mere
mortals (ψυχικοί), but more importantly from entities referred to as the
“Archons of this Aeon.” For had these Archons known about it, our pas-
sage declares, “they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” But just
who or what are the Archons? How, when, and where did they crucify
Jesus? And, above all, why?
w h o c ru c if ie d t h e l ord of glory?
It is important to stress at the outset that this mystery of the crucifixion is

not something Paul claimed he had received from others before him and
then passed on to the Corinthians. That is, it is not based on any report
Paul had heard, say, from the supposed eyewitnesses of the crucifixion.39
Quite the contrary. This esoteric knowledge is described as the unveiling
of a mystery; it came exclusively by means of the Spirit (2:10).40 Notice
that there is no sense in which it is “scandalous” or “foolish,” as Paul
conceded his simple message of “Christ crucified” was at 1:18–2:5. In
fact, there we learned that God had intended Paul’s proclamation to be
“foolishness” and “weakness” (1:27). In our passage, by contrast, it is
“foolishness”41 only insofar as a mere ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος cannot begin
to grasp it. It is not even a question of volition – of choosing or refusing
to receive it – rather, it is simply beyond such a person’s ken, and there-
fore it appears as “folly.”42
The key to the interpretation of our passage, and ultimately to the
determination that it is an interpolation, depends on who the “Archons
of this Aeon” are. Do they designate mundane political authorities,
supernatural powers, or perhaps some combination of the two?43 The
problem is compounded by the fact that the expression, “Archons
of this Aeon,” occurs only twice in all the letters attributed to Paul,
and both instances fall in our passage. Otherwise, the plural ἄρχοντες
(“rulers”) is found only at Rom. 13:1–7, where Paul admonishes his
readers to obey all civil authorities, whom, he says, God appointed for
their benefit, because such “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but
to bad” (13:3). Many commentators, especially those of a conservative

bent, choose to read the Archons of 2:6–8 through the lens of Rom.
13:3. For example, Joseph Fitzmyer takes Paul to be saying that “God’s
wisdom, hidden in a mystery, was incomprehensible to rulers such as
Pilate, Herod Antipas, or Caiaphas.”44 Nowhere, however, does Paul,
or the tradition Paul alleged he received, ever claim that Jesus was
crucified under Pilate, Herod Antipas, or Caiaphas. Furthermore, even
if Paul had meant such earthly rulers, he had no need to use cosmolog-
ical language to express this; he could have simply written something
like, “a wisdom that Pilate (or Herod or Caiaphas) did not know, for
if he had known, he would not have crucified the Lord.” There would
be no need to say anything about its being “hidden in a mystery” or
to refer to Jesus as the “Lord of Glory.”45 In any case, how could mere
civil authorities have been expected to comprehend such mysterious
wisdom in the first place? What could they possibly have made of it?
And even if they had understood it, how would that have changed
anything? Earthly rulers simply make no sense in our passage, quite
apart from the question whether 2:6–16 is an interpolation. Not only
is the important qualifier “of this Aeon” (τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) missing
at Rom. 13:3, so is any hint that these authorities are in the process of
“being abolished” (καταργούμενοι), as stated at 2:6. In fact, it is crucial
to Paul’s point at Rom. 13:3 that they not be. No, the “Archons of this
Aeon” can only refer to an order of supernatural beings, to the only
entities who had anything to lose by the crucifixion, and who were
tricked into acting in accord with God’s secret plot. Simply put, the
Archons must designate the hostile powers of the sublunary world.
They were the ones who crucified the Lord of Glory.46
According to our passage, then, the crucifixion of Jesus was a not a
crime committed by the usual suspects (the Romans and/or Judaeans), but
an act perpetrated by hostile cosmic powers, the “Archons of this Aeon.”
This peculiar passion account, which, if it were Pauline, would be the
earliest extant, is imagined not as a historical event at all, but as the key
episode in a cosmic drama, and as such it differs fundamentally from the
more familiar (i.e., historicized) crucifixion stories of the New Testament
Gospels. Hence the perceived need on the part of many scholars (like
Fitzmyer, above), to read 2:6–8 in light of those later accounts. But such
a conflation of the evidence is anachronistic, quite apart from whether
2:6–16 is an interpolation or not, since there would be no canonical
story of the crucifixion for a very long time. Even a casual sampling of
texts from the Christian archive makes clear that there was no consensus
about who crucified Jesus, or about when, where, how, or why Jesus was
crucified. Indeed, as we shall see, there was not even a consensus about

316 A.J. Droge
whether Jesus was crucified. Each of these questions was a point of con-
flict and contestation for centuries before the Christians finally managed
to get their story (more or less) straight.47
Seen in this light, then, there is nothing odd about our crucifixion
account. It is only when one looks for contemporary parallels to it that it
stands out as peculiar. Only then does it become clear that 2:6–16 could
not have been written by Paul, or anyone else in the first century, simply
because there is nothing in the first century like it. All the parallels derive
from a century later, among a family of texts usually labelled “gnostic.”
And this is the most puzzling anomaly of all in our passage: Why are there
no contemporary parallels to its account of the crucifixion? The answer is
not that Paul was a century ahead of his time; rather, it is that our passage
is an interpolation of the second century, and its crucifixion myth can only
be understood as such. My concern now is to locate this myth, describe it
more fully, and try to determine the date of the interpolation.
c ru c i- f ic t ions:
ki l l in g j e s u s in t h e second century
Whoever was responsible for our passage assumed that a reader would
be familiar enough with its crucifixion myth that it need not be repeated
in detail. It could be invoked simply by referring to its distinguishing
feature, namely, that it was the hostile “Archons of this Aeon” who had
crucified the “Lord of Glory.” This, in turn, means that the myth was
already in wide enough circulation that it could be called upon by mere
allusion. This fits a mid-second century context, but not one in the mid-
first, and certainly not one in which Paul was the original mythmaker.
Partial confirmation for this can be found in Justin’s Dialogue with Try-
pho, composed around 150 ce . Justin refers to a version of the myth
when he describes the “Archons in Heaven” (οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἄρχοντες)
who failed to recognize Christ when he descended into the cosmos.
Admittedly, Justin says nothing about their crucifixion of Jesus. These
Archons were appointed by God and were commanded to open the gates
of heaven when Christ ascended, but they nevertheless appear to be mor-
ally ambiguous insofar as they failed to recognize Christ at his descent.48
This version of the myth was based on a rather clever reading of Ps. 24,
though it is unlikely that Justin was the original exegete or mythmaker.
As part of his “proof” that the central plank of the Christian story was
prefigured in Trypho’s own scriptures, Justin claims that Christ’s ascent
into heaven was detailed in advance in Ps. 24, which was originally a
royal entrance liturgy, describing the personified “Gates” of Jerusalem

