1 cor 1-4 - role of the fool

7/30/2019 1 Cor 1-4 - Role of the Fool

1/17

:PAUL'S APPROPRIATION OF THE ROLE OF THE FOOL

IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1-4

LAURENCE L. WELBORN

UnitedTheological Seminary

Those who study and teach the New Testament suffer from a

great disadvantage, which we find it difficult to admit even to

ourselves: our familiarity with central themes of Christian preach

ing tends to obscure the original meaning of a number of texts.

There is no better illustration than Paul's famous statement, "The

message about the cross is foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18). We assume

that Paul meant that the proclamation of a crucified God, or Son

of God, was an absurdity to the people of the ancient world.1

We

forget what Justin Martyr knew: that various Greek gods and he

roes had suffered ignominious deaths.2 One thinks of Dionysus tornapart by the Maenads, and ofPrometheus bound upon the rocks.

3

Evidently, Greeks and Romans would not have regarded the suf-

fering and death of a Son of God as "folly."

Justin identified the unique element in Jesus' passion as the

cross. The sons of Zeus, he concedes, suffered and died in vari

ous ways, "but in no case is there any imitation of the crucifix

ion."4

Was "folly" the response to the preaching of the cross? Word

study produces a provocative result: the term "folly" is nowhereconnected with the cross in pre-Christian literature, Greek or

Latin.5

The cross is described as "terrible," "infamous," "barren,"

1

H.O. Gibb, "Torheif und "Ratsei" im Neuen Testament. Der antmomischeStrukturcharakterderneutestamenthchen Botschaft(Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 194pp. 1-3; G. Bertram, "," TDNT4 (1967), pp. 845-46.

2Justin, Apol I. 21-22.

3Lucan, Prom. 1-2.

4 Justin, Apol. I. 55.5 This is the (unintended?) outcome of the meticulous investigation of M.

H l C ifi i th A i t W ld d th F ll f th M f th C


2/17

PAUL'S APPROPRIATION OF THE ROLE OF THE FOOL 421

"criminal," an "evil instrument."6

Crucifixion is called "cruel and

disgusting," "shameful," "the supreme penalty," "the most wretched

of deaths."7 But nowhere is the cross associated with any of theterms that make up the rich vocabulary of "foolishness" in Greek

and Latin.

The fact that pagan writers do not describe the cross as "folly"is hardly surprising. In a well-known passage, Cicero asserts that

"the very word 'cross' should be far removed not only from the

person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes, and

his ears ... The mere mention of such a thing is shameful to a

Roman citizen and a free man."8

The cross was evidently not asubject of levity among the upper classes of the Roman Empire.

But it is only when this fact is acknowledged that one can begin to

appreciate the audacity of Paul's formulation, "the message about

the cross is foolishness."

The signs of novelty are apparent in Paul's articulation of the

thesis. The expression, "the message about the cross" (

), by which Paul summarizes the gospel, is unique, not

only in the Pauline letters, but in the entire New Testament.

9

Soit is not a technical term of Paul's preaching, but an adhoc formu

lation, growing out of the tensions in this text.10

Paul's decision to

of the Christians as amentiae. But the primary meaning of amentia is "madness";amentia means "folly" only in a transferred sense in poetical texts. Similarly, Justin,

Apol. I. 13, describes the offence caused by the message of the crucified as ,but this is "madness" rather than "folly." Christian writers, such as Theophilus ofAntioch (Ad Autolycum 2.1) and Origen (Contra Cehum 1.9), who place the term"foolishness" () in the mouth of pagan interlocutors as a judgment upon

the Christian message, are demonstrablyunderthe influence ofPaul's formulationin 1 Cor. 1:18-25.

6Plautus, Captivi469; Casina 611; Menaechmi66, 849; Poenulus 347; Persa 352;

Rudens 518; Trnummus 598; Anthologia Latina 415. 23-24; Seneca, Epist. mor.101.14; PGM5.73; Lucian, Iudicium vocalium 12; these texts cited by Hengel,Crucifixion, pp. 7-8.

7Cicero, In Verr. 2.5.165; Seneca, Epist. mor. 14.5; Apuleius, Met. 1.15.4;

Scriptores Historiae Augustae 8.5; Achilles Tatius 2.37.3; Origen, c. Ceh. 6.10; Cicero,In Verr. 2.5. 168-169; Josephus, War 7. 202-203; cf. Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 22-38.

