JSNT29.2 (2006) 187-210 Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://JSNT.sagepub.

.com DOI: 10.1177/0142064X06072838

JovnallorihtSnM!) efibtNerTeimea

xJSrf

'Being Saved without Honor': A Conceptual Link between 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Enoch 50?* Ronald Herms
Northwest University, 5520 108th Ave. N.E., Kirkland, WA 98033, USA ron.herms@northwestu.edu

Abstract Do early Jewish and Christian traditions of eschatological salvation include the possibility of an inferior or diminished state of'being saved' for certain individuals? This article explores the possibility that both 1 Cor. 3.10-15 and 1 En. 50.1-5 represent either a common eschatological tradition or simi lar rhetorical strategy. Each passage is evaluated in its own literary setting with a view to determining its author's rhetorical objective. The results are compared in order to ascertain whether Paul employs an eschatological description of 'being saved without honor', which also appears in early Jewish literature and, if so, whether he does this on grounds uniquely his own. Key Words 1 Enoch 50,1 Corinthians 3, judgment metaphors, apocalyptic eschatology Introduction And on the day of trouble calamity will be heaped up over the sinners, but the righteous will conquer in the name of the Lord of Spirits; and he will show (this) to others that they may repent and abandon the works of their hands. And they will have no honor before the Lord of Spirits, but in his name they will be saved; and the Lord of Spirits will have mercy on them, for his mercy (is) great. (7 En. 50.2-3) [T]he work of each one will become plain ( ), for the Day will make it clear, because it will be disclosed by fire ( , ), and thefirewill test what sort ofwork the work of each one is ( * My thanks to Professor Loren Stuckenbruck, Dr Lionel North, the anonymous JSNT reader of an earlier draft of this paper, and the members of the New Testament research seminar at the University of Durham (UK) for their helpful comments.

188

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

[] ). If anyone's work which he has built upon (the foundation) survives, he will receive a reward (" vos , ); if anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as through fire ( vos , , airrs , orrcs ). (1 Cor. 3.13-15)

Limits ofInquiry Do early Jewish and Christian traditions of eschatological salvation include the possibility of an inferior or diminished state of'being saved' for some people? This appears to be the case in both 1 Cor. 3.10-15 and 1 En. 50.1-5. On the one hand, Paul attempts to warn spiritual leaders in the Corinthian church of the possibility that theirpresent status and accom plishments may suffer significant diminishing in thefinaleschatological accounting. On the other hand, the author of the Similitudes describes con ditions on the Day of Judgment that suggest the possibility of an inferior level of salvation for those not otherwise linked to 'the righteous'. What, if any, relationship may be observed between Paul's eschatological meta phor of the testing by fire and the Similitudes9 vision of a third group of 'others' who 'will be saved without honor'? Do both instances reflect the presence of a shared eschatological framework? Or does each respective author independently employ a common apocalyptic metaphor? Reading these texts alongside one another necessitates several qualify ing observations. First, the ongoing debate on the dating and provenance of the Similitudes makes any claim to direct correlation between these documents untenable. Second, the history of interpretation of 1 Cor. 3. 5 presents a range of possibilities that spans the confessional spectrum of Christianity. This diversity of interpretation includes, on the one hand, the Eastern Fathers who, following the preaching of Chrysostom, argued that the apostle envisioned ultimate punishment in the fires of hell for which its recipients would be preserved. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic tradition found primary support for the doctrine of purgatory in this text.1 More recently, Protestant readings rejected both interpretations in favor of afigurativeunderstanding of Paul's language as a metaphor for the narrow escape of a believer on the Day of Judgment.2 Third, unsuc cessful attempts have previously been made to locate Paul's apocalyptic metaphor in 1 Cor. 3.15 within an earlier stream of Jewish tradition (see
1. An evaluation of the patristic treatment of this text and doctrine may be found in Gnilka 1955. 2. For a fuller summary of the post-history, reception and influence of 1 Cor. 3, see Thiselton 2000: 330-35.

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

189

below). Therefore, the present study seeks to make observations regarding possible points of contact between the tradition represented in 1 En. 50 and the symbolic universe of Paul's own thinking, rather than attempting to argue for direct parallels or literary interdependence. In order to facilitate an examination of these questions, this study (1) locates each text within its literary context and the larger narrative logic of each respective document, (2) provides a more detailed profile of the primary referents of each respective text, (3) evaluates the purpose and intended impact of each author's use of 'honor'/'shame' categories in their communicative strategies, and (4) makes observations about the inherent differences and possible similarities between apocalyptic visions of eschatological judgment. Recent Attempts at Locating Paul 's Apocalyptic Metaphor Two previous attempts to trace the conceptual roots of Paul's metaphor to (supposed) pre-existent material in early Judaism illustrate the problem at hand. John T. Townsend (1968) suggested that this text reveals Paul's earlier experience as a Shammaite Pharisee. According to Townsend, Paul alludes here to the DM3ira (i.e. those who were neither wholly good nor wholly bad) whom the School of Shammai believed would be refined in the fires of Gehinnom and then be raised to eternal life (b. Ros. Has. 16b-17a bar.; cf. t. Sanh. 13.3).3 Townsend's reconstruction of Paul's background is built largely on inference and speculation.4 More importantly, he glosses over the difference between the imagery of an apocalyptic metaphor (Paul) and a literal appeal to thefiresof hell (Shammaites). As such his claim to conceptual dependence on Shammaitic thought by Paul is less real than apparent. His failure to take seriously the differences between them actually leads Townsend to read a view of eschatological salvation back into Paul's thought (i.e. the possibility of salvation after going through hellfire) which appears to contradict the theological and rhetorical point of the metaphor (as argued below). Further, how such an otherwise undeveloped allusion to a distant tradition mightfitPaul's overall eschatological scheme is never adequately addressed by Townsend.5

3. See Sanders 1977: 42-43, who describes this type of reconstruction by Billerbeck as a caricature of 'Pharisaic soteriology'. 4. He assumes the probability that Paul was a Shammaite by suggesting, for example, that Paul's reference to training under Gamaliel (School of Hillel) in Acts 22.3 is an 'improbable claim' (Townsend 1968: 502). 5. Here Townsend simply suggests that Paul 'never fully considered the signifi-