being raised to receive a human “King of Glory,” as he ascended vic-

torious to “the holy sanctuary on the Mountain of yhwh .” Of course,
Justin was reading the lxx version of the Psalm (23:7, 23:9), which ren-
ders the Hebrew line, “Lift up your heads, O Gates,” as “Lift up your
gates, O Rulers” (οἱ ἄρχοντες). For Justin, this was a Davidic “prophecy”
in which Christ, the real “King of Glory” (ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης), is the one
who will ascend victorious to God’s heavenly sanctuary. The “Rulers,”
therefore, must be ἐν οὐρανῷ as well; that is, they must be cosmic powers.
Justin’s version of the myth presents a number of features that parallel
the reading of 1 Cor. 2:6–8 offered above, and begins to fill in some of
its features: (1) the reference to οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἄρχοντες, which are clearly
supernatural powers, not earthy rulers; (2) the ignorance of these pow-
ers, understood as their initial failure to recognize Christ; (3) the use of
the title “King of Glory,” which is a close analogue to the reference to
Christ as the “Lord of Glory”; and (4) the exegetical derivation of the
myth.49 The major difference between Justin’s version and the account in
2:6–8 is the latter’s reference to hostile Archons who unwittingly work
their own defeat by actually crucifying the Lord of Glory. And this pres-
ents us with a conundrum. If Christ was disguised or in some way hid-
den at his descent, such that the Archons failed to recognize him, then
why did they crucify him? Did they know that he was the redeemer, but
not that their crucifixion of him would be the very means of their own
undoing? That is, did they know something, but not enough? Here the
older part of the Ascension of Isaiah provides a significant parallel to
our passage and will help us to fill in even more details.
The second half of the Ascension of Isaiah describes a journey of the
eighth-century prophet through the seven heavens, accompanied by an
angel who acts as his personal guide and interpreter.50 Once they have
reached the seventh and highest heaven, the angel tells Isaiah what is
going to happen in the distant future:
The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he)
who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like
you [Isaiah] in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man.
And the God of that world will stretch out his hand against the Son,
and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him on a tree, not
knowing who he is. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be
concealed even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who
he is. And … he will rise on the third day and will remain in that
world for 545 days [i.e., one and a half years]. And then many of the
righteous will ascend with him.51

318 A.J. Droge
Christ’s descent through the cosmos will be concealed from the mostly
benevolent angelic powers of the higher heavens, evidently because
otherwise his identity could not be kept a secret from the evil powers
below them. But once Christ reaches the lowest or sublunary region –
called the “Firmament” – his disguise will change again, and this time
he will assume the outward appearance of a human. Although the
“God of that world” and his evil hosts will think that Christ is merely
“flesh,”52 they will nevertheless lay hold of the Son and crucify him,
despite their ignorance of his true identity and the implications of their
actions. This is a striking parallel to, and explanation of, the claim at 1
Cor. 2:6–8 that it was the Archons of this Aeon who crucified the Lord
of Glory in ignorance.
Next, Isaiah’s angel-guide tells him to watch as Christ begins to trans-
form himself and descend through the seven heavens and finally into the
Firmament. Now it is Isaiah who reports what he sees: “And then I saw
that … he descended into the Firmament where the Archon53 of this
world dwells … and his form (was) like theirs, and they did not praise him
there; but in evil and envying they were fighting one another, for there is
there a power of evil and envying … And … they were plundering and
doing violence to one another.”54 At this point we would expect Isaiah
to proceed by describing the crucifixion of Christ by the “Archon of this
world” and his minions in fulfillment of what had been previously fore-
shadowed at Ascen. Isa. 9.14–15. Instead, this report has been removed
and several paragraphs have been interpolated in its place that give a
summary of Christ’s painless birth, his miracles, and his equally painless
crucifixion.55 Yet, if Christ’s true identity was hidden from the “Archon
of this world,” how did the Archon know who Christ was in order to lay
hands on him? The interpolated material implies that it was the many
“signs and wonders” performed by Christ that caused the hostile pow-
ers of the Firmament to envy him, though still not comprehending who
he truly was: “The Adversary envied him, and roused the Children of
Israel against him, not knowing who he was. And they handed him to
the Ruler [Pilate?] and crucified him.”56 Isaiah then adds, “In Jerusalem,
indeed, I saw how they crucified him on a tree, and likewise (how) after
the third day he rose and remained (many) days.”57 Christ then ascends
in glory (i.e., no longer in disguise) through the cosmos to the seventh
heaven, where he is enthroned at the right hand of God.58
It is not entirely clear in the interpolated material who was responsible
for the actual crucifixion. The “Adversary”? The “Children of Israel”?
The “Ruler”? Or did they all conspire together? In any event, the inter-
polation looks like a later attempt to historicize what had once been a

cosmic version of the crucifixion, one in which the archontic powers of

the lower world crucified Christ “in the Firmament,” not “in Jerusalem.”
Even so, the parallels with 1 Cor. 2:6–8 remain striking, for it is still
these powers of the Firmament – in so many words, the “Archons of
this Aeon” – who bear ultimate responsibility for the crucifixion. The
theme of their ignorance is also strikingly similar. They did not really
know who Christ was and would not realize what they had done until
they witnessed his ascent in glory.59 This comes very close to the view
of our passage, where the Archons are likewise ignorant of what they
had done. Indeed, we are told that had they known better, they would
not have been so foolish as to “crucify the Lord of Glory” and thereby
seal their own doom. The reference at 1 Cor. 2:6 to the Archons “being
abolished” (καταργούμενοι) signals their subjection and the loss of their
former powers. The same is presumed at Ascen. Isa. 11.23, when Satan
and his angels worship Christ in glory.60
Now, it is hard to imagine that Paul, or anyone else in the mid-first
century, could have drawn on the Ascension of Isaiah as inspiration for
what we find at 1 Cor. 2:6–8. Its second-century date presents an insur-
mountable chronological problem. Nor is there any indication that the
author or compiler of the Ascension of Isaiah was dependent on our pas-
sage. Nowhere is Paul’s authority invoked, and, despite the striking con-
ceptual similarities with our passage, the different vocabulary used for
the sublunary powers is equally striking. It is much more likely that we
are dealing with two independent applications of a crucifixion myth that
was circulating in gnostic circles in the mid-second century. Insofar as
this myth is conceived of as a cosmic, rather than historical, drama, it was
probably deployed as a counterpoint to its historicized version, namely,
the story of Christ’s physical passion in Jerusalem. We see this clearly at
Ascen. Isa. 9.13, where the malevolent powers of the Firmament “think
that he is flesh and a man.”61 Yet Christ was not actually human, his
appearance was merely a disguise by which the powers of the Firmament
were tricked, and even in the interpolated material there is no indication
that Christ suffered any pain during his crucifixion. It is almost certain
that the crucifixion myth of 1 Cor. 2:6–8 is similarly docetic.62
The motif of the Archons’ ignorance would be explored in other itera-
tions of the myth, and these allow us to fill in still more details. Perhaps
the most startling of these is the report found across a range of sec-
ond-century texts that Jesus was not crucified and did not die.63 Like the
more familiar passion account, it is an exegetical tradition based again
on a clever, albeit exceedingly literalistic, reading of the passion narra-
tive at Mark 15:20–24: “Then they led him [Jesus] out to crucify him.