8Cicero, Pro Rabino 5.16. The passage is often quoted in exposition of 1 Cor.

1:18, e.g., G. Heinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, KEK 5 (Gttingen: Vanden-

hoeck& Ruprecht, 1896), p. 75; R. Baumann, Mitte undNorm des Christlichen. EineAuslegung von 1 Korinther 1, 1-3, 4 (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1968), p. 85; Hengel,Crucifixion pp 41-42 H -W Kuhn ("Jesus als Gekreuzigter in der frhchristlichen


3/17

422 LAURENCE L. WELBORN

replace the content of the gospel metaphorically with a symbol of

cruelty seems intentionally harsh. The reader, who does not yet

know how Paul will expound his thought in the following paragraphs, must have experienced this reduction of the content of the

gospel to a single, shameful event as stunning.11

And then, when

the message about this cruel and disgusting death is immediately

declared to be "foolishness," the effect must have been shocking.

The paradox is stupefying.

Was Paul the first to describe "the word of the cross" as "fool

ishness"? If so, then the question of the meaning of "foolishness"

in Paul's discourse takes on fresh urgency. For the term cannotpreviously have possessed the profound theological significance

that Paul confers upon it in the course of his exposition. Close

examination of Paul's argument reveals that the apostle uses the

word "foolishness" () in three senses in 1 Corinthians 1-4,

corresponding to three moments in his encounter with the con

cept: appropriation, evaluation, and affirmation.12

If we would un

derstand the meaning of Paul's surprising assertion, "the message

about the cross is foolishness," we must rehearse the drama of hisstruggle with this concept, from the application of the term as a

judgment upon his preaching, to his acceptance of the word as

the truth of his life in fellowship with the suffering of Christ.

We begin our search, accordingly, at the point where Paul ap

propriates the term "foolishness" as a description of his procla

mation, since this is the earliest moment in the process of meaning

that is ascertainable in the text. Determination of the original

import of the word is crucial, since whatever significance the term

acquires in the course of Paul's exposition is, in some sense, a

reflex of the meaning it possessed at the point of appropriation.

So, whence has Paul derived the concept "foolishness" that he

applies to his preaching of the message about the cross?

There is no need for an extensive search for the source of the

concept, for the apostle states very clearly in which provenance

the judgment of "foolishness" is formulated: those for whom the

message about the cross is "foolishness" are "Greeks" who "seek

wisdom" (1:22). The term "Greeks" () in the Pauline corpus, as in ancient literature generally, designates those who are


4/17


distinguished from the Barbarians by the possession of Greek language and culture.

13Their distinctive characteristic, as Paul states

clearly, is the pursuit of "wisdom." Those who embraced Hellenism, whether of Greek nationality ornot, participated in a learned

culture through philosophy, rhetoric and art, as represented in the

gymnasium, the assembly, and the theater. Thus the concept of"foolishness" that Paul applies to his preaching is not derived from

the Gentile inhabitants of the Roman Empire in general, but, more

specifically, from those whose identity as Hellenes centered on the

possession of wisdom.14

It is in the Greek world that we must seek the meaning of "foolishness" as it applies to Paul's discourse. This insight puts us on a

different path from the majority of interpreters, who tend to deny

that the term "foolishness" retains a "secular" meaning in Paul.15

But it does not yet serve to focus our investigation, for the term"foolishness" () takes on various meanings as it occurs in

different contexts in Greek literature. In Greek tragedy, is

a kind of "madness," a rash and impulsive action that seems to be

impelled by a power which confuses human understanding and

hides the right path.1 6 In a political context, denotes anavet that is unable to calculate the consequences of actions, and

that is consequently expressed as imprudent counsel.17 In the

teaching of the philosophers and moralists, is a lack of

reason or self-understanding, the absurdity of an unexamined

life.18

For the rhetorician, it is "sheer folly" not to adapt one's styleof speaking to the audience and the circumstances of the case.

19

The wise counselor warns against the "silly talk" of the "chat

terer."20

1 3See the excellent article of H. Windisch, "," TDNT2 (1964), pp.

504-16, especially pp. 512-16 on Paul's use of the term.1 4

Windisch, "," p. 515.1 5

Gibb, "Torht", p. 8; Bertram, "," p. 845; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians,Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 43; P. Fiedler, "," ExegeticalDictionary ofthe New Testament, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), p. 449; P.Lampe, "Theological Wisdom and the 'Word About the Cross': The RhetoricalScheme in 1 Corinthians 1-4," Int 44 (1990), pp. 120-21.

