Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2004 by Cheung, Alex

Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. By John Fotopoulos. WUNT 2/151. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, xiii 298 pp., euro 54.00 paper.

This revised version of a doctoral dissertation directed by David Aune at Loyola University of Chicago is one of several recent studies which undermine the popular view that Paul regards the eating of idol food as an adiaphoron.

Fotopoulos begins with a review of past research and helpfully summarizes various scholarly positions in tabular form (chap. 1). Then, in five dense chapters, he offers an extensive analysis of archeological and social-historical data regarding temples and cults in and around Corinth to ascertain the locations and social meanings for idol food consumption. He concludes that the most plausible context for Paul's reference to temple dining was the Asklepieion. The temples of Isis and Sarapis were also attractive, though questionable, candidates, whereas the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore was a virtual impossibility. His interpretation thus differs significantly from that of Roebuck in his report on excavations in Corinth as well as those of Peter T. Gooch (Dangerous Food [Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993]), Bruce W. Winter (After Paul Left Corinth [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001]), and Derek Newton (Deity and Diet [JSNTSup 169; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998]), etc., and must be seriously reckoned with by subsequent researchers. On the social implication of idol food there is less disagreement: since idol food was served not only in temples but often also in private meals, the avoidance of sacrificial food altogether would be extremely difficult and socially detrimental (pp. 177, 258). Because of the religious meaning of such food, Paul would expect the Corinthians to abstain in order to avoid idolatry.

Next, Fotopoulos examines the social-rhetorical context for Paul's argumentation (chap. 7). Based on Margaret M. Mitchell's (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991]) classification of 1 Corinthians as a piece of deliberative rhetoric, he conducts an exegetical study of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 (chap. 8). Against various partition theories, Fotopoulos maintains that Paul's argumentation is a coherent whole, seeking both to prohibit intentional idol food consumption and to unite the weak and the strong factions, who are divided over the issue. Paul consistently rejected temple dining because it made the Corinthians partners with pagan deities and hence guilty of idolatry. However, food purchased at the market or served at meals in pagan homes could be eaten unless it was known to be sacrificial food, in which case the rhetorical force of Paul's instructions about idolatry would apply, effectively prohibiting its consumption. In this way Paul allowed the Corinthians to continue social relations with pagans while guarding against idolatrous consumption of sacrificial food. The final chapter offers a convenient summary of Fotopoulos's major findings.

The book is well-researched, clearly written, and conversant with most of the relevant studies on 1 Cor 8:1-11:1. The only major omission is Peter J. Tomson's Paul and the Jewish Law (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990, although it is listed in the bibliography but not discussed in the text), whose thesis that the texture of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 is halakhic presents a serious alternative to Fotopoulos's reading Paul according to Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions.

Since the findings of the book are in general agreement with much of my own work (Idol Food In Corinth [JSNTSup 176; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999]), as Fotopoulos acknowledges (p. 34), I would like to comment on two main areas of disagreement that he highlights. First, Fotopoulos may well be right in his criticisms of certain details of Gooch's interpretation of the archeological data and my reliance on it. Nevertheless, some of his key disagreements rest on a misreading of Gooch (partly because he interacts with Gooch's book rather than with the latter's much more detailed dissertation). For example, by arguing that sacrifices were central to Asklepios's cult and that sacrificial dining occurred on site, he disputes Gooch's assertion that consumption of sacred food was not integral to the cult. This overlooks Gooch's distinction between the (important) sacrifices per se and the (incidental) consumption of sacrificial food in the sanctuary. Since dining halls were absent or were built decades after the completion of other facilities in some Asklepieia, I think Gooch clearly has the better of the argument.

More disconcerting is Fotopoulos's repeated criticism of Gooch's statement that non-sacrificial food might be available at the dining rooms of the Asklepieion (pp. 65, 67-68, 252), erroneously implying that it is a key conclusion of Gooch and one that I followed. In fact it is a throw-away line, a mere possibility that Gooch raises in the interest of objective assessment of the archeological evidence-a possibility that he (and I) regard as highly unlikely in the light of the totality of archeological and literary evidence (Dangerous Food, pp. 80-82; Idol Food, pp. 36-38). Fotopoulos somehow overlooks Gooch's main conclusions that avoiding idol food was extremely difficult and that if ordinary meals at home were often explicitly religious, it can safely be presumed that temple dining involved sacred rites. These conclusions, which I repeatedly emphasized, are virtually indistinguishable from Fotopoulos's, regardless of differing interpretation of the archeological evidence. This last point somewhat raises the question, given the ambiguity of data, of how important it is to ascertain the precise locale of Paul's reference to temple dining. Is the Pauline passage itself not indicating clearly enough the ever present temptation and pressures to eat idol food?