320 A.J. Droge
They compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene … to carry his cross. And

they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means ‘Place of
a Skull’). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not
take it. And they crucified him.” If one followed the ordinary grammati-
cal rules for determining the antecedent of the pronoun, then the “him”
and the “he” refer to Simon, not Jesus. It was Simon who carried the
cross; it was Simon who was brought to Golgotha; it was Simon who
was offered the wine; and it was Simon who was crucified. That this
was an early alt-reading of Mark is indicated by the attempts of Mark’s
epigones, Matthew (27:32–37) and Luke (23:26–33), to correct Mark’s
ambiguous grammar at this point.64
This version of the crucifixion myth emerges into the full light of day
in the teachings of the second-century Alexandrian Gnostic Basilides.
Although his own account no longer survives, the heresy-hunter Irenaeus
described it in detail:
The Father without birth and without name … sent his own first-
born Nous, he who is called Christ, to bestow deliverance on those
who believe in him from the power of those who fashioned the
cosmos. He appeared, then, on earth as a man … and performed
miracles. For that reason he did not himself suffer death, but Simon,
a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, carried the cross in his
place, with the result that the latter [Simon], being transfigured by
him [Jesus] … was crucified through ignorance and error, while
Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed
at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous of
the unborn Father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus
ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, since he could not
be laid hold of and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these
things have been freed from the Rulers who fashioned the cosmos.65
We can detect a number of key parallels with 1 Cor. 2:6–8, even though
Christ is not actually crucified: (1) the theme of the ignorance of the pow-
ers in failing to recognize Christ, or to realize what they were actually
doing; (2) their attempt to crucify him being the very means by which their
control over the lower world was broken; and (3) that it is knowledge of
this that constitutes redemption from enslavement to them.
Another example of this version of the myth is found in the Second
Treatise of the Great Seth of the Nag Hammadi library, probably dating
from some time in the early third century. It offers yet another parallel to
the Archons’ role in the crucifixion. Here Jesus himself declares:

And the plan which [the Archons] devised about me to release their
error and senselessness – I did not succumb to them as they had
planned. But I was not afflicted at all … And I did not die in reality
but in appearance … For my death which they think happened, (hap-
pened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their
man unto their death … Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was
another, their father, who drank the gall and vinegar; it was not I.
They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the
cross on his shoulder. It was another on whom they placed the crown
of thorns. But I was up above rejoicing over all the wealth of the
Archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I
was laughing at their ignorance. And I subjected all their powers.66
Still another variant of the myth is found in the second-century Apoc-

alypse of Peter, also part of the Nag Hammadi library, which has Peter
seeing Jesus seized and crucified in a vision, but above the cross he sees
one who is happy and laughing: “The Savior said to me, ‘He whom you
see above the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one
into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which
is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his
likeness. Only look at him and at me (and compare)!’”67 These examples
provide a good indication of just how popular and widespread the gnos-
tic myth of the crucifixion was.
Much like its historicized counterpart, the gnostic myth, too, seems
to have been generated exegetically. For example, the recurring motif
of “laughter” and “derision,” appearing for the first time with Basilides,
is likely based on a gnostic interpretation of Ps. 2:2–4, lines originally
pertaining to God’s son, the Davidic king:
The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers [lxx , ἄρχοντες] take counsel together,
against yhwh [lxx , ὁ κύριος] and his Anointed [lxx , Χριστός],
saying,
“Let us burst their bonds asunder,
and cast their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs;
yhwh [lxx, ὁ κύριος] has them in derision.68
In its lxx rendering, Ps. 2:2–4 reads like a version of the gnostic crucifix-
ion myth in nuce. With only a slight shift, the earthly “kings and rulers”
become the hostile powers of the cosmos, who conspire against God and

322 A.J. Droge
his Christ to establish their control over the lower world once and for
all. Yet, in the very act of doing so, they manifest their ignorance and
bring about their own demise. Not only are these powers no longer wor-
thy of fear, but they have also become the objects of ridicule. Meanwhile,
Christ has been enthroned in heaven (Ps. 2:6–7). In all these variations
of the myth, including the one alluded to at 1 Cor. 2:6–8, the crucifixion
is imagined as a cosmic drama, one in which neither the Romans nor the
Judaeans (nor any other human actors) have a significant role to play.
Since we can find only second- and third-century parallels to the
crucifixion myth alluded to at 1 Cor. 2:6–8, it strains credulity to sup-
pose that Paul could have written these lines. Our passage must be a
non-Pauline intervention of the second century. Martin Widmann was
right to regard it as non-Pauline, but he was wrong to attribute it to
a “pneumatic group” of “Corinthian enthusiasts” who corrected what
they saw as Paul’s distortion of their position. Our passage simply can-
not be that early, no matter who is responsible for it. Moreover, there
is nothing “pneumatic” or “enthusiast” about our passage; rather it is
an example of Christian Gnosticism, of the sort we first encounter in
the second century.69
What Widmann also failed to see is that there is nothing especially
polemical (or ad Paulum) about our passage; it reads much more like
commentary than a piece of ad hominem rhetoric.70 Whatever the
conflict between Paul and the Corinthians – and this is crucial – our
passage was not a part of it, but part of something quite different and
far removed. This was not merely Widmann’s failing; it holds true for
nearly all interpreters who intuitively recognize the thoroughly gnostic
vocabulary and ideas of 1 Cor. 2:6–16, but feel compelled to conclude
that they simply cannot be gnostic because, as everyone knows, Paul was
anti-gnostic, and all the parallels are a century or more too late. Hence
the construction of such odd and slippery terms as “enthusiasts,” “pneu-
matics,” and “proto-gnostics” to describe Paul’s Corinthian opponents,
in order to distance Paul from such language and ideas, as well as their
unflagging efforts to mine the writings of Philo and the wisdom literature
of Hellenistic Judaism in an effort to find more suitable (read “Jewish”)
parallels to our passage.71 That modern exegetical move (or scholarly
legerdemain) only sets the problem in sharper relief, simply because
the πνευματικός/ψυχικός distinction, like so much else in our passage,
cannot be found anywhere in Philo, Wisdom, or any other Hellenistic
Jewish text. Indeed, it cannot be found anywhere prior to its articula-
tion among second-century Christian Gnostics. My approach has simply

