1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE AFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

WENDELL WILLIS
Abilene Christian University It has been twenty-five years since Ifinishedmy doctoral dissertation dealing with 1 Corinthians 8-10.1 Although little had been published on the topic of idol meat in Corinth when I did my initial research, the last quarter century has witnessed much greater attention to this passage (so much so, that it is not manageable to review the subsequent publications even briefly in an article). Although I have not published on this topic since the dissertation, I continue to find it highly intriguing and thought a survey of the subsequent research might be of some interest. I have two objectives in mind. Thefirstis simply to summarize the discussion since 1981 to see what varied questions and approaches have been applied to this section of 1 Corinthians. Many of the subsequent studies of the passage have included some of this Forschungsgeschichte, so I need not sketch those developments fully. The second is to see if there are areas of consensus that have developed. Often biblical scholarship is criticized as being "always learning and yet never coming to a knowledge of the truth." That is, some people accuse the discipline of being an endless rehashing of largely obvious concerns. Thus I am curious whether progress has been made in this small topic of Pauline study. The Unity of 1 Corinthians 8-10 One area in which a trend has developed is the unity of these chapters. Johannes Weiss argued that the views expressed in chapters 8 and 10 were so different that it was not conceivable they had come in the same letter (but not so different that they had not both comefromPaul). Such a partition approach was followed by Jean Hering and Walter Schmithals.2 However, in the last quarter

1 Wendell Lee Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth (SBLDS 68; Scholars Press, 1985; repr.; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004). That work was done at Southern Methodist University under the helpful guidance of Dr. Victor Paul Furnish, whose contribution to Pauline studies continues to be significant in both volume and quality. I offer this modest survey in deep appreciation and in celebration of his recent seventy-fifth birthday. 2 Jean Hering, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth,

104

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

century a consensus has developed that these chapters did come as one unit at the same time. Two reasons are now proposed for this conclusion. Some have argued that the ideas expressed are not in disagreement (there is ideological unity in the chapters).3 Others, emphasizing rhetorical criticism, have affirmed a unity based on form.4 Of course, many have argued for both evidences of unity.5 Regarding the tensions alleged between chapter 8 and 10:1-22, Gordon Fee and Ben Witherington6 believe that Paul rejects the eating of sacrificial meat when it is associated with a temple, but not when the meat is in another location (unless someone objects that this is "holy sacrifice"). David Horrell sharpens this assessment saying that it is only when the act of eating is overtly tied to worship whether in a temple or a home. (Thus it is conceivable that the meat could be eaten in a temple dining hall if it was not a "religious occasion.") 7 In some ways, the rise of rhetorical criticism has changed the focus of study. There is less attention to the historical situation (including the church situation in Corinth) and more on the arrangement of Paul's argument. This does not mean the historical questions are resolved, but they are relegated to lesser emphasis. Peter Gooch insists that 8:1-11:1 must be taken as a whole. 8 He argues that the tension alleged between Paul's argument in 8 (do not injure the weak Christian) and 10:1-22 (do not participate in worship involving demons) is to be solved as two sections of Paul's response to the problem. It is his persuasive

1962). Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971). Partition is still maintained by some, Gerhard Seilin, "Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes," ANRW2.25A:2964-&6. Also Khiok-khing Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (Biblnt 9; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Lamar Cope, "First Comthians 8-10: Continuity or Contradiction?" ATR Supp 11 (1990): 114-23. 3 Most exhaustively illustrated by Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (HUT 28; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991), who also strongly emphasizes the rhetorical unity of the letter. 4 H. Merklein, "Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes," ZNWTS (1984): 153-33. See also David G. Horrell, "Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?" JSNT61 (1997): 83-114. Anders Erikksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof (ConBNT 39; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998). 5 For example, Mitchell, and also Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 607-9. 6 Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); also Witherington, "Not So Idle Thoughts about EIDOLOTHUTON," TynBul 44 (1993): 237-54. 7 Horrell, 99f. Also Bruce Fisk, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Cor 8-10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)," Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 49-70. 8 Peter Gooch, Dangerous Food: I Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context. (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1993), 50, 59. Similarly, Horrell, 84.