1 6 Sophocles, Ant. 220,1. 469-70; EL 1326; Euripides, Medeal. 614. This sensealso in Demosthenes Or. 9.54; Epictetus, Diss. 1.6.36.

1 7Thucydides 5 41 3; Sophocles Oed Tyr 433 II 540 42; Aristophanes Eccl


5/17


Some of these uses may have relevance to Paul's concept of "fool

ishness." But before we begin to assess their significance, it is es

sential to recognize that there is one meaning which is so commonin the Greco-Roman world that it would have been uppermost in

the minds of Paul's readers and, apart from clear indications to

the contrary, must be assumed to be the meaning that Paul in

tended. For most Greek readers in the time of Paul, and espe

cially for those who viewed the world from the perspective gained

through their participation in learned culture, the term

designated the attitude and behavior of a particular social type:

the lower class buffoon.21

The "foolishness" of this social type consisted in a weakness or deficiency of intellect,

22often coupled with

a physical grotesqueness.23

Because the concept of the laughable

in the Greco-Roman world was grounded in contemplation of the

uglyand defective,24

those who possessed these characteristics were

deemed to be "foolish." As a source of amusement, these lower

class types were widely represented on the stage in the vulgarand

realistic comedy known as the "mime."25

Through its use in this

context, became "the common generic name for a mimicfool."26

The fool was a secondary actor in the mime, a second banana,

a clown.27

His function was to make fun of a primary action by

imitation and intrusion. So he aped the performance of the

archmime, comically misinterpreting and reacting to him.28

Like

other mimes, the fool appeared barefoot and maskless; indeed,

his grimaces and gesticulations were an essential part of the per-

2 1For this social type and the ridicule to which such humble persons were

routinely exposed, see P. Veyne, A History ofPrivate Life I: From Pagan Rome toByzantium (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 134-36.

2 2Bertram, "," p. 832.

2 3G.M.A. Richter, "Grotesques and the Mime," AfA 17 (1913), pp. 148-56.

2 4Aristotle, Ars Poet. 1449a30; Cicero, De Oral 2.236; Quintilian, Inst. Oral

6.3.1.; cf. M. Grant, The AncientRhetorical Theories of the Laughable (Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, 1924), p. 19 and passim.

2 5 On the fool in the mime, see the testimonia collected by H. Reich, DerMimus. Ein litterar-entwickelungsgeschichtlicher Versuch (Berlin: Weidmann, 190

578 83 A Ni li M k Mi d Mi l ' S di i h P l Th t


6/17

PAUL'S APP ROP RIA TI ON OF TH E ROLE OF TH E FOOL 425

formance.29 The fool typically had a shaven head; he was bald-

headed not by nature, but from anxiety.30 Although he might wear

a variety of costumes, those most often associated with the fool

were the chiton, a short frock, and the centunculus, a colorful raggarment stitched together from odd scraps.31 The fool sometimes

carried a stick with which his misbehavior was punished; we read

much of the blows that rained down upon the fool's humped back

or bald head.32

Vivid portraits of mimic fools survive in terra-cotta statuettes of

the Hellenistic age and the early Roman Empire. A terra-cotta

lamp found in Athens depicts thr ee maskless perfo rmers stan ding

in a group (Fig. I).

3 3

That they aremime actors is proven by the inscrip

tion on the side: "mime-actors; the

theme (or subject of the play), The

Mother-in-Law." Of the three mimes

represented, the one in the middle,

facing front, is clearly the fool. He

wears a short chiton and lays his right

hand over his protruding belly. He has

a bald head, large ears, a broad nose,

small eyes, and a wry mouth . He

stands, rather dejectedly, between the

other characters, as though he had just

received a heavy lec ture from th em.

Fig. 1 An ot he r statuet te, pro bab ly from

Alexandria, shows two mimic fools with shaved heads, broad

noses, and full lips, dressed in short chitons, engaged in animated

29 Seneca, Epist. 8.8; Juve nal 8.191; Macro bius 2.1.9; Ath ena eus , Deip. 10.452;

Quintil ian, Inst. Orat. 6.3.29; especially t he epi ta ph of Vitalis, a virt uoso solo

per for mer of the imperial per iod , who boasts of his skill in mo ul di ng his feature s

and describes th e effect upo n the aud ien ce , in J.W. Duff (ed .) , Minor Latin Poets

(Cam brid ge, MA: Harv ard University Press, 1934), pp . 637-39.30

Juvenal 5.170-72; Arnobius, Adv. nat. 7.33; cf. Reich, Der Mimus, pp. 23, 470,

578, 831; for ico nogr aph ie evide nce, see Nicoli, Masks, Mimes and Miracles, pp.

