[1] Compare, for example, the typical view of Paul as the influential figure in early Christianity with Krister Stendahl's (Paul Among Jews and Gentiles [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976] 68–71Google Scholar) strong affirmation of Paul's uniqueness.

[2] The alleged lack of a unified progression of thought has led to various partition theories which maintain that this passage is a composite of portions of two or more different Pauline letters. These theories depend on supposed literary breaks between 8. 13 and 9. 1; 9. 23 and 24; 9. 27 and 10. 1; and/or 10. 22 and 23; and on supposed contradictions between the standpoint of 8. 1–13; 10. 23–11. 1 as compared with 10. 1–22. As early as 1910 Weiss, J. (Der Erste Korintherbrief [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970] xi–xliiiGoogle Scholar) divided 1 Cor into three letters and assigned 10. 1–22 to Letter A and the remainder of our passage to Schmithals, B. W. (Gnosticism in Corinth [Nashville: Abingdon, 1971] 95–6) modifies this to include 9. 24–27 in Letter A. On the other handGoogle Scholar, Héring, J. (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians [London: Epworth, 1962] xii–xiv)Google Scholar places 8. 1–13 and 10. 23–11. 1 in Letter A and 9. 1–10. 22 in B. But the evidence that they present is not sufficient to prove a lack of integrity, and since the passage can be seen as a unified argument it is best to assume literary integrity.

[3] See Hurd, J. C., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965) passim, esp. pp. 240–70.Google Scholar Unfortunately Hurd carries this idea too far and believes that he can reconstruct the entire Corinthian letter.

[4] Both detailed exegetical treatment of these chapters and full discussion of the issues raised by Paul's discussion are impossible within the scope of this article. For a detailed treatment of the passage and a full presentation of the evidence for understanding Paul's argument as it is summarized here, see the present author's dissertation, Paul's Attitude Toward and Treatment of Problems Involving Dietary Practice: A Case Study in Pauline Ethics, Emory University Ph.D. dissertation (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1978) 53–119.Google Scholar

[5] For a good presentation of the methodology for determining what statements in the text are Corinthian slogans see Hurd, 119–23.

[6] The meaning of ‘conscience’ here is much debated, although for the purposes of our discussion it is not necessary to explore the difficulties, for what is important is clear, namely that one must be willing to surrender his or her own rights for the sake of the conscience of the other person. For a representative sample of the discussion see Pierce, C. A. (Conscience in the NT [SBT, Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, 1955] 75–82)Google Scholar who sees Paul's usage as based on secular Greek usage so that the term deals only with remorse for past acts and not with moral guidance for the future; Thrall, M. E. (‘The Pauline Use of Συνείδησις’, NTS 14 [1967] 118–25)CrossRefGoogle Scholar who opposes Pierce and argues that Paul moves beyond the Greek usage to include a sense of moral guidance for the future; and Coune, M. (‘Le Probleme des idolothytes et L'Education de la Syneidesis’, RSR 51 [1963] 497–534)Google Scholar who bases Paul's usage on the daath Yahweh concept of the OT and takes the term as basically synonymous with ‘religious conviction’.

[7] This is certainly the most problematic section of the entire passage, for 8. 10 and 10. 20 could be seen as contradictory. In the former Paul permits idol–meat unless it will offend; in the latter he rejects it. This leads some to conclude that the two passages cannot be from the same letter (see footnote 2 above). Others (see, for instance, Sawyer, William Thomas, The Problem of Meat Sacrificed to Idols in the Corinthian Church, Southern Baptist University Ph.D. dissertation [Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1968] 116–21Google Scholar) see 8. 10 and 10. 20 as complementary. Paul is giving two different reasons why Christians should not eat in pagan temples. But Conzelmann's, H. (1 Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975] 177)Google Scholar view that in 10. 20 Paul is forbidding actual cultic participation best fits the flow of Paul's argument and is assumed here.

[8] Opinion is divided over whether this ‘informant’ is the non-Christian host or a ‘weak’ Christian who is a fellow-guest. For a discussion of the problem see Barrett, C. K. (A Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians [New York: Harper and Row, 1968] 242–3).Google Scholar

[9] The textual situation is complex and it is not necessary to mention every variant here. The primary difference is the omission of the reference to καί πνικτοū (καί πνικτ⋯ν in Acts 15. 29) in the D text (and certain other Western witnesses) of all three versions of the Decree (Acts 15. 20; 15. 29; and 21. 25), and the addition of the ‘golden rule’ in its negative form in Acts 15. 20 and 15. 29. With these changes the entire Decree can be interpreted ethically rather than ritually, and almost certainly this is a secondary reading. Another significant variant is the omission of καί τηἱςπορνείας at Acts 15. 20 in P⁴⁵, but since this element is present in the P⁴⁵ text of 15. 29 and 21. 25 the omission is probably accidental. For a survey of the secondary literature on these textual problems see Hurd 250–3.