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE

105

strategy.9 Joop Smit argues that 8:1-6 is a rhetorical partitio of two halves: 8:1-3 introduces the themes of 8:7-9:27 (e.g., accommodate one's own rights for others), and 8:4-6 previews the second argument in 10:1-22 (there is real danger because while idols are not gods, these "so-called gods" are actually demons).10 Fee, in explaining why Paul begins arguing about the right understanding of true Christian beliefs (chap. 8) only to proceed to forbid the eating of sacrificial meat in pagan temples (10:18), says "he begins this way because this is how they [the Corinthians who wrote him] began."11 The Function of 1 Corinthians 9 Another topic involved in the question of compositional unity is the role of chapter 9. Some scholars have seen in chapter 9 Paul's defense against certain critics in Corinth. Others see the chapter as one of Paul's arguments to persuade the Corinthians to follow the practice of conduct he outlines in chapter 8. Eriksson terms it a digressio, but he means that Paul does present himself as an example of one who forgoes hisrights.12(Digressio here does not mean detour but, as in rhetorical analysis, a section that is used between refutatios.) Horrell says that while there is defensiveness in how Paul describes his ministiy and his renunciation of rights in chapter 9, "in the argument of the passage as a whole, it clearly serves as an example."13 Fee holds a similar view, although with perhaps more emphasis upon the apologetic role of Paul's argument. He thinks Paul makes too much of his apostolic status for it simply to function as an example of foregoing one's legitimate rights.14 This is part of his basic thesis: the letter represents a conflict between the church and its founder; therefore, Paul must defend his apostolic authority.15
9

Gooch,83f. Joop Smit, "1 Cor 8:1-6: A Rhetorical Partitio," in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; BETL; Leuven: University Press, 1996), 577-91. More fully developed in "About the Idol Offerings," Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul 's Discourse in First Corinthians 8:111:1 (CBET 2; Leuven: Peeters, 2000). See also the critical assessment by Piet Farla, "The Rhetorical Composition of 1 Cor 8,111,1," ETL 80(2004): 114-20. 11 Fee, 390.1 made the same point, 268-74. Eriksson, 148-50, says that in chap. 8 Paul follows a rhetorical form called insinuation used when the speaker must accommodate to successful arguments used by opponents. Mitchell, 241,297f, rejects the view that the letter's composition reflects the impact of contacts from Corinth. 12 Eriksson, 152. 13 Horrell, 92. 14 Fee,392f. 15 Fee, 6f. This is the main point, of course, in Mitchell, for whom the overarching and unifying factor to the letter is the need for unity. See her valuable summary of recent interpretations of chap. 9, "Pauline Accommodation and 'Condescension9" in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Troels Engberg-Pederson; Louisville: WJK, 2001), 197-214.
10

106

RESTORATION QUARTERLY Quotations from the Corinthians

Another area of frequent discussion is whether in these two chapters Paul actually quotes from a letter sent by the Corinthians. This is almost universally agreed with respect to (10:23; cf. also 6:12). But there is also a broad agreement about some phrases in chapter 8, although there is much diversity regarding which phrases/sentences are quotations and which are not. Fotopoulos, for example, accepts quotations in 8:1a, 4, 5 (with Pauline correc tions), 6 and 8.16 Gooch agrees that in chapter 8 Paul has many quotations (he appeals to the formula as a marker).17 However, Horrell, agreeing with Fee, says that if there are quotations in 8:1, 4, 6 and 8, nonetheless 'they are opinions which Paul basically shareseven though he may qualify them sharply and differ as to their implications for con duct."18 (Thus in 8:1 Paul includes himself with those who "have knowledge.") Fee does think verses 5 and 6 could represent the Corinthian position, but "it makes much more sense as Paul's own construct in which he is basically setting up the argument of verse 7 and anticipating the qualification of 10:19-20."19 He also suggests in verse 8 that "the Corinthians have picked up one of Paul's own words . . . and are pressing it to their own purposes."20 The Reality and Possible Identity of Suggested "Parties" in Corinth Related to the Topic of Eating Sacrificial Food F. C. Baur21 argued that there were distinct factions in the Corinthian church and that one decisive manifestation of their divisions was varied attitudes toward eating sacrificial food (he thought it was a Jewish-Gentile division). Walter Schmithals held a similar view, although he said that the factions (strong and weak) were developed over the issue of "gnosis."22 Today a widespread agree ment has developed in rejecting the probability of identifying distinct groups.