47-49.31 Apuleius, Apol. 13; Festus 274 M; Varr, Ling. 5.132; Nonius 14; Arnobius,

Adv. nat. 6.25; cf. . Dieterich, Pulcinella. Pompejanische Wandbilder und rmischeSatyrspiele (Leipzig: Te ub ne r, 1897), pp . 143-45.

32Wst "Mimos " p 1748


7/17


dialo gue (Fig. 2 ) .3 4

One fool places

his arm around the shoulders of the

other, who leans toward him, listen

ing, endeavoring to imitate with hisright hand and the gesture of his

companion.

Cicero, in the chapters on ridicule

in De Oratore, often refers to the

mimes and speaks of their general

deformity, their baldness, and their

foolish an d ridicul ous gri mac es.3 5

He warns the orator from that sortof ridicule, and in the process gives

a portrait of the "fool." He asks,

What can be so ridiculous as a fool? We laugh at his gr imaces , his mi micry

of other people's characteristics, his voice, in short, his whole person. I can

call him witty, not, however, in the way I should wish an orator to be witty,

but only the mime. That is why this me th od , which mak es peop le l augh,

does not belong to us. I mean the peevishness, superstitiousness, suspicious

ness, boastfulness, foolishness. Such characters are in themselves ridiculous:

we j eer at su ch ro le s on the stage; we do not ac t th em.3 6

One gains some impression of the antics of the fool from the

one extended example of such a routine that has accidentally sur

vived in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the first century AD.3 7

The

piece is a farce, with a theme akin to the Greek romances.3 8

The

characters are marked by symbols, but references in the text en

able us to identify them.3 9

The chief part is that of A, named in

the dialogue as Charition, a young Greek woman who has fallen

into the hands of some barbarians. The king of the land intendsto sacrifice he r to Sele ne, in whose t emple she has taken refuge.

The second actor, marked in the manuscript, is a fool. That he

3 4Bieber, Denkmler zum Theaterwesen, p. 177 . 188, Tab. 108, 5; Nicoli, Masks,

Mimes and Miracles, pp. 47-48, Fig. 31.3 5

Cicero, De Orat. 2.68-72.3 6

Cicero, De Orat. 2.61.251-52.3 7

POxy. 413. Originally published in B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The

Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903), p. 413; text andtranslation in D.L. Page (ed.), SelectPapyri III(Ca mbr idg e, MA: Har vard University

Press 1988) pp 336-49


8/17


is to be so identified is indicated not only by his behavior, but also

from the way in which he is addressed fool!" (), and

"poorfool" ().40 It is upon the low humor of this clownthat the amusement of the play chiefly depends. His methods of

raising laughter are obvious: he plays off the heroine and others,

making retort to their words and mocking their actions. He is, al

ternately, boastful, anxious, sacrilegious and obscene. However vul

gar the humor of the fool might be, his importance to the plot is

underlined, in this case, by the fact that it is he who effects the

heroine's rescue by making her captors drunk.

The fool was a familiar figure in the cities of the Roman Empire, where the mime was so popular that it "practically monopo

lized the stage."41

Politicians might be denigrated by comparison

with a fool, particularly if something about their speech or de

meanor furnished a basis for the comparison.42

As is well known,

the Emperor Claudius, who ruled when Paul wrote to Corinth,

suffered from cerebral palsy, which left him with certain physical

impairments: his head and hands shook; he dragged his right leg;

he had a cracked and hardly intelligible voice; when he was angry, it was even more unpleasant: he stammered and snarled and

slobbered.43

When he was young, his grandfather Augustus kept

him out of the public eye.44

But when he unexpectedly came to

power, he was widely ridiculed as a fool.45

Two anecdotes by the

historian Suetonius illustrate how widespread was this ridicule. A

Greeklitigator, in hot debate with Claudius as a judge, let slip the

remark, "You are both an old man and a fool ()!"46

After

Claudius' death, Nero "vented on him every kind of cruelty; for

it was a favorite joke of his to say that Claudius had ceased to 'play

the fool' among mortals, lengthening the first syllable of the word

morari, "to linger, remain," so that it became moran = ,

"to play the fool."47

Seneca composed a splenetic parody of the

deification of Claudius, with a title that translates loosely "The

4 0POxy. 413, lines 20, 58; cf. Winter, De mimis Oxy., p. 33; Wst, "Mimos,"

p. 1753.41 W. Beare, "Mimus," OCD (1970), p. 688.42

Suetonius, Iulius 51; Domil 10.