been to accept that the only meaningful comparanda for our passage
are a century or more later than the putative date of 1 Corinthians, and
then proceed to read 2:6–16 in light of them. But now it is time to face
the consequences.
fac in g t h e c o nsequences
On the basis of internal evidence and the profusion of later gnostic

technical terms, I have argued that 1 Cor. 2:6–16 is a non-Pauline
interpolation of the second century. One result of this reading is that
Paul turns out not to be a Gnostic, pace Reitzenstein, but that is not
the same thing as saying that Paul is “anti-gnostic.” Both propositions
are anachronistic and ultimately beside the point. The more interesting
and important consequence is the recognition that our passage was a
second-century attempt to ventriloquize Paul, to make him say what he
should have said – indeed, must have said – and to do so in a fashion
not dissimilar to the way in which the modern guild of scholars con-
tinues to carry on the time-honoured task of Pauline commentary. This
is not to say that there is not a good deal more Gnosticism lurking in
1 Corinthians, or a Gnostic Paul haunting the corpus paulinum, but,
as was the case with our passage, these too are an imposition from
a later period. And we do not have far to look to find its probable
source: those Valentinian scholars of the second century, for whom
Paul’s letters were a major focus of their commentarial endeavours,
who succeeded in creating a Paul in their own image, and then who
esteemed him as the chief architect of their mythmaking.72 Our passage
is one small piece of that enterprise, which has managed by historical
accident to survive as a page in the archive or dossier that only later
would be called “1 Corinthians.”
Finally, what can be said about the date of our passage? At a mini-
mum, it must postdate 1 Clement (c. 100–140 ce ),73 whose author claims
to know of a single letter of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Clem. 47.1–3),
but who, curiously enough, seems unaware that Paul’s letter contained
the very same “scripture” quotation (1 Cor. 2:9) that the author of 1
Clement also happened to cite, yet cited differently (1 Clem. 34.8).74 This
omission is all the more puzzling considering the information the author
supplies about Paul and Apollos at 1 Clem. 47.1–3, which makes certain
that he had read 1 Cor. 1–4, and so should have known that Paul had
cited the same “scripture” at 1 Cor. 2:9. That he cites the same “scrip-
ture” independently and differently suggests strongly that 1 Cor. 2:6–16

324 A.J. Droge
was not in the edition of the letter known to the authors of 1 Clement.
In light of this, I am inclined to fix the date of the interpolation at some
time around 140 ce , which also accords with most of the other com-
paranda we have found.
All this casts a different light on the question of the “authenticity” of
1 Corinthians, and of the corpus paulinum more generally. None, save the
most earnest of our colleagues, accepts the genuineness of any of the let-
ters, acts, gospels, or apocalypses associated with allegedly first-century
figures such as Peter, James, John, Thomas, Barnabas, Mark, Matthew,
Luke, et al. On what basis, then, would one presume that (some of) the
letters associated with the name “Paul” are authentic? Put differently,
why should we suppose that we have genuine letters from Paul, but from
no one else in the first century? What are the “criteria of authenticity”
when it comes to Paul and his letters?75 This chapter has tried to address
these questions, albeit indirectly. By recognizing that 1 Cor. 2:6–16 is an
interpolation of the second century, we can see that individual letters
were still under construction well into that century, and we can begin to
discern how that building process worked. Already at a pre-collection
stage, Paul’s “letters” were far from static or inert data, moving through
time under the guardianship of vigilant Christian scribes.76
Rather, the materials out of which individual letters would later be
constituted were still in flux, and provided occasions for innovative and
improvisational interventions from a variety of sources, with a variety of
interests, and in a variety of forms (e.g., emendations, deletions, glosses,
interpolations, commentary, short narratives, and so on). As I have sug-
gested, it would be better to think of “1 Corinthians” at the pre-collec-
tion stage as an active site or open file, more along the lines of an archive
or dossier, and certainly not a unified, much less actual, letter.77 So con-
ceived, the process that yielded the letter known as “1 Corinthians,” as
well as the collection known as the corpus paulinum, would be analo-
gous to the process of the composition of the gospels. At some point in
the second century, materials of heterogeneous origin, date, and prove-
nance began to be fashioned into a loose epistolary form and attributed
to a figure from the first century. What would such a scenario imply
about the authenticity of the very texts upon which Pauline scholarship
is based? At a minimum it would challenge the current scholarly con-
sensus that presumes it is in possession of six or seven of Paul’s authen-
tic letters. It would also require greater circumspection on the part of
scholars who would presume to read these letters as if they provided a
gateway to the first century, as well as access to a “real” (viz., historical)
first-century figure whose biography can be recovered. It would mean,