John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth (WUNT 151; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003), 209. 17 Gooch, 61-63. 18 Horrell, 86; he adds that "it makes little sense here to divide the opinions of the Corinthiansfromthose of Paul" (88). Fee, 368,370 n. 6. Similarly, Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law (CRINT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 193f., who is uncertain ifthey are quotations from the Corinthians: "But it appears that basically Paul also shared it, though not without qualification." Similarly, Thiselton, 628f. 19 Fee, 372. He does note, 374, that v. 6 has "a creedal ring to it" but concludes, "Most likely it is a Pauline construct, created ad hoc in the present argument, but making use of language that he has in common with his Hellenistic Jewish origins." 20 Ibid., 384. 21 F. C. Baur, Paul (2d ed.; trans. Eduard Zeller; London: Williams & Norgate, 1871), 1.26-68, A convenient summary is in Wayne Meeks, The Writings of St. Paul, (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972), 277-88. 22 Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, 137-55.

16

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE

107

One solution put forward by John Hurd and followed by his student Peter Gooch denies that there were factions in Corinth concerning idol meat because the "weak" are only a hypothetical Pauline construct, not a real group. Thus, they argue, Paul sets forth afictivereaction as one of his strategies in seeking to have the church obey his clear instructions in chapter 10 not to partake of "idol meat." Others have suggested that although there arefracturesin the Corinthian church, these do not represent discrete factions but only disagreements over several issues.24 In respect to the eating of sacrificial meat, there are Christians who regard this as harmless (even advantageous) and others who are bothered by the practice. But we know both groups are Gentile since the "weak" have been previously accustomed to eating the sacrificial meat. Thosefindingtwo groups, but not "parties," include C. K. Barrett,25 Jerome Murphy O'Connor, Peter Brunt, and David Horrell. The Possible Occasions of Eating under Discussion Corinth is one ofthe best excavated cities in Greece, with continuing archae ological work for over a hundred years (not counting a few years off for wars). Among the finds of these excavations have been a number of dining rooms adjacent or attached to temples. Several studies have reported on these archae ologicalfinds(especially by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor and John Fotopoulos).26 But while the realia illustrate the connections between temples and dining in antiquity (a factor that can also be documented in many other excavations as well as papyri invitations), it is less certain what they tell us about the situation in Corinth when Paul wrote to them. Fee and Witherington emphasize the significance of location in explaining Paul's instructions on eating sacrificial meat. Fee says that Paul in 8 and 10:1-22 has in mind eating in the temple complex (which he forbids) and that in 10:23-30 Paul is thinking of food sold in the market place or eaten at a private residence.27 Witherington makes a similar distinction and adds that means specifically meat consumed in a temple or the presence of an idol. Thus all eating

John Hurd, The Origin of First Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965). Also Gooch. Mitchell sees the letter's purpose as establishing unity. In respect to 8, she speaks of the "strong" and the "weak" as factions ( 126-29). She says, "My own suspicion is that, on more common-sensical grounds, at Corinth we probably do not have full-blown representatives of any such clearly defined groups" (303). 25 C. K. Barrett, "Christianity in Corinth," in Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: West minster, 1982), 1-27, recognizes preferences among the Corinthians, but not factions. 26 Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Freedom or the Ghetto (1 Cor 8:1-13; 10:23-11:1 )," RB 85 (1978): 543-74, and Fotopoulos with the most extensive recent archaeological survey. 27 Fee, 357-63. "The best solution to all these data is to view 8:10 and 10:1-22 as the basic problem to which Paul is responding throughout. This means that eidolothyta does not refer primarily to marketplace food, but to the eating of sacrificial food at the cultic meals in the pagan temples" (359).
24