9/17


Apotheosis of a Pumpkinhead." To make sure that readers rec

ognize the role in which Claudius is cast, Seneca describes the

subject of his satire as a "born fool" in the prologue,48

and latertwice refers to the divinized emperor as a "fool," cleverly substi

tuting for in phrases familiar from Greek drama and

traditional Greek prayers.49

It seems probable that it was from the

personality of the emperor Claudius that the figure of the fool

received new life in the literature of the mid-first-century. According to Suetonius, "Claudius did not even keep quiet about his own

stupidity, but in certain brief speeches he declared that he had

purposely feigned foolishness under Caligula, because otherwisehe could not have escaped alive and attained his present station.But he convinced no one, and within a short time a book was

published, the title of which was The Elevation ofFools (

), and its thesis, that no one feigned folly."50

When we turn to 1 Corinthians 1-4 with this understanding of

"foolishness," we discover that many of Paul's statements become

more intelligible. We begin at the end of the section, because Paul

has constructed his argument so that he comes to speak last of the

charge that had given rise to the discussion.51 Thus, Paul declaresin 1 Cor. 4:10, "We are fools on account of Christ." In what sensePaul means the term "fool" is clear from a little noticed reference

to the "theater" in the preceding verse, which is usually translated:

"we have become a spectacle to the world."52

But the generaliz

ing translation conceals Paul's meaning. The Greek word is

, which is, first of all, a building, a place for public as

semblies, and then, as here, what one sees at a theater, a play.53

When Paul says that "God has exhibited us apostles as last of all,"he is thinking of the practice of magistrates and benefactors, who

gave lavish theatrical entertainments for the public, starting withthe higher aesthetic forms, such as tragedy or recitations of poetry,

4 8Seneca, Apoc. 1.1.

4 9Seneca, Apoc. 7.3; 8.3.

5 0Suetonius, Claud. 38.3.

5 1On the logic of Pauline argumentation, that is, his tendency to delay

mention of the cause of a dispute until he has defined key terms in his own

sense, see Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 249; and, generally, F. Siegert,Argamentation beiPaulus (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985), pp. 195-99.

52Th th NRSV


10/17


progressing through classical comedy, and concluding with the

mimes, which were for this reason referred to as "after-pieces."54

As we shall see, Paul is thinking, in particular, of mime scenes inwhich the fools were condemned to death.

Paul follows the assertion, "We are fools for Christ," with an

account of his experience as an apostle, which is remarkably harsh

in tone and content:

We are weak, we are held in disrepute, we are hungry and thirsty, we arepoorly clothed and beaten and homeless, and we grow weary from the workof our own hands, (we are) reviled, persecuted, slandered. We have become

like the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things (4:10-13).

The harshness of the language has often puzzled interpreters,

and is usually explained by reference to Paul's emotional state or

his rhetorical tendencies.55

But the account as a whole, and each

of its details is an accurate description of the social experience of

the mimes. The mime actors' social status was miserably low. They

were held in contempt, certainly by "polite" society. They were

widely regarded as parasites. Social commentators frequently

lumped them together with other low-life denizenswhores,pimps, and thieves. The mimes were repeatedly banished from the

cities of the Empire. The mime's life was a precarious one; most

were slaves, and those who were not eked out a dubious living,

dependent upon the taste of the public, the indulgence of patrons,

and the availability of suitable opportunities for performance.56

The poet Martial pictures the mimes haunting the marketplaces,

where they performed during the day, and where they slept at

night upon mats and pallets in booths that they shared with conjurers, dancers, and the like.

57Time permits us to examine only

one detail in Paul's description. Paul says that he and his col

leagues were "beaten" (4:11). The vernacular term and

its cognates appear repeatedly in comedy and mime to describe

the beating, the thrashing, the "knuckle-sandwich," given to the

fool.58

5 4R. Beacham, The Roman Theatre and its Audience (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1992), pp. 129-37; R. Beacham, Spectacle Entertainments ofEarlyImperial Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 2-11 and passim.