in other words, that the corpus paulinum will no more yield a histori-
cal Paul than the gospels have yielded a historical Jesus. But we would
surely be none the worse for that.
no t e s
1 My translation is based on the Greek text of na 28, with one exception at 1 Cor.
2:14 (see following note) Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.
2 na 28 reads τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ (“of the Spirit of God”), but τοῦ θεοῦ
(“of God”) is probably a later gloss.
3 “The section 2:6–16 … is a contradiction of [Paul’s] previous statements”;
the transition to 3:1 is “forced” and “a break in the train of thought”; “the
content of 2:6–16 is in substance not Christian” [!]; so Hans Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
Hermeneia, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 57, 59n22.
This passage, however, is only one of many inconcinnities in 1 Corinthians
(cf., e.g., 10:1–22 [23]; 11:3–16; 12:31b–14:1a), which reads more like a
dossier than an actual letter. More on this at the conclusion of the chapter.
4 οἱ σωζόμενοι and οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι (literally, “those who are being saved” and
“those who are perishing”).
5 The concentration of first-person plural forms in 2:6–16 is striking. Notice the
following sequence of verbs and pronouns: λαλοῦμεν (2:6), λαλοῦμεν (2:7), εἰς
δόξαν ἡμῶν (2:7), ἡμῖν δέ (2:10), ἡμεῖς δέ … ἐλάβομεν … ἵνα εἰδῶμεν … ἡμῖν
(2:12), λαλοῦμεν (2:13), ἡμεῖς δέ … ἔχομεν (2:16). Pace Brown, “Hidden
Wisdom” (present volume), ///, this is not at all typical of Pauline diction.
6 Cf. e.g., Naasene Sermon (apud Hippolytus Haer. 5.8.21, 5.8.26); Justin the
Gnostic (apud Hippolytus Haer. 5.24.2); Irenaeus Haer. 1.6.3; Gos. Truth
18.11–18; Gos. Phil. 60.15–25, 76.22–32.
7 The distinction between πνευματικός and ψυχικός, and the description of the
former as τέλειος, is especially typical of Valentinian Gnosticism (see, e.g.,
Irenaeus Haer. 1.6.1–4, 1.7.5; Tertullian Val. 29; Clement Exc. 54.1, 56.3;
Origen Cels. 5.61.17–18; Hyp. Arch. 87.15–20.
8 See, e.g., Judith L. Kovacs, “The Archons, the Spirit and the Death of Christ:
Do We Need the Hypothesis of Gnostic Opponents to Explain 1 Corinthians
2.6–16?” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis
Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion Soards, lnts 24 (Sheffield: jsot Press,
1989), 217–36. Her attempt to explain the language and ideas of 2:6–16
entirely in terms of Jewish apocalypticism is unpersuasive.
9 See, e.g., Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation:
An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1
Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991).

326 A.J. Droge
10 See, e.g., Ulrich Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit: Ein exegetisch-religionsge-

schichtliche Untersuchung zu 1. Kor. 1 und 2, bht 26 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1959), 52–96; Dieter Lührmann, Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei
Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden, wmant 16 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 113–17; Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in
Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians, trans. John E. Seely
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 151–5; Birger A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-
Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of Paul’s
Corinthian Opponents, sblds 12 (Missoula: Scholars, 1973), 38, 82; Richard
A. Horsley, “Pneumatikos vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among
the Corinthians,” HTR 69 (1976): 269–88; Todd E. Klutz, “Re-Reading 1
Corinthians after Rethinking Gnosticism,” jsnt 26 (2003): 193–216; Gordon
D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., nicnt (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2014) 104–7, 125–7; and the survey in Oh-Young Kwon,
“A Critical Review of Recent Scholarship on the Pauline Opposition and the
Nature of Its Wisdom (σοφία) in 1 Corinthians 1–4,” CurBR 8 (2010):
386–427, esp. 392–400; see also Brown, “Hidden Wisdom,” ///.
11 E. Earle Ellis, “‘Spiritual’ Gifts in the Pauline Community,” NTS 20 (1974):
130; cf. E. Earle Ellis, “Traditions in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 32 (1986): 481–502,
esp. 490.
12 Martin Widmann, “1 Kor 2 6–16: Ein Einspruch gegen Paulus,” ZNW 70
(1979): 44–53, esp. 46, 50–3. Widmann refrains from calling Paul’s opponents
“Gnostiker,” but believes that his analysis “has unburdened [Paul] of the
‘strange’ [fremdartige] statements of 2:6–16” (53). Alas, there is no accounting
for theological taste. William O. Walker, Jr, Interpolations in the Pauline
Letters, lnts 213 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 127–46, mounts
a solid defence of Widmann’s case (absent the value judgment) over the objec-
tions of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” CBQ 48
(1986): 81–94, esp. 81–4.
13 Walker, Interpolations, 140, misses an opportunity when he observes that
“much of the terminology (as well as ideational content) in 2.6–16 is remark-
ably similar to what is found in later Gnosticism,” but then fails to pursue the
implications of this.
14 Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistische Mysterienreligionen nach ihren
Grundgedanken und Wirkungen, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1927), 348:
“Paulus ist Gnostiker.” Appendix 16 (“Paulus als Pneumatiker,” 333–93) is an
extended commentary on 2:6–16.
15 The first-person plural is neither an instance of the pluralis maiestatis nor a
reference back to “Paul and Sosthenes,” mentioned at 1:1 (notice the following
singular εὐχαριστῶ and παρακαλῶ at 1:4, 1:10).

16 Pace the sermonizing of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, ab 32 (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 169–70: Paul “simply means ‘we
Christians.’ He is summoning … the Corinthian community (and modern
readers) to reflect on … their common calling and conduct, which should be
properly oriented to God’s saving wisdom.” Of one thing we may be certain:
Paul was not summoning modern readers.
17 The Corinthians are addressed as ἀδελφοί both shortly before (2:1) and
immediately after (3:1) 2:6–16.
18 Pace Brown, “Hidden Wisdom.”
19 Ellis, “‘Spiritual’ Gifts,” 130n5, comments on “the unity of [2:6–16] independ-
ent of its context.”
20 Cf. the similar understanding of the term at Jude 19: ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ
ἔχοντες. This fausse lettre is usually dated to c. 150 ce.
21 σάρκινοι is immediately followed by σαρκικοί at 3:3, with little difference in
meaning. Paul must have realized that the -ικοί form of the adjective sounded
better than σάρκινοι as a contrast to πνευματικοί. But then why not simply
have used ψυχικοί?
22 See Rom. 8:4–6, 8:9, 8:13; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 3:3, 4:29, 5:17; cf. the
discussion of these terms in Ryan S. Schellenberg, “On Pauline Indeterminacy”
(present volume), ///.
23 See Williams, “Imperialization of the Apostolic Remains” (present volume), ///.
24 Notice that many of my conclusions are at odds with those of Brown, “Hidden
Wisdom” and Williams, “Imperialization of the Remains” in this volume. See
now Brown’s postscript to his chapter. In the initial version Brown failed to
consider whether 1 Cor. 2:6–16 might be an interpolation, even though several
scholars had cast doubt on its authenticity.
25 I reproduce the list compiled by Walker, Interpolations, 137–8, who in turn
draws on Ellis, “‘Spiritual’ Gifts,” 130n5 and “Traditions in 1 Corinthians,”
499n69.
26 διδακτοί occurs at John 6:45 (quoting Isa. 54:13); πνευματικῶς is found at
Rev. 11:8. Commentators often cite Jas. 2:1 as a parallel to ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης,
but it is inexact.
27 Cf. οὐκ ἠδυνήθην λαλῆσαι at 3:1 with λαλοῦμεν at 2:6, 2:7, 2:13.
28 Pace Brown, “Hidden Wisdom.”
29 Pace Walker, Interpolations, 136: “It is just possible that 3.1 in its entirety rep-
resents a scribe’s attempt (or even that of the actual interpolator) to link the
interpolation (2.6–16) both to what precedes (2.1–5) and to what follows
(3.2–4).” On the view I am offering, the reference to πνευματικοί at 3:1 would
have been its first occurrence in 1 Cor. Apart from its use in our passage (twice,
along with the exceptional πνευματικῶς), it is otherwise found only at 1 Cor.