23

108

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

in an is forbidden, but eating elsewhere is subject only to the con 28 science of others. Peter Tomson argues that Paul consistently opposes the eating of all sacri ficial meat on the basis of the halakah of Torah, whether in a temple dining hall or anywhere else. "Despite his dual world view, Paul allows only one conclusion: idol food should not be eaten: 'You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons' ( 10:21 )."29 He doesfindit noteworthy that Paul does not prohibit improperly slaughtered meat for Gentiles: "we may conclude that he did not 'burden' the Gentiles with any dietary restrictions except food sacrificed to idols."30 Horrell argues that the distinction of what is prohibited is not the meat () but participation in actions that are construable as worship of the idols. But if one eats in temple dining halls on occasions that are not specifically worship, that would not violate Paul's views.31 He recognizes that Paul begins with the concern for the weak in chapter 8 (and his example in chapter 9), but the second motivation is not the danger of other gods, but the complacency that leads some to believe they can share other with impunity. He adds, "the clear implication of 10:20,21 is that certain occasions are idolatrous: cultic gatherings when things are sacrificed to what Paul calls demons. A Christian cannot share in such occasions and also share around Christ's table."32 For this reason verses 10:23-11:1 are not an aside, but summarize Paul's main argument: their actions must be considerate ofthe impact on other believers and maintain the unity and well-being of the community.33 In verse 25-28 Paul is willing to allow Christians to accept invitations to dine in "various kinds of social and celebratory occasions in the temple restaurants."34 The Nature of Pagan Religious Meals in the Greco-Roman World Because I wish to review these subsequent discussions, I have chosen seldom to trace responses to my own work. Here I make an exception because the place where my work has been most often, and most loudly, criticized is in regard to 35 my interpretation of the meaning of sacrificial meals in pagan religions. It is obvious that I did not express myself carefully. Using a heuristic approach, I

Witherington, 246-51. Tomson, 202f. Similarly, Alex Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth (JSNTS 176; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). 30 Tomson, 206. 31 Horrell, lOOf. This is also the view of Fisk, 62f. 32 Horrell, 100. 33 Ibid., 102. 34 Ibid., 103. 35 For example, Cheung, 37, and more fully in 309-11.
29

28

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE

109

presented schematically three understandings of pagan religious meals: sacra mental, fellowship, and social. I criticized thefirsttwo strongly and opted for the last one. In doing so, I seem to have left the impression that I did not think these meals were "religious" but "merely" social. I could not at all support such a view; clearly the meals were "religious."36 There is strong evidence that these cults (and their worshippers) would not have acceptedeven understooda contrast between "religious" and "social." But the question really should be, what does "religious" mean in thefirst-centurypagan world? Their gods gave, as one of their great gifts, occasions for conviviality and enjoyment as an essential aspect of sacrifice. This social enjoyment was a positive part of religious sacrifice.37 (I do wonder if this is not a case in which many scholars, especially influenced by some sacramental theologies, have not unwittingly imported later Christian categories that were unknown to pagans in thefirstcentury). The Norms and Warrants Expressed by Paul in Response to the Situation in Corinth Not all commentators have examined these chapters looking for ethical categories, which was my primary focus. Fee, commenting on 10:14-22, says that the basis of Paul's prohibition of eating sacrificial meat is twofold: "(1) His understanding of the sacred meal as 'fellowship,' as the unique sharing of be lievers in the worship of the deity, who was also considered to be present. (2) His understanding, based on the OT, of idolatry as a locus of the demonic."38 Tomson argues that Paul opposes Gentile Christian eating practices based on Jewish halakah, as he previously had done when instructing them.39 He goes on to argue that in 10:23-29 Paul is creating ways to define what constitutes idol food in doubtful cases. This definition is essentially the "consciousness" of the other person and his "intention towards idolatry."40 Regardless of context, the meat is idolatrous if anyone eating does so in recognition of the pagan gods. Similarly, Fisk, in his thorough review of Fee's presentations, argues that does not have a specific association with eating in the temple precincts, but refers to meat from sacrifice, whether that is eaten in homes, purchased in the markets, shared in a basically social gathering in a rented temple dining hall, or in an occasion of worship. Against Fee (and Witherington) he