11/17


Moving backwards through the exposition, we come to Paul's

account of his preaching on the occasion of his appearance in

Corinth in 2:1-5: "When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I didnot come proclaiming the mystery of God in lofty words or wis

dom ... I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trem

bling." This passage, too, has puzzled interpreters.59

We may rule

out the possibility that Paul's weakness was the result of a failure

of nerve.60

Nor is there any mention of persecution as the cause

of anxiety.61

Rather, Paul portrays himself as a well known figure

in the mime: the befuddled orator.62

The figure was popularized

by Sophron, whose mimes were widely read and greatly admired.

63One of Sophron's fools, Boulias the orator, is repeatedly

mentioned in literature as an example of rambling, ambiguous

speech.64

The incoherence of Boulias' oratory became prover

bial.65

In literature influenced by the mime, we repeatedly meet

with the befuddled orator, usually a simple man who has been

thrust before the court, and finds himself weak in the head and

trembly.66

We return, then, to the thesis statement and to the intense, theological reflection which it introduces: "The message about the cross

is foolishness ... We proclaim Christ crucified ... foolishness to

Gentiles" (1:18, 23). It now seems likelythat Paul's astonishing and

paradoxical equation of the cross and foolishness was mediated

by the mime.6 7

The most popular mime in Paul's day was the

Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 971 s.v. , "buffet" = ; 977 s.v.

; cf. Nicoli, Masks, Mimes andMiracles, p. 88.5 9

For a summary of interpretations, see B. Winter, Philo and Paul among theSophists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 147-48.

6 0

Rightly, Heinrici, Dererste Briefan die Korinther, p. 87.6 1

Heinrici, Dererste Brief, p. 87.6 2

This insight is anticipated by the remarks of D. Georgi, Theocracy in Paul'sPraxis and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 54-55.

6 3Plato, Rep. 451c, 606c; Douris of Samos in FGH76 F 72; Quintilian, Inst.

Orai1.10.17; Statius, Silv. 5.3.158; Diogenes Laertius 3.18; cf. AKrte, "Sophron,"RES (1930), pp. 1100-1103; S. Eitrem, "Sophron," SO 12 (1933), pp. 10-13.

64Demetrius, De eloc. 3.153; Mnaseas in Zenobius 3.26.

65 Cf. O. Crusius, Untersuchungen zu den Mimiamben des Herodas (Leipzig:Teubner, 1892), p. 51.

66E H d Mi 2 H f Th S A 6 1 2 L i


12/17

PAUL'S APP ROP RIATIO N OF TH E ROLE OF TH E FOOL 431

Laureolus of Catullus.68 References by historians and poets make

it possible to reconstruct the plot:69 Laureolus is a slave who runs

away from his master and becomes the leader of a band of robbers. In the final scene, he was crucified. The crucifixion was en

acted with a cons iderable degree of stage realism. Josephus report s

that "a great quantity of artificial blood flowed down from the one

crucified."70 Suetonius records a performance on the day of

Caligula's assassination, at the close of which the chief actor fell

and vomited blood. Suetonius notes that the performance was

immediately followed by a humorous afterpiece in which certain

mimic fools "so vied with one another in giving evidence of theirproficiency at dying that the stage swam in blood."71 According to

Martial, a condemned criminal was forced to take the part at a

performance during the reign of Titus, and was actually nailed to

the cross.72

We may now tell the story of Paul's appropriation of the role of

the fool in his correspondence with Corinth. When Paul came to

Corinth, he pre ached a gospel of Jesus the Christ crucified. He

made converts, mainly among the lower classes;

73

but it seems thatat Corinth the Pauline mission also succeeded, for the first time,

in winning adherents from the better educated and cultured

circles.74 After Paul left Corinth, another Christian missionary

arrived, a Jew name d Apollos, a native of Alexandria.75 Accord

ing to the author of the book of Acts, Apollos was "an eloquent

man," skilled in the exposition of Scriptures (Acts 18:24). 76 He

Menaechmi 915, 1017; Mostellaria 1133; Poenulus 271, 495, 511, 789, 1309; cf.

Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 9-10.6^ M. Bonaria (ed.), Mimorum Romanorum Fragmenta (Genova: Instituto diFilologia Classica, 1955), p. 112; cf. Reich, DerMimus, pp. 564-66; Nicoli, Masks,Mimes and Miracles, pp. 110-11; Beacham, The Roman Theatre, p. 136.

69Martial, De sped 7; Juvenal 8.187-88; Josephus, Ani 19.94; Suetonius, Calig.