328 A.J. Droge
14:37 (sing.) and Gal. 6:1 (plur.), which suggests that it was not an important
word in Paul’s vocabulary as a substantive.
30 Roy Kotansky proposes to me that 1:21 would make better sense if emended
to “wisdom of the world”: “For since, by the wisdom <of the world>, the
world did not know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the
foolishness of the kerygma to save those who believe.”
31 Schellenberg (“On Pauline Indeterminacy”) might see this polyvalence in light
of Paul’s “indeterminacy,” but the clustering of radically different meanings
into distinct pericopae of (ostensibly) the same letter suggests something else is
afoot.
32 See esp. Col. 1:25–28, 2:2–3; Eph. 3:2–6; and the non-Pauline interpolation at
Rom. 16:25–26.
33 “Because they are (only) spiritually discerned.” This is the only instance in Paul
of a causal ὅτι after γνῶναι (contrast Rom. 6:6; 1 Cor. 3:20; 2 Cor. 8:9, 13:6;
Gal. 3:7; Phil. 1:12, 2:2).
34 Or “explain spiritual things to spiritual people.” It is not clear whether
πνευματικοῖς at 2:13 refers to λόγοις or is a substantive referring to “spiritual
people.” In either case, each is based on the principle that “like is known by
like,” and thus underscores the cosmic and anthropological dualism of our
passage.
35 Despite being introduced by the formula typical for such quotations (“as it is
written [in the Scriptures]”), 1 Cor. 2:9 is the only instance in Paul for which no
corresponding passage can be found in any canonical or apocryphal writing.
Origen (Comm. Matt. 27.9) attributed the quotation to the “Secrets of Elijah the
Prophet,” which some scholars presume is a reference to the Apocalypse of
Elijah, a composite work surviving in two Coptic recensions from the fourth or
fifth century ce . However, the quotation is nowhere to be found there. A version
of the quotation appears in the mid-second century at Pseudo-Philo Bib. Ant.
26.13, but without the third line, “(all the) things that God has prepared for
those who love him.” Otherwise, it appears exclusively in Christian texts of the
second and third centuries. Curiously, however, none of them has the quotation
exact, and none refers to Paul. Of these, 1 Clem. 34.8 comes the closest, attribut-
ing the quotation to “the Scripture” (ἡ γραφή at 34.6), yet it cites the third line
differently: “as many things as the Lord has prepared for those who wait for
him” (cf. 2 Clem. 11.7, 14.5; Mart. Pol. 2.3). This discrepancy is more than a
little odd, since the author of 1 Clem. knew 1 Corinthians (47.1–3). Other ver-
sions of the quotation (without attribution and without the third line) find their
way into the mouths of Jesus (Gos. Thom. 17; Gos. Jud. 47.10–13), Thomas
(Acts Thom. 36), and Justin the Gnostic (apud Hippolytus Haer. 5.19.1). At the
end of the Ascension of Isaiah, an angel tells the prophet that “you have seen
what no one born of flesh has seen” (11.34), and in one Latin version the angel

continues, “what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the
heart of man, how great are the things God has prepared for all those who love
him” (see M.A. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. [New York:
Doubleday, 1985], 2:176n.b2, slightly altered; cf. Clement Protr. 10.94.4). Could
the Ascension of Isaiah be the “scripture” to which 1 Cor. 2:9 refers? Whatever
the actual source of the
quotation, it is safe to assume that it did not circulate before the second century;
that is, at a date considerably later than the putative date of 1 Corinthians.
36 Hippolytus Haer. 5.6.4, reports that those who “called themselves Gnostics
say that they alone knew the depths” (τὰ βάθη); cf. Irenaeus Haer. 1.21.2,
2.22.1, 2.22.3. God himself is called “depth” (βάθος) at Act. Thom. 143;
Hippolytus Haer. 6.30.7 (Valentinians). The reference to τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ
at Rev. 2:24 mocks these claims to esoteric knowledge by sarcastically
substituting Satan for God.
37 “And I, when I came to you, brothers, came not with superiority of speech or
wisdom (οὐ καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας), proclaiming to you the testimony of
God.” The well-supported alternative reading μαρτύριον (“testimony”) (cf. 1:6)
is to be preferred to μυστήριον (“mystery”), which is a later assimilation to 2:7.
38 This is the only occurrence of this phrase in Paul. Here the “Aeons” are not
temporal periods (i.e., “this age” and “the age to come”), as at 1:20 and 3:18;
rather they are a spatial-ontological reference to a multi-storied cosmos. The
closest parallels are again to be found in the deutero-Pauline letters (see Col.
1:26; Eph. 2:2, 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:17; and the non-Pauline interpolation at Rom.
16:25; cf. Heb. 1:2, 11:3; Rev. 15:3 [v.l.]).
39 As, for instance, the quasi-creedal information Paul relates at 1 Cor. 15:3–7
purports to be (“For I handed on to you … what I in turn had received: that
Christ died,” etc.). The contrast between revelation and tradition could not be
sharper.
40 The esotericism expressed here is once again more typical of the deutero-Pau-
line letters than the authentic ones (see Col. 1:26; Eph. 3:5, 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9–10;
Tit. 1:2–3; and the non-Pauline interpolation at Rom. 16:25–26).
41 Notice that there is no mention of “weakness” along with “foolishness” here,
as there was at 1:25–27.
42 See 2:14–16, once again based on the principle that “like is known by like.”
43 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 175, lists fourteen scholars who support the first
option (including himself), twelve for the second, and seven for the third.
44 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 176.
45 Otherwise, Paul never refers to Christ’s “glory” before his resurrection. That
means that here “Lord of Glory” may be akin to “Lord of glorious Light,”
rather than to “glorified Lord” in a post-resurrection sense.