190

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

Alternatively, Charles W. Fishburne (1970) suggested that Paul was directly dependentuponthe imagery employedin the T. Ab. 13 (Recension A). In the Testament of Abraham the archangel Michael conducts Abraham on a tour to thefirstgate of heaven, where he is shown the judgment of souls as they leave their bodies. The patriarch sees further that both righteous deeds and sins are weighed by balance and tested by firethe latter description containing a remarkable linguistic parallel to 1 Cor. 3.13-15. While initially recognizing the difficulties which the issues of date, redaction and possible interpolation present, Fishburne judges the Testament of Abraham to be earlier than 1 Corinthians. He does so by attempting to determine which theological perspective is more likely to have developed from the other. Ultimately, he opts for a view that Pauline eschatology based in Jewish precedent is more likely than the option of a legalistic re-working ofPaul's theology by a subsequent Jewish Christian (Fishburne 1970:114). This secondary line ofreasoning simply cannot be sustained from the textual evidence. Allison (2003: 16-17, 38, 291-92) has demonstrated that several sections in the longer Greek recension of the Testament of Abraham do not appear in the shorter (and older) Greek version and thereby reflect later 'Christian' insertions into the text. Further, in the specific case of T. Ab. 13.12-13, Allison demonstrates that on the basis of its parallelism, the dependence of the Testament of Abraham upon Paul's metaphor in 1 Cor. 3.14-15 is assured (2003:291). Thus, the evidence of date and literary development suggests that Fishburne's proposal is anachronistic and ultimately unfruitful. Background to the Similitudes of Enoch (\ Enoch 37-71) The Similitudes of Enoch (7 En. 37-71) is an apocalyptic vision of events concerned with the eschatological Day ofJudgment. This cosmic description of the future is set in an ancient literary and thematic framework common to other early Enochic literaturenamely, the days of Enoch (and Noah: cf. 1 En. 10.1-2; 65.1-69.26; 106-107; 108). Although reconstructions of the historical circumstances that may have occasioned this material are anything but certain, the socio-political symbolism and rhetoric of the text suggest a present crisis of some sort for the author and his community.6 A survey of the recent research and debate on the

canee of this teaching in terms of what he later came to believe as a Christian' (1968: 504). 6. Suter 1979: 29-32. See 1 En. 47.2, 4, 53.7, 62.11 for the most explicit references in the text to the (present?) physical suffering of the righteous.

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

191

Similitudes1 reveals an almost singular interest by New Testament scholars in the appearance of a 'Son of Man'figureparticularlyas cast in the messianic role of eschatological judge. In spite of the implications ofthis figure in the Similitudes for New Testament Christology, the absence ofthe Similitudes at Qumran (the only section of the Enochic corpus not found there) has fueled great debate regarding date and provenance.8 His groundbreaking work on the Ethiopie text of 7 Enoch notwithstanding, J.T. Milik's argument both for a late date (mid-third century CE) and for Christian authorship has been widely rejected. It appears now that dating the Similitudes to the late part of thefirstcentury CE is well within the realm of possibility.9 Regardless ofhow one ultimately interprets the issues of authorship and date, this document nevertheless represents a complex of eschatological ideas that may helpfully inform a study of those instances in the New Testament where expectations for an apocalyptic event of cosmic justice
7. See Black 1989,1992; Charlesworth 1985; Collins 1998; VanderKam 2000a, 2000b. 8. See Milik 1976: 89-98 for his proposal that an author with ties to certain Christian 'Sibylline Oracles circles' produced the Similitudes in the late third century CE. He believed that the text reflected both the persecution of Christians by the Emperors Decius and Valerian in 249-259 CE (47.1-4; 62.11), and the invasion of the West by Sassanid Sapor I in 260 CE (56.5-7). Further, as a later Christian composition that eventually replaced the Book of Giants as the second part of an 'Enochic pentateuch', the Similitudes drew theologically upon the Son of Man sayings in the New Testament Gospels. Virtually every point of Milik's proposal has come under criticism. In summary they are : ( 1 ) absence from the library at Qumran is by no means conclusive proof that a document did not exist at that time; (2) continued analysis and editing of Ethiopie / Enoch has produced virtual unanimity among scholars since Milik's proposal that the text is characteristic of Hebrew/Semitic writing; (3) the 'Son of Man' passages present no substantial dependence on or development ofthe Son of Man material in the New Testament Gospels. Their inspiration is better understood as coming from Dan. 7.9-14. In fact, the reverse casethat the New Testament Gospels use and adapt the Enochic Son of Man figureis more plausible; (4) if the reference to Parthians in 56.5-7 may be placed historicallyand that in itself is tenuousit seems to reflect a situation where Jerusalem is still a defensible city. Further, if one could demonstrate that the document was composed post-70 CE, it lacks any indication that Jerusalem had fallen to the Romans such as one finds in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. See also Collins 1998:177-78; Suter 1979:12-13; Charlesworth 1985:8890,108-110; Nickelsburg 1981: 221-23; Black 1985:182-88; Isaac 1983: 7. 9. Among those who continue to understand the document as too overtly 'Christian' to have been composed before the second century CE is Sanders (1977: 347-348). Cf. Kuck 1992:57, who simply avoids any discussion of the Similitudes on this basis.

192

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

share some common features. The importance of the 'Son of Man' figure notwithstanding, one may well argue that the primary interest of the author lies with the bigger picture of salvation (vindication) and judgment (punishment). Belief in the certainty of these twin eschatological elements serves as the leitmotifnot only ofthe Similitudes, but is in fact predominant in each of the major sections of 1 Enoch, in spite of the likelihood of multiple authors/editors and varied dating (see Isaac 1983: 9). In the Similitudes, the author advances this agenda by employing a dual communicative strategy: (1) the inclusion both of detailed descriptions of the final places of destiny and the corresponding responses tofinaljudgment of all parties concerned; and (2) the use of various labels or epithets with which he identifies and categorizes the participants in thefinaleschatological drama. These include: 'the Watchers', 'the kings and powerful of the earth', 'sinners', as well as the 'righteous ones'the community of the faithful.10 The theological impression signaled by these features suggests that the author operates within narrow, well-defined parameters with respect to the issues of salvation (vindication) and judgment. The reader is left with the sense that, while the present circumstances of the community for which the author is writing may be tumultuous and uncertain, there is no ambiguity or lack ofclarity inhowthings will ultimately turn out for them.11 One exception to this otherwise consistent eschatologicalframeworkis 1 En. 50.1-5, where, even as the author reaffirms the vindication of the righteous and the doomed fate ofthe 'oppressors', he allows for the possibility of'being saved without honor' for a third group simply referred to as 'others'. This surprising vision raises several important issues: Does it imply a belief in a two-tier system of 'being saved'?12 Could this
10. The author uses a number of terms to delineate thisfinalgroup: qeddusn 'holy (ones)', sadeqn 'righteous (ones)' andxeruyn 'chosen/elect(ones)'. Determining when these terms refer to angels or humans is primarily dependent on careful contextual analysis. 11. On this point I disagree with Kuck (1992: 58), who identifies these same emphases on the part of the author but suggests that the lines of distinction are unclear. Clarity is difficult at the level of terminology (i.e. classification) but not in terms of final destiny. 12. The language of 'salvation' in early Judaism is admittedly a difficult and tenuous concept (see Sanders 1977:75,207-11). It must be pointed out that the noun madxanit 'salvation' never appears in 1 En. 50 (nor anywhere else in the Similitudes), only the verbal phrase yedexxenu 'they will be saved'. The possibility of a distinction between salvation as vindication for the righteous and salvation as a concession of mercy for the 'others' will be kept in view throughout the discussion.