36 37

Willis, 48. Dennis Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 12,

79f. Fee, 463. Tomson, 192; Cheung, 39-81, also surveys Jewish attitudes. 40 Tomson, 210, illustrates with a quotation from R. Gamliel, "What is treated as a deity is prohibited, but what is not treated as a deity is permitted" (m. rAbod. Zar. 3:4). Thus the pagan informant of 10:28 has an "intention toward idolatry [that] prohibits the Christian's eating" because the power of idolatry is not in the food, but in the pagan's mind(214f).
39 38

110

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

argues that location is not a decisive factor in identifying the meat or its 41 42 acceptability. Horrell says that Paul cites and accepts the theological principles which the strong use to justify their to eat . Paul nowhere questions this exousia or the principles upon which it is based, but what he does do is to maintain that Christian conduct involves a Christ-like self-giving for others, a self-enslavement, a setting aside of 43 one's own rights for the sake of the gospel. Thus Horrell (appealing to Fisk) concludes that 1 Cor. 10:1-22 does not, then contradict ch. 8, though it does state that certain occasions on which would be eatennamely pagan cultic sacri ficesare prohibited, whether participation offends other Christians or not. However, in view of arguments in chs. 8-9,10:122 does not contain the dominant 44 focus of Paul's ethical instruction here." He concludes, "In essence Paul argues here that Christian ethics are founded not 45 upon theological principles but upon a Christological praxis." He sees the prohibition to be part of a koinonia of demons as well as also being christological in that the believer is part of the body of Christ. Conclusions To conclude, I return to the second stated purpose of this review. Has the last quarter century of study led to any consensus in interpreting the passage? I believe so. Thus in summary, I would argue the following: 1. The question of the unity of 8-10 is widely accepted as established, both because most recent interpreters have seen Paul's view of eating sacrificial meat in 8 and in 10:14-22 as the same and because the application of rhetorical methodology has demonstrated the functional relationships between the parts of these chapters. 2. The function of chapter 9 is now largely regarded as presenting an exemplum (probatio) within the invention of the argument (although some still find a defensive aspect to the chapter, suggesting a Pauline attitude of feeling evaluated negatively, as seems indicated in chapters 3 and 4). At the least, the chapter is seldom regarded as a digression or an aside. 46 Mitchell summarizes

Fisk, 55-59. Horrell, 94ff. 43 Ibid., 101. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid, 105. 46 An exception is Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth (WUNT 2/23; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), 284; "in chapter 9 Paul digresses to rebut an invective of inconstancy against him."
42

41

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE

111

correctly that "all attempts to analyze 1 Cor 9 as a true defense against actual 47 charges have failed." 3. Quotations from the Corinthians' letter in chapter 8 are now often accepted. Most scholarsfindsome quotations in verses 1,4, and 8, and many in verse 6. However, there is no uniformity on precisely which verses (and to what extent in those verses) are actual quotations. Also some believe that the quota tions, either in simple conception or even in actual words, go back to Paul himself and his teaching in Corinth. 4. The existence of discrete factions in the Corinthian church is now almost uniformly rejected. Unlike Baur (and later Schmithals), there is very seldom an attempt to tie the debate over sacrificial meat to the "parties" in chapter 1. Almost everyone sees the "weak" as simply those who are troubled by the eating of sacrificial meat and whose unity is found only in that anxiety. Their designation surely comesfromthose untroubled by eating the meat. 5. Possible occasions of eating sacrificial meat are generally agreed upon as well, although with less consensus that the first four items. Because most recent interpretations have taken note of the dining areas adjunct to many ancient temples and the papyri invitations to dine at a temple [the Serapion], there has developed a view that both in 8 and 10:18ff. these are the dining locations. For some48 it is precisely the location that makes clear that the meat is prohibited. Most agree that 10:23-29 have other situations in view (i.e., private homes).49 6. The nature of religious meals is one of the areas with less consensus. But even here, the "sacramentalism" once found in the pagan meals, allegedly drawn from the mystery religions, has few advocates today. The meals have been seen as (a) clearly idolatrous, (b) forming a worship community, (c) eating with aware ness of the presence of the patron deity, or (d) primarily social gatherings (although with a genuine gratitude and belief in the beneficent deity who provides food from the sacrifice he receives). 7. Norms and warrants used by Paul to motivate the Corinthians to accept his instructions are also widely agreed to now. Most agree that his primary norm to discourage eating in this context is consideration of other believers,50 and most now grant that Paul also genuinely opposes this kind of eating because it is titular idolatry (in recognizing the demons disguised as idols). This is not simply a residual Jewish bias that he consciously or unconsciously carries over from his past. He may agree with those in Corinth about the "one Lord and one God," but he disagrees that this true theology negates reality of the pagan idols. (This is

