¹ E.g. W. SCHMITHALS, Gnosticism in Corinth. An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (Nashville 1971) 14, 92-95; cf. J. WEISS, Der erste Korintherbrief (KKNT; Göttingen 1910) 211-213, 250-251; H. VON SODEN, "Sakrament und Ethik bei Paulus: Zur Frage der literarischen und theologischen Einheitlichkeit von 1 Kor 8–10", Urchristentum und Geschichte (ed. H. VON CAMPENHAUSEN) (Tübingen 1951) 254-255. For a summary of early reconstructions, see H. MERKLEIN, "Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes", ZNW 75 (1984) 154-156; J.C. HURD, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London 1965) 41-47.

² The "strong" and "weak" may be somewhat oversimplified terms to designate the two groups in dispute (e.g., the "strong" are perhaps better classified in Corinth as those who have gnw=sij). For the sake of brevity and dialogue, I will use "strong" and "weak" nonetheless.

³ The force of e3wj a1rti in 8,7 suggests the position that the weak were not Jews but Gentiles who formerly practised idolatry (cf. 9,20-22). The serious tone of Paul's message, and his attempt to side with both parties, seem best explained by the reality of the positions of the weak and strong.

⁴ This observation would at least be hypothetically consistent with his pastoral principle to become all things to all people (including those without the law) that he might save some (1 Cor 9,19.21-22.33). If his primary objective was to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1,15-16; 2,2), it seems difficult to accept that Paul would refuse a meal oitered to him by those he was trying to reach.

⁵ L. COPE, "First Corinthians 8-10: Continuity or Contradiction?" ATRSS 11 (1990) 114-123.

⁶ E.g., W.A. MEEKS, "And Rose up to Play: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22", JSNT 16 (1982) 64-78; cf. E.E. ELLIS, "A Note on First Corinthians 10,4", Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. New Testament Essays (WUNT; Tübingen 1978) 209. Less affirming are: G. D. COLLIER, "That We Might not Crave Evil: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10:1-13", JSNT 55 (1994) 55-75; K.-K. YEO, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic (BIS; Leiden – New York – Köln 1995) 156-158; D.G. HORRELL, "Theological Principle of Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8. 1–11.1", JSNT 67 (1997) 95-96.

⁷ E.g., MERKLEIN, "Einheitlichkeit", 153-183; Hurd, Origin, 115-142; W.L. WILLIS, Idol meal in Corinth. The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS; Chico 1985) 267-296; A.J. MALHERBE, "Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9", Paul in His Hellenistic Context (ed. T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN) (Minneapolis 1995) 231-255. On the unity of the entire letter, see M. M. MITCHELL, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUZT; Tübingen 1991).

⁸ Cf. VON SODEN, "Sakrament", 257, who writes, " Man vergleiche noch im einzelnen den parallelen Aufbau beider Abschnitte [Rom 14–15 and 1 Cor 8; 10] und die Wiederkehr der gleichen Motive in denselben Gedanken zusammenhängen bei völliger Freiheit und gegenseitiger Unabhängigkeit des Ausdrucks hier und dort".

⁹ N.T. WRIGHT, "One God, One Lord, One People: Incarnational Christology for a Church in a Pagan Environment", Ex Auditu 7 (1991) 49, recognises this point. Against Wright, Horrell suggests that Paul's discussion of love is grounded in a Christological praxis and that 8,4-6 is a claim made by the strong; HORRELL, "Praxis", 86, 90, 105-106. However, language strikingly similar to "e0c ou[ ta\ pa/nta... di ) ou[ ta\ pa/nta" in relation to God and/or Christ (8,6) is used in other Pauline contexts, which suggests that 8,6 is more likely to have originated from Paul (1 Cor 11, 12b; Rom 11,36; Col 1, 1 6; cf. Eph 1,22-23). It may be better to view 8,1-3 as the basis for a love praxis in Christ and that Paul's echo of the shema (8,6, cf. vv.4-5) is his theological presupposition against idolatry. The former is emphasised in chapters 8–9 and 10,23–11,1, while the latter is stressed in 10,1-22. I find it unnecessary to choose between a theological and practical ground for the text. On the other end of the spectrum, J. Smit perhaps goes too far in claiming that 10,1-22 does not discuss a social issue but a theological/idolatrous; cf. J. SMIT, "Do not Be Idolaters": Paul's Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1-22", NT 39 (1997) 43, 46, 53. He does not seem to consider the interrelationship between the two. The paradigms for social unity are both the monotheistic unity (8,1-6) and solidarity of eucharistic fellowship (10,16-17) which are diametrically opposed to fellowship with idols/demons (cf. 10,20-22).

¹⁰ MITCHELL, Rhetoric, 237-258.

¹¹ Cf. P. J. TOMSON, Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT-JTECL; Assen – Maastricht – Minneapolis 1990) 192.

¹² J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN, "The Use of Deuteronomy 32:39 in Monotheistic Controversies in Rabbinic Literature", Studies in Deuteronomy. In Honour of C.I. Labuschagne (eds. F.GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, A. HILHORST, J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN, A. S. VAN DER WOUDE) (VTS 53; Leiden 1994) 224-225.