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

193

unexpected development reveal a theological stream within apocalyptic thought that makes room for a final, 'last minute' extension of God's mercy to non-Jewish sinners? In light of his otherwise strictly dualistic conception of eschatological destiny, whom could the author possibly have in mind with this third group of 'others'? And, to keep the original question of this article in focus, does this vision reveal substantive con ceptual similarities to Paul's eschatological metaphor of testing by fire? 1 Enoch 50 and the Identity of the 'Others ' who 'Will Be Saved without Honor '
And in those days a change will occur for the holy and the chosen; the light of days will rest upon them, and glory and honor will return to the holy. 2And on the day of trouble calamity will be heaped up over the sinners, but the righteous will conquer in the name of the Lord of Spirits; and he will show (this) to others that they may repent and abandon the works of their hands. 3And they will have no honor13 before the Lord of Spirits, but in his name they will be saved; and the Lord of Spirits will have mercy on them, for his mercy (is) great. 4And he (is) righteous in his judgment, and before his glory iniquity will not (be able to) stand at his judgment: he who does not repent before him will be destroyed. 5And from then on I will not have mercy on them, says the Lord of Spirits. (lEn. 50.1-5) 14
1

Literary Context and the Issue of Textual Unity A brief summary of the narrative logic of this passage may be offered as follows: in response to the vindication of therighteousand punishment of sinners (50.1 -2a), a 'third group' distinguishablefromthefirsttwo is given the opportunity to 'abandon the works of their hands' (50.2b). One is left with the impression that this unexpected opportunity for salvation comes as a direct result of the judgment already meted out to the two groups that otherwise dominate the author's eschatological landscape. For those of the third group who respond with repentance there is the prospect that 15 they 'will be saved without honor' (50.3); however, judgment awaits those who still refuse to repent (50.4-5). No further demonstration of
13. Here a minor textual variant (5 mss) omits the negation '/ by reading wayekawwen 'they will have honor' instead of the majority reading wa^iyekawwen 'they will have no honor'. See Knibb 1979:1,139. 14. This translation is taken from Knibb 1979: II, 135. For the sake of comparison, attention has also been given to Isaac 1983 and Black 1985. 15. The Ethiopie verbal phrase used here is yedexxenu (imperfect of dexna) and corresponds semantically both to the MT BET and New Testament .

194

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

mercy is to be expected. That these 'others' cannot ultimately be equated or identified with 'the righteous' in the author's perspective is ensured by the presence of two striking features of this moment of conversion. First, the salvation granted this 'third group' seems to be envisioned on the Day of Judgment and after (or, as a result of) the vindication of the righteous. And secondly, the status for those who do repent nevertheless does not approach the 'glory and honor' of the righteous. The reader is left with the impression of a 'two-tier' system of salvation. What appears to be the 'inconsistent' character of 50.1-5 with the other wise dualistic perspective of the Similitudes has led some scholars to evaluate it as an interpolation.16 While the suggestion has been made that this material represents the insertion of a Christian editor, the more common view among source critics was that what we have to do with here is a misplaced strand of tradition. R.H. Charles (1913: , 228) sug gested that this particular vision does not belong to the theological framework of the Similitudes and is better suited to the conceptual world of subsequent Enochic writingspossibly chs. 83-90 or 91-104. Alternatively, D.S. Russell (1964: 301-302) cited 1 En. 50 as evidence for the capacity of the apocalyptic genre to hold inconsistent streams of thought in tensiona common assertion among scholars of apocalyptic thought. While this latter observation carries considerable merit on the whole, the more immediate questions of literary context must be examined in this particular instance. It should be noted that several features of the text actually argue for the relative consistency of 50.1-5 with the rest of the document: (1) the con tinuing characterization of 'oppressing sinners' as standing in judgment and 'the righteous' as receiving vindication (here the language of'glory and honor'); (2) the consistent use of the name 'Lord of Spirits'17 which appears throughout the Similitudes but is otherwise unattested in Jewish literaturewith the possible exception of 2 Mace. 3.24,18 and the inscriptional evidence from the island of Rheneia (near Delos);19 and (3) the
16. Charles 1913: II, 163-281. Cf. Sjberg (1946) who rejected Charles's source divisions but regarded 50.1-4,56.5-8 and 57.1-3 as later additions (see VanderKam 2000b: 421). 17. The literal rendering of the Ethiopie ^egzia manafest which appears to be a wooden translation of the Hebrew mann mrr (Lord of Hosts). 18. See Black 1985:190. 19. Deissmann 1995 [1927]: 413-24. Several publications of this inscription are available of which the most complete is Roussel and Launey 1937: no. 2532. This prayer for divine retribution against the murderers of two girls appeals 'to the Most High God, the Lord of the spirits and of all flesh' (

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

195

insistence on affirming the mercy of God in spite of the sure prospect of judgment coheres with subsequent attempts to reconcile these facets of his character and eschatological activity (60.5,25; 61.5,13).20 The con sistent appearance of these internal features throughout the Similitudes virtually ensures that this particular vision comesfromthe same source. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that it is only the issue at hand namely the unexpected opportunity for the salvation of others beside the named 'righteous ones'which leads some commentators to suspect the placement of this vision. Not only does the consistent appearance in 1 En. 50 of literary con ventions otherwise unique to the Similitudes suggest literary unity, but also its vision of an opportunity for salvation on the Day of Judgment may not be altogether novel within the document. 1 Enoch 38.4 may contain a veiled reference to the same eschatological idea of a group of people who belong neither to the 'righteous' nor to the oppressive rulers and sinners who stand in certain judgment.21 In the case of 38.4, however, the language is much more vague and the terminology of Others' is not employed. In thefinalanalysis, it appears that taking 1 En. 50 seriously as part of the author's eschatological framework may not only provide a fuller understanding ofthatframework,but also allow for a reading of 1 En. 38.4 as possibly foreshadowing one of its more subtle nuances. A Proposal for the Identity of the 'Others ' The emergence of this 'third group' appears to be a subsidiary part of the main argument of the Similitudes necessitated in the mind of the author by the implications ofthat argument.22 This may be argued for based on a