57.70

Josephus, Ant. 19.94.71

Suetonius, Calig. 57.72

Martial, De sped 7.73

1 Cor. 1:26-28; cf. Georgi, Theocracy, p. 54.74 H.D. Betz, "The Problem of Rhetoric and Theology according to the Apostle

Paul" in A. Vanhoye, (ed.), L Aptre Paul: Personnalit, style, et conception du ministre(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), p. 24; CS. de Vos, Church and Com-munity Conflicts: The Relationships ofthe Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian


13/17


made a strong impression upon the Corinthians, especially upon

the elite who valued proficiency in rhetoric.77 Factions formed

within the church, with members declaring support for one teacheror another.78 In the resulting debates, members of the Apollos

party said that, in comparison with their eloquent teacher, Paul

appeared to be a fool. Perhaps they also contrasted the "wisdom"

of Apollo's interpretation of Scripture with the simplicity of Paul's

preaching of the cross.

We have seen that for the denigration of a public figure as a

"fool" to be successful, there must be some basis for comparison.

In the case of Paul, several aspects of his person, way of life, andself-presentation may have given his opponents opportunities to

portray him as a "fool." The most obvious of these was Paul's

manner of speaking, to which reference is repeatedly made in

1 Corinthians 1-4. In 2 Cor. 10:10, Paul's detractors are quoted:

"His letters are weighty and strong, but his speech is contempt

ible." A few verses later, Paul concedes the point: "I am untrained

(literally, "an idiot") in speaking."79

Next, there was something

about Paul's demeanor that gave the impression of "weakness." In2 Corinthians, again, Paul quotes anonymous critics who say, "his

bodily presence is weak." Because the Greek word for "weakness"

implies illness, a physical ailment,80 Paul's opponents may have

been ridiculing his "thorn in the flesh." There has been much

speculation about the nature of Paul's condition: epilepsy, weak

ened eyesight, a speech impediment, have all been proposed.81

Perhaps Paul suffered, like his contemporary Claudius, from the

effects of infantile paralysis. In any case, Paul's opponents exploitedhis weakness to make him look like a fool. Third, Paul's occupa

tion as a handworker, a tentmaker, placed him among the urban

77Similarly, D. Liftin, St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation. 1 Corinthians 1-4 and

Greco-Roman Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 162;Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists, pp. 175-76; de Vos, Church andCommunConflicts, pp. 219-20.

78

On the dynamics in the formation of factions in the Corinthian church,see L.L. Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles (Macon, GA: MercUniversity Press, 1997), pp. 1-42; H.A. Stansbury, Corinthian Honor, Corinthian


14/17


proletariat whose lives were caricatured in the mime.82 Numerous references in the Corinthian correspondence make it plain

that Paul's decision to work with his hands was a source of shamefor the wealthy members of the church at Corinth.83 Finally, wecannot exclude the possibility that Paul's physical appearance boresome resemblance to a mimic fool. The only physical descriptionof Paul to come down to us from the early church, in the Acts ofPaul, portrays "a man small of stature, with a bald head andcrooked legs ... with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhathooked, full of friendliness."84

Perhaps it came as a surprise to Paul's Corinthian detractors thathe accepted their labeling of him as a fool, though not withoutconsiderable hesitation, and after he had redefined the keyterms.85 But as it turns out, the adoption of the role of the foolwas a strategy practiced by a number of intellectuals in the earlyEmpire. The Roman knight, Decimus Laberius, took the role ofthe fool in a mime that he wrote and enacted before Julius Caesar.86 In one of his best known satires, the Augustan poet, Horace,

permits his slave Davus to describe the master as a greater foolthan his slave.87 Juvenal dons the motley costume of the fool inorder to expose the moral corruption of Roman society.88 Whatmade the role of the fool so attractive was the freedom it permit-

82 On the lives of the urban proletariat as the subject of the mime, seeBeacham, The Roman Theatre, pp. 131, 137.

83 1 Cor. 4:12; 9:1-27; 2 Cor. 11:7-15; see the discussion in G. Theissen,"Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zu Soziologie urchristlicherMissionare," NTS21 (1975) 1.237, pp. 192-221; R. Hock, The Social Contextof Paul'sMinistry. Tentmaking andApostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) especiallypp. 50-65.

84 In the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" 3; text in R.A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet(eds.), Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1.237 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959), pp. 6-9; the translation is that of W. Schneemelcher, NewTestament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964) 2.354. For discussion of this literary portrait and alternative views, see R.M. Grant, "The Description of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla," VC36 (1982), pp. 1-4; A. Malherbe,"A Physical Description of Paul," HTR 74 (1986), pp. 170-75.