330 A.J. Droge
46 This was also the view of Tertullian Marc. 5.6 and Origen Princ. 3.2.1. To the
best of my knowledge, the designation “Archons of this Aeon” occurs only in
our passage. The closest parallel is found at Pistis Sophia 1.20, 1.31 (early
third century ce ), where “Archons of the Aeons” (plural) refer to supernatural
powers stationed at the gates of the twelve levels of the cosmos. For ἄρχοντες
in this spatial-ontological sense, see, e.g., Ignatius Smyrn. 6.1; Acts of John
114; Acts Thom. 10, 143. Such entities, however, are referred to by various
monikers (“Authorities,” “Celestials,” “Evil Spirits,” “Principalities,” “Powers,”
“World-Rulers,” et al.); see further David E. Aune, “Archon,” in Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn et al., 2nd rev. ed.
(Leiden: Brill, 1999), 82–5, esp. 84–5, for a concise summary of their role in
gnostic cosmologies. It is likely that the “Archons of this Aeon” are to be
understood as the subordinates of the one who is called “the God of this
Aeon” at 2 Cor. 4:4, almost certainly referring to Satan. Once again, the only
parallels occur in significantly later texts. See, e.g., Eph. 2:2 (“Archon of the
power of the air”); John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11 (“Archon of this/the Cosmos”);
Ignatius Eph. 17.1, 19.1; Magn. 1.3; Trall. 4.2; Rom. 7.1; Phld. 6.2 (“Archon
of this Aeon”), and Acts Thom. 143 (“the Archon”).
47 I must emphasize that I am referring only to the wildly imaginative, yet
infinitesimally small, world of texts, not to what was actually happening, or
not happening, on the ground. Given the near total absence of cross iconog-
raphy prior to the Constantinian era, there was an overwhelming consensus
about the crucifixion of Jesus: for most Christians it was a non-event and
consequently did not matter. On this, see esp. Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem:
Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine, rev. ed. (Macon:
Mercer University Press, 2003), 60 et passim. The silence of the archaeological
record in this case is a stark warning about extrapolating from texts ideas
widely shared by the rank and file, or by the so-called “communities”
supposedly lurking behind the texts we read.
48 Justin Dial. 36.5–6.
49 What I mean by the fourth point is that the cosmicized version of the crucifix-
ion myth was just as much driven (or fabricated) by exegesis as its historicized
counterpart (on the latter, see Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels:
Their History and Development [Harrisburg: Trinity Press International,
1990], 220–30).
50 The composition, language, and date of the Ascension of Isaiah are still much
debated. In my view, it comprises two, originally independent, sections: the
“martyrdom” of Isaiah (chs 1–5) and the “ascension” or “vision” of Isaiah (chs
6–11). The latter cannot be earlier than the mid-second century ce and was
likely the product of Gnostic Christian circles (see Andrew K. Helmbold,
“Gnostic Elements in the ‘Ascension of Isaiah,’” NTS 18 [1972]: 222–7, esp.

227; cf. Markus Vinzent, “Give and Take amongst Second Century Authors:
The Ascension of Isaiah, the Epistle of the Apostles, and Marcion of Sinope,”
StPatr 50 [2011]: 105–29). These chapters were originally composed in Greek,
but survive complete only in Ethiopic. There are also two recensions of a Latin
version and a Slavonic version, as well as some Greek and Coptic fragments.
With slight alterations, I follow the translation of Knibb, “Martyrdom and
Ascension of Isaiah,” 156–76, which is based on the Ethiopic text.
51 Ascen. Isa. 9.13–17. On the gnostic motif of Christ’s hidden descent through
successive transformations, see Irenaeus Haer. 1.23.3 (Simon Magus and
Menander); 1.24.5–6 (Basilides); 1.30.12 (Ophites and Sethians); Treat. Seth
56.21–57.6; Trim. Prot. 49.2–20; cf. Ep. Apos. 13.
52 See Ascen. Isa. 10.11: “None of the angels of that world shall know that you
(are) the Lord with me in the seven heavens,” and 11.16: Christ’s advent “was
hidden from all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of this world.”
Ascen. Isa. 7.9, 7.11 make clear that the “God of that world” refers to “Satan,”
who is also called “Samael.” He is elsewhere called the “Archon of this world”
(10.29; cf. 2.4, 4.2, 4.4) and the “Adversary” (11.19), whose minions are
referred to as the “angels of the air” (10.30) or the “angels of the Firmament”
(11.23).
53 The Greek word ἄρχων (τοῦ κόσμου τούτου) almost certainly lies behind the
Ethiopic ነጉሥ and Latin princeps.
54 Ascen. Isa. 10.27–31.
55 Ibid., 11.2–22. Not only does this interpolated material differ in style and
content, but it is also found in only one branch of the manuscript tradition, the
one represented by the Ethiopic translation. Both the Latin and Slavonic versions
omit the whole of 11.2–22, and replace them with a short summary of the earthly
appearance of “one like a son of man,” who dwelt on the earth unrecognized.
56 Ascen. Isa. 11.19.
57 Ibid., 11.20–21.
58 Ibid., 11.23–33. Upon Christ’s ascent, Isaiah reports, “all the angels of the
Firmament, and Satan, saw him and worshipped.”
59 Christ’s “glory” is a pronounced theme, see esp. Ascen. Isa. 9.27, 9.38, 10.14,
11.29. The conception of a multi-storied cosmos is also the one presupposed in
our passage with its references to the “Aeons” and “this Aeon” (1 Cor. 2:6–8).
Notice as well that the unknown “scripture” cited at 1 Cor. 2:9 appears at
Ascen. Isa. 11.34 (see note 35 above).
60 For this idea, see the roughly contemporary 1 Pet. 3:22.
61 See Ascen. Isa. 11.7–9, 11.17 on the birth and infancy of Christ, who “sucked
the breast like an infant … that he might not be recognized.” Cf. Ignatius Eph.
19.1: “the virginity of Mary and her giving birth were hidden from the Archon
of this Aeon, as was also the death of the Lord.”