? ). Whether the presence of a definite article (in Greek) significantly alters the idiom's frame of reference cannot be determined at the linguistic level in light of the ambiguity of the Ethiopie language, which does not supply any articular forms. For a fuller treatment of its implications for monotheism and the possibility of evidence for an angel cult, see Stuckenbruck 1995: 183-85. 20. Even 1 En. 67.8-13 may be understood as hypothetical and unrealized mercy for the kings and powerful of the earth! 21. 1 En. 38.4 reads, 'And from then on those who possess the earth will not be mighty and exalted, nor will they be able to look at the face of the holy ones... ' Two factors demand caution in drawing too close a connection between these two passages: (1) 38.4 contains no indication of the previous sinfulness and/or need for a moment of conversion on the part of the third group; (2) the 'third group' in 38.4 is not referred to as Others'the term used here is 'those who possess the earth'. 22. Sacchi 1996: 117-18. Significantly, Sacchi argues that the author of the Parables conceives of evil in a manner quite different from 'traditional apocalyptic'

196

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

literary-narrative synthesis of the overall structure of the Similitudes. As stated earlier, the driving theme of the workvindication and judgmentis onefromwhich the author never strays far. His interests appear to lie most urgently with the questions of the 'why' and 'how' of final judgment. In the case ofthe former, the reasons forfinaljudgment emphasize injustice and oppression by the rich and powerful as well as idolatry. The means of depicting the final judgment include portrayals of the reversal of fortunes for the righteous, visions of eternal dwellings, and scenes of their vindication in the eschatological court. With increasing detail and drama these themes are explored as a way of contextualizing the current difficulties of those who are faithful against the backdrop of eschatological hope. The climactic judgment of the earth's powerful (62.1-63.12)understood as vindication of the Oppressed righteous'is the point of departure both for the second parable as a whole (45.1) and for the particular vision of these 'others' (50.2a-b). In other words, whatever the author may be suggesting regarding the possible conversion of a 'third group', he has not lost sight of his convictions with respect to the certain judgment of those he views as sinners. His actual description of the Others' is by no means neutral; they are much more closely aligned with 'sinners' than with 'the righteous'. This is clearfromthe demand that they 'repent and abandon the works of their hands' (50.2c).23 What seems to be at stake for the author of the Similitudes is that something must be made eschatologically of those inhabitants of the earth who do not immediately fall into his two primary groups. This raises two possible explanations for the appearance of this 'third group': (1) both the community of the 'righteous', which the author represents, and their opponents reflect a relatively narrow stratum of society. Therefore, because the (certain) destinies ofthese two groups are described in cosmic terms and set within theframeworkofthe eschatological Day of Judgment, some accounting for the rest of humanity in those terms must necessarily be provided. Or (2) the author is simply moved by a theological commitment to the inexorable mercy of God (as noted above).24 This theme of

'despite the use of many traditional elements'. The recognition of such possibilities certainly makes the presence of a novel 'sub-stream' of theological material regarding eschatological conversion more plausible. 23. This is precisely the terminology used in 48.8 to explain why 'the kings of the earth and those who possess the dry ground' stand in certain judgment! 24. This feature recalls the standard Old Testament conception of the justice and mercy of God as two complementary aspects of his nature wherein mercy is ultimately the 'default setting'. See Sanders 1977:421-22.

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

197

mercy should hearten those who currently suffer, while also serving to highlight the stubborn posture of those doomed to punishment. The way in which the author has framed this conceptually gives him latitude in several directions. His own emphasis on the twin eschatological realities of vindication and judgment remainsfirmlyintact. Furthermore, he is not necessarily committed to an actual realization of this vision. Unlike the unequivocal terms with which the destinies of the two primary groups are depicted, this vision remains entirely in the realm of potential. Its realization depends upon the appropriate response of a hypothetical group of Others'. Ultimately, the final statement of the vision is decidedly negativeas though the author does not actually imagine such a scenario to develop. It may not be possible, or even necessary, to choose between the two possible explanations offered above; each in their ownright,or both taken together, may provide a plausible literary, theological and circumstantial context for this material. While a case can be made for the author's use and adaptation of biblical traditions at other points in the Similitudes^ 50.1-5 clearly represents the author's own stamp with respect to such traditions. Those traditions, which envision 'Gentiles' or 'others' in an eschatologically subservient statewith roles such as worship and bringing tributedo not appear to be reflected in the immediate concerns or description of 7 En. 50. However, even if the image of the 'honor-less third group' is his own, the author of the Similitudesnot unlike the authors of Jonah, Tobit and other prophetic voices in early Judaismis motivated both by what he perceives as the necessity for repentance and the persistent presence of God's mercy in light of the Day of Judgment. The Function of 'Honor '/'Shame ' Categories The considerable rhetorical force and motivational agenda of 'honor'/ 'shame' categories in 1 En. 50 may be illustrated in three instances.26 In thefirstplace, the depiction of the righteous is cast in terms of the 'glory and honor' which their vindication grants them. While one may speculate whether the importance of this restored honor reflects their present humiliation (active) or simply their own apparent inconsequence (passive) over against the power-based systems of the world, there is no doubt that 25. For example, I have suggested elsewhere that the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Son of Man vision in 48.4-5 represents the use and development of parts of Isa. 51 (MT) which are also apparent in its LXX counterpart. 26. While the word 'shame' does not appear explicitly in this passage, the author's juxtaposing of 'honor' and 'no honor' effectively creates this conceptual category.