85 The point is rightly made by W. Caspari, "ber den biblischen Begriff der

Torheit," Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift39 (1928), p. 692: "Zu allem bleibt aberbeachtlich, wie lange der I. Kor. zgert, bis er nur berhaupt eine persnlicheWortform unseres Begriffs 3, 18 verwendet."


15/17


ted for the utterance of a dangerous truth. Numerous anecdotes

relate how, especially in the earlyEmpire, the mimes became voices

for what no one else dared to say.89 Speaking as a fool, Paul isable to challenge the reliance upon wealth and knowledge by the

leaders ofthe church at Corinth, and the sense of superiority which

these things engendered.

But at a deeper level, Horace, Paul and Juvenal are telling the

truth about themselves in a society where relationships were in

creasingly controlled by the patronage of a wealthy few.90

Intellec

tuals were especially vulnerable to the patronage system, since they

had nothing to exchange but ideas, words that vanished into airand faded quickly from the page. In a world controlled by patrons,

the life ofan intellectual must have seemed as insubstantial as that

of a fool in the mime. The Corinthian correspondence reveals that

Paul was drawn into patron-client relationships.91

He was unable

to support himself by the work of his hands, and was obliged to

accept a gift from the wealthy Stephanas.92

Our final glimpse of

Paul in Corinth shows him as a guest, or client, of Gaius, the

wealthiest of the Corinthian Christians, and the host of the wholechurch.

93

IfPaul was able to accept the role of the fool more completely

than his contemporaries, Horace and Juvenal, it was because he

believed that, in the cross ofChrist, God had chosen "foolishness."

In a stunning paradox, Paul writes: "God chose what is foolish in

the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world

to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the

world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are"

(1 Cor. L27-28).94

To the wealthy and cultured in Corinth, Paul

writes: "The fool that you laugh at in the mime of life, whose gro

tesque suffering is a source ofamusement, whose death on a cross

is a welcome reminder of what it is like to belong to the upper

8 9

Suetonius, Calig. 29A; Athenaeus, Deip. 14.621 A; Historia Augusta, Duo

Maxim. 9.3-5; Historia Augusta, M. Antonin. 29; other anecdotes are collected by

Reich, Der Mimus, pp. 182-92.9 0

P. Veyne, Le pain et le cirque: Sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique

(Paris: Seuil, 1976); R.P. Sailer, Personal Patronage underthe EarlyEmpire (Cambridge:

Cambridge UniversityPress, 1982).


16/17


classeducated, unmaimed, independentthis crucified fool is

the Son of God." As the apostle of this God, Paul came, in the

end, to accept the word of the cross as the paradoxical truth ofhis own life: he was really a fool, the fool of Christ.

95

ABSTRACT

This essay suggests that Paul's acceptance of the role of the "fool," and, arising out of this, his evaluation of the message of the cross as "folly," are bestunderstood against the background of the popular theater and the fool's role inmime. The interpretation is, therefore, a corrective to the traditional view that

the proclamation of the crucified Christ was an absurdity to the people of theancient world. The essay also offers an alternative to the attempt, in some recent monographs and commentaries, to subsume Paul's "foolishness" under thecategory of the anti-rhetorical. The essay argues that the term "folly" was generally understood as a designation of the attitude and behavior of a particular socialtype, the lower class buffoon. As a source of amusement, these lower class typeswere widely represented on the stage in the vulgar and realistic comedy knownas the mime. The essay suggests that Paul's Corinthian detractors labeled him asa "fool," in contrast to the eloquent and sophisticated Apollos. Paul's acceptanceof the role of the fool mirrors the strategy of a number of intellectuals in theearly Empire, who exploited the paradoxical freedom which the role permitted

for the utterance of a dangerous truth.

95Paul's appropriation of the role of the fool subsequently deepened as the

conflict with the Corinthians grew sharper; in 2 Cor. 11:1-12:10, Paul delivers a"fool's speech," based upon the performances of the fools in the mime. For thisinterpretation, see H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, KEK 6 (Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), pp. 316; L.L. Welborn, "The Runaway Paul: ACharacter in the Fool's Speech," HTR 92.2 (1999), pp. 115-63.


17/17

^ 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 permissionfrom 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 specificwork 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

1 cor 1-4 - role of the fool

Documents