Mitchell, Rhetoric, 244. Witherington, "Not So Idle Thoughts," 254. Gooch devotes two chapters to surveying the archaeological evidence for opportunities to eat sacrificial food in Corinth. 49 Tomson argues that in 10:28 the word shows the informant is a nonChristian. 50 Tomson would argue that Paul's thorough and persistent rejection of all food clearly associated with an idol is at least equal to the "weaker brother" norm.
48

47

112

RESTORATION QUARTERLY

contested by those such as Tomson, who thinks the primary norm, drawn from Judaism, is the avoidance of anything that is colored by recognition of pagan deities). This motivation is often connected with a higher ecclesiology in Paul. Thus his warning about the impact on others of eating is not simply about this or that Christian who is bothered by eating, but that these people are part ofthe Christian community. Thus to sin against them is to "sin against Christ" (= the church, cf. the language in 10:16). This emphasis also finds support in the more corporate understanding of "build up" in Pauline theology. 8. Another change in the last quarter century is the widespread agreement that Paul uses imitation of his conduct as a norm for Christian behavior grounded in a belief that Christians should imitate Christ (11:1). The previous Protestant anxiety about seeing Christ as a model (even mediated through Paul) has been largely abandoned. Also largely abandoned as a motivation is a Pauline critique of a Corinthian "sacramentalism" (often argued as being to parallel the analogy in 10:1-12). In conclusion, what I regard as essential to a proper understanding, but seldom directly addressed, is the motive for those Corinthian believers who desired to partake in "idol meat." Schmithals's suggestion (they were motivated by a Gnostic bravado) has few supporters today. Fee, rejecting Schmithals, still says, "The nature of this argument [in 10:1-22] strongly suggests that those who 'think they stand" (v. 12) do so on the basis of a somewhat magical view of the sacraments."51 Some, such as Richard Horsley, have suggested it is a HellenisticJewish understanding of spirituality andfreedom.Others have thought that some believers were motivated by a Cynic-Stoic emphasis upon the freedom of the wise. In all these cases, it seems that those desiring to eat the meat must be assumed to have a view that actually minimizes the "religious" significance of their prior eating. Since most were pagans before conversion, we should think that people who are sufficiently motivated to change their religion (especially in the radical way that Christianity proposed by denying the reality of the deities they once worshipped and their larger community still does worship) are most likely to have been active participants in their former religion. If they had previously viewed those idols as "divine presence" at the temple banquets, could they easily have then discounted their significance? More likely they had experienced the cultic dining as predominately a convivial occasion with others (although surely acknowledging the presence ofthe deity in appropriate ways and with due piety). But there was little sense of the "numinous" (to import a later, anachronistic category for its heuristic value) present in the meals, thus making it understandable that they are very reluctant to give up "idol meat."52

Ibid., 443. Derek Newton, Deity and Diet (JSNTS 169; Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), explores the meaning of sacrifice in Greco-Roman culture (175-256), Cheung, 118-22, takes up the question specifically, and he concludes that it was converts who wished to retain their former social and cultural ties in the city.
52

51

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.