198

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

the eschatological reversal of those fortunes figures prominently in the author's vision. Secondly, while the author refers here only to 'sinners' generically, that term belies a well-developed polemic (cf. 46.4-8; 48.810). From the list of participants in the eschatological drama, it is evident that theflauntingofpower and wealth (and presumably the related concept ofhonor/status) ranks among the worst offences of'sinners' for the author. E. Isaac, recognizing the distinct invective aimed against the kings and powerful of the earth, allows his translation (in Charlesworth's OTP) to lead the reader to this conclusion. He does so by translating the term ye^exxezeww lamedr as 'landowners/landlords' where Knibb's translation simply renders either 'those who (dwell upon/possess) the earth' or 'those who rule the dry ground' .27 Such a semantically narrow translational choice by Isaac within a wider idiomaticfieldin the text may be a case of 'over-reading' ; however, it surely reflects the reality that the author takes indignant exception to an oppressive abuse of political power and economic wealth by those who hold it. Finally, and with a view to the particular focus ofthis paper, the author uses 'no honor' terminology (implying 'shame') to describe the salvation attained by the group of'others' he envisions. By contrasting thisfinalopportunity for salvation against the vindication of the righteous (50.1, 'glory and honor will return to the holy'; 50.3, 'they [others] will have no honor'), the author highlights his impression of the inferior quality and secondary status of such salvation. No one within his target audience could have imagined this kind of salvation to be a desirable fate. By employing these 'honor'/'shame' categories the author effectively reinforces several critical concerns. It enables him to describe the anticipated state oftherighteouson the Day ofJudgment in the grandest possible terms. In making this point he asserts that any other opportunities for salvationeven if their very possibility surprises the readerpale in comparison. Secondly,framingthe issue this way also gives the author a way of emphasizing not the condition of potential salvation as such, but rather God's mercy in granting itand thereby perhaps further defending God's own honor as one who graciously provides what God is not necessarily obligated to. Thirdly, this communicative strategy effectively discourages anything less than total commitment to the cause of 'the righteous' among his audience. In this regard the author of the Similitudes stands well within the tradition ofthe prophets and subsequent apocalyptic visionaries who wished their descriptions of future events (both within
27. The passages where a variety of Ethiopie idioms reflect this basic idea are 48.8; 62.1,6,9,12; 63.1,12. See Isaac 1983: 34,43-44.

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

199

history and eschatological) to encourage present reflection and response among their hearers/readers. Summary I summarize the argument to this point as follows: 1 En. 50, while introducing a new, subsidiary element to the visionary portrayal of the Day of Judgment in the Similitudesnamely, the opportunity for 'honor-less' salvation based on repentant acceptance of God's mercy by a third group of 'others'does not necessarily compromise its dualistic view of eternal destiny. On the contrary, by framing this vision of 'the others' in language that evokes 'honor'/'shame' categories, the author makes clear that he is much less concerned with whether or not such a hypothetical third group actually materializes. This vision is in fact a vehicle to reiterate the chief elements ofhis message for the community ofthe faithful. On the one hand, he seeks to re-affirm the merciful character of God. On the other hand, he exhorts the faithful community to understand themselves as those who will achieve the full honor of vindication on the Day of Judgment in spite of their present experience of abuse and humiliation. The questions of whether 1 Cor. 3.10-15 represents either a similar view of conditions on the Day of Judgment or Paul's employment of a common communicative strategy are what the remainder of this article now examines. 1 Corinthians 3 and 'Being Saved without Honor ' According to the grace of God which was given to me, I laid a foundation as a wise master craftsman, and someone else is building on it. However, let each one monitor how he builds upon it. nFor no one can lay another foundation beside the one that has been laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12But if anyone builds on the foundation (with) gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw13 the work of each one will become plain, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be disclosed byfire,and thefirewill test what sort of work the work of each one is. 14If anyone's work which he has built upon (it) survives, he will receive a reward; 15if anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3.10-15) Literary Context of I Corinthians 3.10-15 Paul's description of the 'fiery testing' of the work of church leaders is most often understood by commentators to be an apocalyptic metaphor for 'a narrow escape'.28 This claim may be evaluated by a careful con28. See Fee 1987:144; Witherington 1995: 134; Thiselton 2000: 314-15.
10

200

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

sideration of the narrative development of its surrounding literary context and the use of similar rhetorical devices at other points in the overall argument. The point of departure for Paul is the apparent preoccupation with (1.17-31) on the part of Corinthian believers that pre cipitated various manifestations of their own over-inflated sense of 29 spiritual achievement and status. As a primary manifestation of wisdom 'gone awry', the apostle addresses the development of divisive factions in 30 the church, which were based on members' competing allegiance to 31 prominent leaders associated with the community ( 1.10-4.21). While denouncing any form of partisan behavior based on individual leaders as a matter of principle (1.10-17; 3.3-9,21-23; 4.1-6), Paul also appears to take this situation personally for at least two reasons: (1) he, as the found ing apostle, was responsible for the formation of this Christian community in Corinth (2.1-4; 3.10-11; 4.14-17); and(2) based on what may be inferred from the letter as a whole, a negative view of his own apostleship and questioning of his authority on the part of some in the church (4.18-19; 9.1-3; 14.36-38)32 were likely a primary reason for the factionalism reported to him.33 By rehearsing his own ministry among them (2.1-5)

29. It may be argued that each of the major issues addressed in this letter by the apostledivisive partisan behavior (1.10-4.21 ), inappropriate sexual/marital conduct (5.1-7.40), ethical insensitivity (8.1-11.1), dysfunctional approaches to public wor ship (11.2-14.40) and theological confusion (15.1-58)are all symptomatic of a triumphalistic appropriation of 'wisdom'. 30. The report from Chloe's household (1.11-12) is punctuated by the threefold adversative use of (1.12). 31. Richard Horsley (1998: 34-38) hypothesizes that Paul's rhetoric indicates a fundamental tension between his own preaching of 'Christ crucified' and that of Apollos as a proponent of wisdom as the 'heavenly Sophia' (based in the intellectual wisdom tradition of Alexandria). This proposal not only fails to explain why Paul would not have spoken more forcefully against Apollos as a 'false teacher' rather than as a co-worker (see, for example, 3.5-9), but also forces Horsley to read Paul's reference to Apollos in 16.12which he terms 'difficult' and 'puzzling'from a standpoint of suspicion (1998:223). Against Horsley, see also Kuck 1992:161-63. 32. Fee suggests that these Opponents' of Paul are also to be understood in refer ence to the 'some of you' in 15.12 who 'say there is no resurrection of the dead' (1987: 740). 33. This is the sense of Fee's proposal regarding the occasion of the letter and rhetorical direction of 1 Cor. 1.10-4.21 (1987:47-51). For a convincing reconstruction of the social and cultural dynamics of secular discipleship and rhetoric that seem to have been adopted by some in the Corinthian church following Paul's departure, see Winter 2001:31-43. Here he concludes 'Paul's response to the problems in 1 Corin thians 1-4 aimed at further correcting the Christians' misunderstanding of their