¹³ Both the Deuteronomic and Isaianic traditions emphasise God's power through the parting of the Red Sea; one uses this motif as an incentive for keeping God's commands (Dent 11,1-8) while the other points to a new eschatological fulfilment for God's redeemed people (Isa 43,16-17; 51, 10-11; 31,5; cf. Mic 6,4). On the Isaianic tradition, see B.W. ANDERSON, "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah", Israel's Prophetic Heritage. Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (eds. B. W. ANDERSON - W. HARRELSON) (London 1962) 177-195.

¹⁴ VAN RUITEN, "Deuteronomy", 224.

¹⁵ This passage, however, follows the Septuagint which replaces the Hebrew term "rock" for "God" in Deuteronomy 32. Hays suggests that Paul uses a text similar to the wording of the Hebrew rather than the Greek text in 10,4. This is perhaps why he does not actually cite a Deuteronomic passage in 10,1-13: "To explain to the Corinthians the difference between their Greek Bible and its Hebrew Vorlage would interrupt Paul's argument"; cf. R.B. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven 1989) 94. More likely, Paul utilises another witness in this passage altogether – he does not always follow closely the MT or LXX in 1 Corinthians. For a study on the OT sources Paul alludes to which follow neither tradition, see D.-A. KOCH, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT; Tübingen 1986) 35, 61-65, 107, 115, 203-204; M. SILVA, "Old Testament in Paul ", Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (eds. G. F. HAWTHORNE, R. P. MARTIN, D. G. RIED) (Downers Grove – Leicester 1993) 630-632.

¹⁶ P. C. CRAIGIE, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; London 1976) 378.

¹⁷ Unfortunately, Paul never bothered to reconcile in a logical way the association between the literal rock at Massah and God as the rock. He may have simply collapsed the categories of the literal and metaphorical on this point.

¹⁸ Paul's allusion to the eucharist in this passage likewise intimates his later discussion on the issue in 1 Corinthians 11. This observation seems to underscore once again that 10,1-22 was originally written with the Corinthian situation in view.

¹⁹ Cf. A. J. THISELTON, " Realized Eschatology at Corinth ", NTS 24 (1977-78) 510-526.

²⁰ D. FISK, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8–10", Trinity Journal 10 (1989) 53. He lists in the first camp, among others, H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia 1975) 146-180; J. MURPHY-O'CONNOR, "Freedom or the Ghetto (1Cor., VIII, 1-13; X, 23-Xl, 1)?", RB 85 (1978) 547-549; H. S. SONGER, "Problems Arising from the Worship of Idols: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1", RevExp 80 (1983) 364-366. On Fee's perspective, see G. D. FEE, "Ei0dwlo/quta Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10", Bib 61 (1980) 172-197; id., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1987) 357-491.

²¹ Against Fee's suggestion that ei0dwlo/qutoj means "meat eaten in an idol's temple" (cf. 1 Cor 10,19), for instance, Fisk argues on semantic grounds that ei0dwlo/qutoj is best defined as "meat offered to idols". He also rightly argues that ei0dwlo/qutoj (1 Cor 8,1.4.7.10; 10,19) and i9ero/quton (1 Cor 10,28) are virtually synonymous for Paul in the text. In the latter verse, it seems that Paul places i9ero/quton in the mouth of a Gentile because they probably used the word on a normal basis instead of the more Jewish (and apparently more pejorative) ei0dwlo/qutoj. The former word may be understood as "sacrificed to a divinity" ("holy-offered") implying the Gentile belief that idols are in fact gods (FISK, "Eating", 56-59). This does not necessarily mean, however, that the informant in 10,28 is the unbeliever who invited the Christian to dine. It seems that the one who may be offended is still the weak Christian; Paul's use of i9ero/quton may reflect the weak person's belief that idols were gods (cf. 8,7) or the non-offensive language commonly used by Christians in the presence of unbelievers. It is also possible that Paul's thought arbitrarily shifts from a generic informant to a weak Christian.

²² E.g., B. WITHERINGTON, "Not So Idle Thoughts About Eidolothuton", TynBul 44.2 (1993) 237-254.

²³ Hence his warning in 10,7.

²⁴ J. C. BRUNT, "Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1Cor 8-10 to an Understanding of Paul's Ethical Thinking" (SBLSP 20; Chico 1981) 25-27; CONZELMANN, 1 Corinthians, 171; FISK, "Eating", 62-63. 69.

²⁵ For Greco-Roman sources, see P. D. GOOCH, Dangerous Food. 1 Corinthians 8–10 in Its Context (SCJ; Ontario 1993) 1-46; H.-J. KLAUCK, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief (NTAbh 15; Münster 1982) 91-163; WILLIS, Idol Meal, 17-62.

²⁶ A perspective of 10,29b-30 which emphasies deliberative rhetoric may cause the tension between this passage and Paul's argument in the context of 8,1–11,1. The former passage has been problematic with regard to coherence because it seems that in this passage Paul turns against the weak by justifying the liberty of the strong. It is not that Paul now approves of the liberty of the strong against the weak so that he contradicts what he wrote earlier; rather, he may be utilising a form of rhetoric which recollects what was affirmed earlier in his argument. Duane Watson suggests that Paul is using a diatribe in 10,29b-30 in a form known as deliberative rhetoric of recapitulation. This style of rhetoric aims at the weak points of the opponent. In this case Paul reiterates in 10,23–11,1 the weak points of the strong: 1) a lack of respect for others; 2) a defense of eating despite offending others (through the blessing of the food). See D. F. WATSON, "1 Corinthians 10,23–11,1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions", JBL 108 (1989) 311-318.