[10] The basic views (although there is wide variation within each one) are: 1. Paul knew and accepted the Decree. See Hurd, passim, and Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. (The Life and Epistles of St. Paul [Hartford: S. S. Scranton, 1902] 192–4.Google Scholar) 2. Paul knew the Decree and rejected it. See Manson, T. W. (‘The Corinthian Correspondence 1’ in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, 190–209 [ed. Black, M.; Manchester: University Press, 1962] 200)Google Scholar and Catchpole, D. R. (‘Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree’), NTS 23 [1977] 428–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 3. Paul did not know the Decree. See Conzelmann, H., 138Google Scholar, Schmithals, W. (Paul and James [SBT; Naperville, 3.: Alec R. Allenson, 1965] 98–102)Google Scholar, and Haenchen, E. (The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971] 469–71.Google Scholar

[11] Barrett, C. K., ‘Things Sacrificed to Idols’, NTS 11 (1964–1965) 138–53, 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar, points out that Paul also uses an incident from the Balaam stories in his discussion of food offered to idols in 1 Cor 10, but there is little if any correspondence between 1 Cor and Rev, and the use of Balaam in both is probably coincidental. Barrett also believes that the use of the Balaam motif in Jude 11 and 2 Pet 2. 15 connects these to the question of food offered to idols, but there is no convincing evidence to support this connection.

[12] Several fathers mention the Nicolaitans, including Ignatius (Tral 11), Irenaeus (AH 1:26:3 and 3:11:1), Clement of Alexandria (Strom 2:20 and 3:4), Hippolytus (Refutation 7:24), and Eusebius (HE 3:29). But they do not offer any information which looks like more than guesswork based on Revelation and the mention of Nicolas in Acts. Thus even if it is the Nicolaitans who permit food offered to idols, it is impossible to know more about them than is known from this passage and John's mention of them in Rev 2. 6, where the Ephesians are commended for hating them. It can only be said that certain teachers in Pergamum whom John considered heretical permitted the eating of food offered to idols.

[13] Of course, this does not deny that the situations which Paul and John faced, while both included food offered to idols, may have been quite different.

[14] Fiorenza, E. S., ‘The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 23 (1977) 402–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On p. 425 she says: ‘Although the author of the Apoc. was at home in an early Christian prophetic-apocalyptic school, he nevertheless had access to Pauline and Johannine school traditions, as the traces of Pauline and Johannine language in the Apoc. indicate. The author appears to have been more familiar with Pauline than Johannine school traditions because Apoc. shows more affinities with Pauline language, tradition, and form. That the author understood himself in line with Pauline tradition becomes apparent in the form which he gave his book.’

[15] Did 6:3 in The Apostolic Fathers (LCL; New York: Macmillan, 1914–1924) 1. 319.Google Scholar

[16] Justin, , Dial 34, 35.Google Scholar

[17] Irenaeus, AH 1:6:3 in ANF (ed. Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J., 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953 [orig. pub. 1885]) 1. 212.Google Scholar

[18] Ibid. 1:24:5, ANF 1.324.

[19] Ibid. 1:28:2, ANF 1. 353.

[20] Clement of Alex., The Inst. 2:1, in Wood, S. P., Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator (FC vol. 23; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1954) 100.Google Scholar

[21] Clement of Alex., Strom 4:16.

[22] Origen, Ag. Cel. 8:28–30.

[23] Ibid. 8:30 in Chadwick, H., trans., Contra Celsum (Cambridge: University Press, 1965) 473.Google Scholar

[24] Novatian, , ‘On Jewish Meats’ 7.Google Scholar

[25] ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ 7:2:21, ANF 7. 469.

[26] For more detailed studies of the relationship between the Pseudo-Clementines and the Decree' see Klijn, A. F. J. (‘The Pseudo-Clementines and the Apostolic Decree’ NovT 10 [1978] 305–12)Google Scholar and Molland, E. (‘La circoncision, le baptème et l'autorité du decret apostolique (Actes XV, 28 sq.) dans les milieux judéo-chrétiens des Pseudo-Clementines’ ST 9 [1955] 1–39).Google Scholar

[27] ‘Recognitions’ 4:36, ANF 8. 142. See also ‘Homilies’ 7:4, ANF 8. 268; 7:8, ANF 8. 269; 8: 19, ANF 8. 274; and 8:23, ANF 8. 275.

[28] Schmithals, , Paul and James, 100.Google Scholar

[29] See the quotation from Origen above as well as Minucius Felix, Octavius 30; Tertullian, Apology 9; and Eusebius, HE 5:126, for examples.

[30] There are statements against dietary regulations, but these cannot be taken as evidence for the eating of food offered to idols, for similar statements can be found in works which nevertheless oppose the eating of food offered to idols.

[31] Pr. Thanks, in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. Robinson, J.; New York: Harper and Row, 1977) 299, readsGoogle Scholar; ‘When they had said these things in prayer, they embraced each other and they went to eat their holy food, which has no blood in it.’

[32] Pagels, Elaine Hiesey, The Gnostic Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 9.Google Scholar

[33] Ibid., 71.

[34] Ibid.

[35] For example, Pierce (78) concludes that Paul himself would have felt pangs of conscience were he to discover that he had eaten sacrificial meat while Hurd (280, 290) holds that Paul had actually eaten such meat on his first visit to Corinth. Both these conclusions go far beyond the evidence.