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

201

and by redefining what characterizes 'true' wisdom (2.6-16), he is prepared to speak with some degree of authority on how such a communityfaced with the internal threat of factionalism and divisionmight more accu rately perceive themselves, their leaders and Paul himself (3.1-4.21). From a literary-narrative standpoint this apparent crisis in the Corinthian church drives the communicative strategy of 1.10-4.21 in its entirety. 1 Corinthians 3 as a whole represents the practical centerpiece of Paul's argument against factionalism and division in the church. The specific way in which he attempts to bring correction to their partisan view of Christian leadership emerges in four discernable movements. Paul begins by describing the cooperative nature and secondary role of any leadership structure in God's project of building the church (3.5-9). He then reminds his audience that all work of 'Christian leadership' is ultimately subject to a higher standard of evaluation that can be humanly discerned (3. 5). A stern warning follows as Paul describes the fate of those who behave in a destructive way toward the community of believers (3.16-17). To conclude, he urges them to abandon 'the wisdom of the world' in order to recognize and live by these principles of leadership within the Chris tian community (3.18-23). Our present text then is part of a larger argument whose subject is, without deviation, the role and responsibility of Christian leaders.34 The issue of singular concern in 3.10-15 is the way in which 'Godly wisdom' views the work of apostles/Christian leaders against the backdrop of its ultimate testing. Paul's argument begins by setting up his own foundational ministry among them as a paradigm for any future ministry (Derrett 1997: 129-37). Any subsequent work may claim validity not on the basis of the builder's qualifications or gifts, but only by the content of what was builtthat is, continuity with Jesus Christ as the foundation (3.10-11). Paul then prepares the reader for his 'eschatological fire metaphor' by listing examples of two types of 'building materials' : gold, silver, precious 35 stones (i.e. fire-resistant) and wood, straw, stubble (i.e. consumable). relationship to their instructors. It also provides evidence that secular educational mores had been highly influential in shaping their understanding. In part Paul's solution wasframedin terms that made it clear that he chose anti-sophistic, nondiscipleship, and familial categories to describe the Christians, Apollos and himself.' 34. On this particularized application, whereby the scope of'salvation' and 'judg ment' language is delimited by the larger argument of the letter, see Donfried 1976: 90-110, esp. 105-106. Donfried identifies four categories of judgment language in Paul's thought and places 1 Cor. 3.1-15,4.1-5 in his third category of'judgment of the apostolic work () of Christian missionaries'. 35. Hollander 1994: 93. The various suggestions by others as to what gold, silver

202

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

The type of building material with which a leader/minister has built will be made plain on the Day of Judgment (3.12-13). All work of leadership within the context of the Christian community can therefore be divided into two categories: that which builds effectively on, and in harmony with, the foundation of Jesus Christ, and that which does not.36 Finally, Paul describes both possible outcomes in terms of reward and loss (3.1415). His description of the negative outcome (our primary interest here) reflects more closely the imagery of his original metaphor and requires greater explanation since it is the option which he assumes his readers have overlooked in their current crisis of division. The practical/pastoral point Paul wishes to make is that any inappropriate elevation or dismissive rejection of a Christian leader based on external criteria risks doing so in ignorance of what a final accounting will reveal about that particular leader's work. The remainder of Paul's argument regarding the Corinthians' partisan behavior and internal division urges them to reconsider themselves, their leaders and Paul himself more cautiously in light of this unknown factor of eschatological testing (esp. 3.21-4.6). If such a narrative contextualization of 1 Cor. 3.10-15 is accurate, then it appears as though two genuine points of contact may be observed with 1 En. 50.1-5: (1) both texts employ the terminology of 'being saved' (albeit in differing ways), and (2) both appear to use 'honor'/'shame' categories to describe the state of at least some of those 'saved'. We turn then to an evaluation of these two possi bilities. Paul's Use of 'Being Saved' Language It is important to note that when Paul affirms the future 'being saved' () of any Christian leader whose work of building the church has not stood the eschatological test, he does so precisely because that 37 issue was never in doubt for him. This category of Christian leader
and precious stones actually represent are inconclusive and seem to miss the point of the metaphornamely, they cannot be burned. 36. Whatever else, this passage cannot be made to read contextually as a general statement regarding the testing of believers' works, nor is it an attempt to present a full-orbed description of conditions on the eschatological Day of Judgment. Any indirect conclusions, which one might wish to draw with respect to either of these subjects, may be legitimately read against the background of Paul's theology as a whole, but can simply not be made to represent his main concern here. 37. Sanders states, 'we nowhere have in Paul a simple soteriology of eschatological expectation divorced from the present reality of participation in Christ or in the Spirit. Rather, the two go together...' (1977: 462-63).

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

203

regardless of motives, effectiveness or the lack thereofis never any thing but 'saved' as far as he is concerned.38 Paul could, of course, have been even more vitriolic and pejorative toward those religious leaders and teachers with whom he could share no common ground.39 Further, in the two verses immediately following (3.16-17) he proves capable of stating outright the possibility that someone influential in the church could behave in such a way as to ultimately be 'destroyed' by God ( $). Equally important is the fact that, in light of their own opinions of these leaders, the Corinthians unquestionably assumed their 'saved' perhaps even 'elite'status (cf. Winter 2001:40-42). Paul never denies this in our text. These observations beg the question of why Paul's dis claimer to that effect was necessary at all. Why would the eternal destiny of such Christian leaders even merit doubt? The answer surely lies in the devastatingly graphic implications of Paul's metaphor: If everything such leaders have worked for might be obliterated and rendered inconsequential on the Day of Judgment, what, if anything, positive can one possibly conclude regarding the fate of the hypothetical leader? The rhetorical force of the metaphor is such that one might imagine the reader to ask: Does such a result still qualify as 'being saved'? Paul's answer, consistent with his claims elsewhere,40 and antici pating just such a possible responsefromthe Corinthians, is unequivocally 'Yes!'41 By way of comparison one may note that in 1 En. 50.2 the author of the Similitudes is at pains to demonstrate that those who 'will be saved' are saved because they repent and 'abandon the works of their hands', while for Paul in 1 Cor. 3.15 the one who 'will be saved' is, in one sense, 38. Here Donfried overstates the case, no doubt in response to the debate regarding the role of 'good works' in Paul's view of justification and thefinaljudgment, by suggesting 'the verb in v. 15 has nothing to do with Christology and is used here in an entirely secular sense...' (1976:105). 39. For example, Gal. 1.6-8; 5.12; Phil 3.2; cf. Pogoloff 1992: 101. 40. J.D.G. Dunn observes, 'Paul seems to have been willing to affirm a tension... between God's savingrighteousnessand his wrath... Believers should not make the mistake for which Paul criticizes Israel (Romans 2) by thinking that because they are in the process of being saved they will therefore be exemptfromthe moral conse quences of their actions' (1998: 490-91). 41. See Conzelmann 1975:77, who, in spite of a perspective on this passage which does not seem to isolate Christian leaders as the subject, rightly comments regarding Paul's soteriology, 'unsatisfactory works performed by the Christian as a Christian do not cause his damnation. This is the reverse side of the fact that works do not bring about salvation.'