332 A.J. Droge
62 See already Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols, trans.
Gerhard Krodel (New York: Scribners, 1951), 1:175: “The Gnostic idea that
Christ’s earthly garment of flesh was the disguise in consequence of which the
world-rulers failed to recognize him … lurks behind 1 Cor. 2.8.”
63 Ignatius’s polemic (Smyrn. 2.1–2; Trall. 10.1) against this claim indicates that
it was widespread in the textual world of the mid-second century. For the date
of Ignatius’s letters, see now T.D. Barnes, “The Date of Ignatius,” ExpT 120
(2008): 119–30.
64 John (19:17) sidesteps the problem completely by having Jesus carry his cross
all by himself.
65 Irenaeus Haer. 1.24.4.
66 Treat. Seth 55.10–56.20 (trans. Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons, in
The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, rev. ed. [San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], 365, slightly altered); cf. 51.24–31 for the
“disturbance” among the Archons at Christ’s descent, indicating that they
knew something was afoot, but not enough to prevent them from collaborat-
ing unwittingly in their own subjugation.
67 Apoc. Pet. 81.16–24 (trans. James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard, in Nag
Hammadi Library, 377, slightly altered). Various other Nag Hammadi texts
reflect a similar perspective, see 2 Apoc. Jas. 31.15–22; Great Pow. 41.14–42.3;
Ep. Pet. Phil. 81.3–21, but it is not limited to Nag Hammadi; cf., e.g., Acts of
John 97–99.
68 See Robert M. Grant, “Gnostic Origins and the Basilideans of Irenaeus,” VC 13
(1959): 121–5; cf. Guy G. Stroumsa, “Christ’s Laughter: Docetic Origins
Reconsidered,” JECS 12 (2004): 267–88, who traces this motif to the sacrifice
of Isaac, whose name means “he will laugh.” The two explanations are not
mutually exclusive.
69 As a matter of fact, we do not have any primary textual evidence for Christian
Gnosticism earlier than the second century, despite the artificial lineages cre-
ated by both the heresy-hunters and the Gnostics themselves to link up with
first-century figures like Simon Magus or Paul. These genealogies, too, are
second-century fabrications.
70 Widmann referred to it as “a longer gloss” rather than an interpolation, but it is
much too long to be a “gloss,” by any definition of the term. In any case,
Widmann is rather vague about how 2:6–16 wound up as part of 1 Corinthians.
71 See note 10 above; cf. Widmann, “1 Kor 2 6–16,” 53.
72 To be clear, my point is not that 1 Cor. 2:6–16 influenced the Valentinians, but
that the Valentinians “influenced” Paul. Yet this was not only true of the
Valentinians. “Paul” (or better, “Pauls”) was (were) a literary fabrication of the
second century, and in general assumed three separate generic forms: epistol-
ary, commentarial, and narratival. Cf. the similar second-century

creations of “Peters,” “Johns,” “Thomases,” “Jameses,” et al. Whether a

historical Paul can be disentangled from any of this is a question to which
I return shortly.
73 Although 1 Clement has customarily been dated to 95–96 ce , it was almost
certainly written later. See now Clare K. Rothschild, New Essays on the
Apostolic Fathers, wunt 375 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 46, 55, 65, 82,
94–6, who proposes “100–140 ce ,” based on 1 Clements’ awareness not only
of 1 Corinthians and other parts of the corpus paulinum (including Hebrews),
but also of Marcion.
74 “as many things as the Lord has prepared for those who wait for him,”
instead of “(all the) things that God has prepared for those who love him
(see note 35 above).
75 Earlier I referred to some passages in 1 Corinthians that sounded as if they
belonged to a “real” letter written by a “real” Paul to “real” Corinthians.
But such a just-folks approach simply does not wash. That some of the letters
(or parts of letters) attributed to Paul “sound authentic” is not an argument.
Need it be said that authenticity is the goal of every forger?
76 Williams (“Imperialization of the Apostolic Remains”) describes part of the pro-
cess whereby earlier letter collections were standardized into the corpus paulinum.
77 1 Corinthians is a hotchpotch that not even the most generous reading can
rectify (see Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 2–4, though in the end he predictably
comes down on the side of unity. His explanation, however, that “the existing
breaks can be explained from the circumstances of [1 Corinthians’] compos-
ition,” is merely asserted and unpersuasive). Doubts have been raised repeat-
edly about the unity and integrity of each of the so-called authentic letters
(with the exception of Philemon), although this has not been the case with any
of the so-called deutero-Pauline letters. That alone implies that the so-called
authentic letters are not unified documents in their present form and did not
become “letters” until they were fashioned as such in the second century. The
deutero-Pauline letters are parasitic on that literary process. To label 1 Cor.
2:6–16 an interpolation, then, may be a misnomer. For it to be such would
require that 1 Corinthians have actually been a real letter, or at least unified
and stable enough to admit of being interpolated. I no longer think that a
likely scenario. I even doubt whether it is correct to refer to 1 Corinthians as a
collection of letters from which real letters might be disarticulated. At least
scholars have not achieved a consensus on this question. On the other hand, to
think of 1 Corinthians as a dossier would allow us to imagine how a passage
like 2:6–16 could have wound up a piece of it. Rather than being the work of
an interpolator, it is more likely that a collector or redactor, who was assem-
bling the dossier into the loose form of a letter, was the one responsible for
both the inclusion of our passage and its present location in 1 Corinthians.

Whodunnit Paul S Peculiar Passion and I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Whodunnit Paul S Peculiar Passion and I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15

Whodunnit? Paul’s Peculiar Passion and

Amid the bluster and banality so characteristic of the letters attributed

2:6 (There is) a wisdom [σοφία], however, (that) we speak [λαλοῦμεν]

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 305 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

10 to us (Perfect Ones), however, God has revealed (these things)

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 306 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

between the πνευματικός and ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος.7 Indeed, I can find no

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 307 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

t he p e r f e c t o n e s a n d o ther gnos ti c cant

Because the “Perfect Ones” (τέλειοι) and “Spirit Beings” (πνευματικοί)

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 308 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 309 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

By interpolation I simply mean a retrospective change in an older text,

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 310 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

burden of proof that an interpolation hypothesis must bear. Overall, I

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 311 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

We are now in a better position to make a second pass through 2:6–16.

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 312 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

instruction. That this is not the understanding of our passage is made

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 313 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

It is important to stress at the outset that this mystery of the crucifixion is

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 314 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 315 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 316 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

being raised to receive a human “King of Glory,” as he ascended vic-

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 317 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 318 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

cosmic version of the crucifixion, one in which the archontic powers of

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 319 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

They compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene … to carry his cross. And

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 320 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Still another variant of the myth is found in the second-century Apoc-

The kings of the earth set themselves,

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 321 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 322 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

On the basis of internal evidence and the profusion of later gnostic

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 323 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 324 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 325 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

10 See, e.g., Ulrich Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit: Ein exegetisch-religionsge-

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 326 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

16 Pace the sermonizing of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, ab 32 (New

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 327 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 328 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 329 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 330 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 331 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 332 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

creations of “Peters,” “Johns,” “Thomases,” “Jameses,” et al. Whether a

Recovering an Undomesticated Apostle.indd 333 2022-11-07 4:29 PM

You might also like