204

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

assumed to be so already. Therefore, while both can employ similar lan guage to describe the fate of certain individuals on the Day of Judgment, their reasons for doing so in these particular texts appear to span the semantic range of the way in which salvation language can function in early Jewish and Christian literature. On the one hand, the necessity of repentance (i.e. change) is made clear (7 Enoch); and on the other hand, an already existing condition is being affirmed from an eschatological perspective while qualified with a warning (1 Corinthians). A recognition of these differing approaches leads to the conclusion that these two instances of 'being saved' language do not in fact represent a common idea of salvation or damnation. How these two texts each arrive at the point where they envision one who is 'saved' is apparently unrelated and seems to eliminate the concept of 'being saved' as one that they hold in common. What appears to be the final possibility for a common con ceptualframeworkis that they both envision the status ofthis 'being saved' in less than ideal (or 'honor-less') conditions. The Function of 'Honor '/'Shame ' Categories 'Honor' and 'shame' categories play a significant role in the overall tone and communicative strategy of Paul in 1 Corinthians (and, for that matter, 2 Corinthians as well).42 In our evaluation of 3.10-15, it is important to keep in mind that the entire argument of 1.10-4.21 appears to have been based on precisely these issues. Their posture of 'wisdom' had led some influential Corinthians to honor certain leaders (i.e. Apollos, Peter) and disparage others (Paul). That Paul himself feels the force of such a tension is no doubt in part what allows him to take up such rhetoric in defense of the message he preached and the manner in which he preached it (2.34; 4.10).43 Having argued, by way of his own example, that how one builds on the foundation of Christ (i.e. what building materials are used) will be revealed for better or worse on 'the Day', he moves on to describe in greater detail the consequences of a negative outcome. Thus Paul's choice of language and the emphasis of his metaphor for eschatological testing

42. At least nine times in 1 Corinthians Paul employs negative language intended to reinforce this ongoing dynamic of'shame' (, 1.27 [2]; 11.22; / , 4.14; 6.5; 15.35; , 11.6; 14.35; , 11.14). Among the five further occurrences of this language in 2 Corinthians, the additional terms and also appear. 43. But note Paul's (unconvincing?) insistence near the end of this extended argument that his intent is not to shame them (4.14, UM&S ' ? [])!

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

205

in a negative direction are telling. By analyzing the specific use of terms, which serve this communicative strategy, our inquiry may further highlight what motivational impact such language and images (and their underlying conceptual categories) may have been intended to produce. The fact that he emphasizes this negative possibility indicates that his purpose is not primarily didactic but rather motivational. In the phrase TIVOSTO , the use of the verb is not entirely straightforward. Most often rendered 'suffer damage, loss' (in either a material or moral/spiritual sense), it can also suggest an experience of pain 'to be punished'the latter being opted for by Bauer (BAGD: 338). This second definition no doubt informs the symbolic world that gave rise to the use of this passage as a proof-text for the doctrine of purgatory. However, in order to remain faithful to the overall intent of the metaphor used by Paul, one is compelled to under stand the sense as one in which the forfeit or loss of a potential 'reward' is envisioned.44 Further, while is the subject of in the subordinate clause, it is clearly not the work but the 'worker' (vos) that is the subject of as also in the parallel construction in 3.14 where TIVO is the subject of . Thus one may conclude that, with the use of , the apostle communicates the potential 'dis-honor' (i.e. shame) of lost reward on the Day of Judgment for those who currently serve as honored leaders in the Christian community without direct use of shame language. Paul subsequently makes explicit reference to 'shame' () in 4.14 following a paragraph laced with irony and sarcasm (Fee 1987:184). What is more, in light of this theme's frequency (see n. 42 above), it seems reasonable to infer a 'shame-based' communi cative intent despite the absence of explicit terminology. Indeed, that is the function of this extended metaphor. This type of motivational agenda is further demonstrated by the prior (brief) reference in 3.14 to the positive 'reward' ( TIVO TO , ) gained by the one whose work stands the test offire.While the reward option is not further described or explained, it provides the necessary foil for the possibility of 'loss'. 45

44. See Thiselton 2000:314, who suggests that here the most plausible function of the term is to indicate the ability 'to deprive someone of something'. 45. TDNT11: 889-90. Most often the contrast for the 'loss' implied by is supplied by the term ; however, here we may understand in 3.14 as an accusative of relation informing the relative clause of 3.15 and specifically chosen by Paul in light of the larger 'work/workman' motif in this section of the letter.

206

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

Thus, tension between present 'honor' in the community and ultimate ' dishonoring' in the eschatological context is central to the communicative intent of Paul's metaphor. This seems to be borne out by the role these concepts play in the overall tone of 1.10-4.21. The repeated contrast between those who are 'wise' (i.e. certain leaders in Corinth) and those who are 'foolish' (Paul and his companions) serves as evidence of this underlying rhetorical current. As such, Paul presents these two possibilities as equally plausible options for the evaluation of the work of leaders in the Christian communities.46 While both serve his purpose of promoting serious reflection on the opportunity to either gain or lose honor in that ultimate setting, he unquestionably emphasizes the latterloss of honor. This emphasis appears due primarily to the present crisis of an inappropriate or inaccurate evaluation of Christian leaders (including himself) by certain members of the church in Corinth. The entire argument appears intended by Paul not merely to defend his own preaching and position, but rather to serve as corrective to the way in which the community related to leadership in general. In this regard then, while the subject of Paul's metaphor in 3.10-15 is a hypothetical Christian leader, the object (or target) of the motivational warning is the entire community. Conclusion A Comparative Summary In light of the preceding analysis, I now state in broad terms the ways in which 1 Cor. 3.10-15 and 7 . 50.1 -5 clearly represent divergent methodologies, theological perspectives and practical concerns: (1) they employ differing genres of literary compositionthe Similitudes reflect classic Jewish apocalyptic writing, while in 1 Corinthians Paul employs rhetorical persuasion in the more conventional form of a letter (albeit while embedding an apocalyptic metaphor in the present case); (2) the implied audience is virtually impossible to identify in the Similitudes, while 1 Corinthians clearly addresses a Christian community which, according to the author, is in need of specific correction and instruction; (3) while the narrative purpose of the eschatological metaphor in 1 Cor. 3 can be related directly to the overall argument in which it is located, the vision in 1 En. 50 appears to be more tangential to the overall argument or perspective of

46. I am grateful to Dr Lionel North for conversations on this, which helped to clarify my own thinking, and for sharing with me his (yet) unpublished paper, 'Paul on the Day of Judgment'.

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

207

the Similitudes (as argued above); (4) the respective authors have different 'categories' of people in mind about whom they employ their respective versions of the eschatological image of'being saved without honor': in 1 En. 50 those envisioned are referred to as 'sinners' who must repent ofthe 'works oftheir hands', while in 1 Cor. 3 it is clearly Christian leaders (apostles) who have 'built badly' whom Paul has in mind; and (5) in each passage there is a different perception of the role of'works': in 1 En. 50 the author refers explicitly to 'works' as the physical evidence of one's ultimate eschatological destiny; Paul however, not only operates with a contextually specific definition of the term in 1 Cor. 3 (i.e. the actions and behavior of church leaders with respect to the spiritual construction of the Christian community), but further explicitly insists that such 'works' do not ultimately affect the condition of being savedonly the status ofthat condition. While one may suggest that similar metaphoric images are employed by the two texts under discussion, it must be concluded that they do not intend those images to carry the same kind of theological perspective or content. On the one hand, 1 En. 50 clearly envisions an inferior third group of people who, as sinners, receive mercy on the Day of Judgment. They are contrasted with 'the righteous', whose vindication, while in the future, is assured 'with honor'. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. 3 Paul clearly refers to the potential fate of leaders within the Christian community who, while sharing in the same eschatological hope of 'being saved' as all other Christian believers, might also experience the 'dis-honor' (i.e. shame) of 'lost reward' resulting from inadequate contributions to the building of the church. In spite of these differing conceptions of eschatological status, the impact intended on each respective audiencewhileframeddifferently functions similarly. In 1 En. 50 the vision of the third group of 'others' functions to enhance the vindication of the righteous, while at the same time discouraging anything less than total faithfulness in the present context so as to avoid any other final fate. In 1 Cor. 3.10-15 the possibility of church leaders experiencing 'eschatological embarrassment' is intended to appeal for humility on the part of leaders specifically and believers in general. Such humility should serve to caution not only against undue elevation of certain leaders (or the maligning of a certain founding apostle!), but more importantly against embracing 'wisdom', which neglects to take into account the possibility of an unexpected valuation of their 'building' on the Day of Judgment.

208

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

Synthesis This study has sought to evaluate the possible points of contact between the symbolic world ofthe apostle Paul and Jewish eschatological traditions such as onefindsin the apocalyptic vision of 7 En. 50. While not arguing for any direct influence of one text upon the other, this study suggests that the vision of a third group of 'others' who may potentially 'be saved, but without honor' in 1 En. 50 bears symbolic and rhetorical similarities with the eschatological metaphor of the testing of Christian leaders' works in 1 Cor. 3. Both passages envision individuals 'being saved' and yet 'without honor'. Both passages seem to view such a possibility as an undesirable concession rather than a positive expression of divine magna nimityeven if one may attribute such a fate to the mercy of God. Both passages employ the categories of 'honor' and 'shame' (even if only by implication in some cases) to discourage those in their respective com munities of faith from settling for such an 'inferior status' in the final eschatological landscape. While their individual narrative purposes and distinctive theologies do not necessarily cohere, it is evident that their respective communicative strategies share significant similarities. Most strikingly, both texts make use of a common imagethat of a potentially inferior state of 'being saved'to urge their audience toward greater commitment to the faithful community. Bibliography
Allison, Dale C, Jr 2003 The Testament ofAbraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter). Black, Matthew 1985 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: Brill). 1989 Bibliography on 1 Enoch in the Eighties', JSP 5: 3-16. 1992 'The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contributions to Christological Origins', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Develop ments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 145-68. Charles, R.H. 1913 ' 1 Enoch', in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press): 163-281. Charlesworth, James H. 1985 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (SNTSMS, 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Collins, John J. 1998 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Early Jewish Literature (3rd edn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Conzelmann, Hans 1975 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

HERMS 'Being Saved without Honor'

209

Derret, J. Duncan 1997 'Paul as Master Builder', EvQ 69 (April): 129-37. Deissmann, Adolf 1995 [ 1927] Lightfromthe Ancient East (repr.; Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson). Donfried, Karl Paul 1976 'Justification and the Last Judgment in Paul', ZNW61: 90-110. Dunn, James D.G. 1998 The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Fee, Gordon D. 1987 1 Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Fishburne, Charles W. 1970 Corinthians 3.10-15 and the Testament of Abraham', NTS 17:109-15. Gnilka, J. 1955 1st 1 Kor. 3,10-15, ein Schriftzeugnis fr das Fegfeuer? Eine exegetischhistorische Untersuchung (Dsseldorf: M. Triltsch). Hollander, Harm W. 1994 'The Testing by Fire of the Builder's Works: 1 Corinthians 3.10-15', NTS 40: 89-104. Horsley, Richard 1998 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press). Isaac, E. 1983 ' 1 (Ethiopie Apocalypse of) Enoch', in J. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday & Sons): 1,1-61. Knibb, Michael 1979 The Ethiopie Book ofEnoch (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Kuck, David W. 1992 Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul's Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3.5-4.5 (SNT, 66; Leiden: Brill). Milik, J.T. 1976 The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1981 Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (London: SCM Press). Pogoloff, Stephen M. 1992 Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Structure of 1 Corinthians (SBLDS, 134; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Roussel, Pierre, and Marcel Launey 1937 Inscriptions de Dlos (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honor Champion). Russell, D.S. 1964 The Method and Message ofJewish Apocalyptic (London: SPCK). Sacchi, Paolo 1996 Jewish Apocalyptic and its History (JSPSup, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Sanders, E.P. 1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press). Sjberg, Erik Konstans 1946 Der Menschensohn im Aetheopischen Henochbuch (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup).

210

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006)

Stuckenbruck, L.T. 1995 Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse ofJohn (WUNT, 2; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Suter, David W. 1979 Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). Thiselton, Anthony 2000 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGCNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Townsend, John T. 1968 Corinthians 3.15 and the School of Shammai', HTR 61: 500-504. VanderKam, James C. 2000a 'Messianism and Apocalypticism', in J. J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism (New York: Continuum): 1,193-228. 2000b 'Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71 ', in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup, 62; Leiden: Brill): 413-38. Winter, Bruce W. 2001 After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Witherington, Ben, 1995 Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

^ 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.