Interpreting “What is Written” in 4:6
The Corinthians are to learn “the ‘not beyond what is written’” (τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται). The position of the neuter article τό (“the”) suggests Paul is introducing a quote, and the quote’s content is perhaps a popular one the Corinthians would recognize.277 Among many interpretations of this phrase, the most prominent are these: 1) some words fell out of the original text that our extant copies did not preserve, or conversely, a gloss was written into the extant copies; 2) Paul refers to what he has just written in this letter; 3) Paul refers generally to Scripture, the Old Testament canon; 4) Paul refers to a non-scriptural maxim; and 5) Paul refers to one or more of his previous scriptural citations in 1:19, 31; 2:6, 16; 3:19, 20.278
Option 1 is a formidable possibility, but there is no evidence in early manuscripts that directly supports it (and if we stopped here, it would take away the fun of speculating about other possibilities!). Option 2 is unlikely because we would expect the grammatical inflections Paul normally uses when referring to his own writing, such as the present tense “I write” (γράφω: 4:14) or the aorist “I wrote” (ἔγραψα: 5:9) rather than the perfect passive, “is written” (γέγραπται).279 Option 3 is also unlikely given the more specific and contextually based option 5. Moreover, if Paul meant to say the canon of Israel's Scripture, it is odd that he himself cites sources for moral instruction “beyond what is written” in these Scriptures (e.g., 15:33), and in any case, the entire corpus of these scriptures does not center on the prevention of being puffed up (4:6c).280
With option 4 there is no consensus regarding the content of this saying. Some arguments are that it refers to written cultic by-laws in the Corinthian congregation, political formulae promoting reconciliation, or the politics of building construction in which building contractors direct workers not to violate contract stipulations.281 If option 4 is correct, I tend to agree with John Fitzgerald and others that the saying is pedagogical.282 This passage is filled with pedagogical words including the necessity to learn (4:6), tutors (4:15), parental guidance (4:15), imitation (4:16), remembrance (4:17), and teaching (4:17). We already know that the Corinthians are immature and still have to be taught the basic A, B, C’s of faith because they do not understand spiritual wisdom (2:6–3:4). Hence, Paul instructs them about the cross (1:18–31) and teaches them figurative roles so that they might learn not to pit their leaders against each other (3:5—4:6). They must now learn the saying at hand. This setting evokes a depiction of Paul as teacher of the Corinthian students. Paul’s term for learning (μανθάνω), inter alia was used for those learning how to write.283 Reading and writing were among essential disciplines to be learned from the age of seven, and beginners learned to identify, pronounce, and write the Greek alphabet, often following models from their teacher.284 Teachers trained children how to write the alphabet and basic words by having them trace the letters over the teacher’s own lines (cf. Plato, Protag. 326D; Seneca Lucil. 94.51). Quintilian explains the procedure: “As soon as the child has begun to know the shapes of the various letters, it will be no bad thing to have them cut as accurately as possible upon a board, so that the pen may be guided along the grooves. Thus, mistakes such as occur with wax tablets will be rendered impossible; for the pen will be confined between the edges of the letters and will be prevented from going astray” (Inst. 1.1.27).285 In this light, Paul is quoting to the Corinthians a saying for children learning how to follow their teacher’s instructions and not to write “over the lines.”286 The importance of elegant handwriting is quite evident in papyri, based on school text comments criticizing poor styles.287
Unfortunately, like the other possibilities in option 4, the exact phrase in 4:6 is not found in relevant ancient sources that would confirm this viewpoint. Nevertheless, if the quote was not normally written down but understood orally in that culture, evidence for it may be rather difficult to uncover. Robert Dutch suggests that elitist children may be in view since poor children would not be afforded the opportunity to write, and if so, the idea of elitists being puffed up is relevant for the context: “To indicate that the educated elite need to behave like one learning to write is a put-down. They would be proud of their education that separated them socially from the non-elite in the church.”288 But if so, who among the number of lower class congregation members, many who might not have received even an elementary education, would know the saying? Is Paul targeting here congregants from the upper or at least in-between classes who might understand him? An affirmative answer to this second question cannot be ruled out, especially when his auditors are expected to be familiar with the role of tutors (see 4:15).
Option 5 has its setbacks, too. First, γέγραπται does not introduce a quotation as it does in Paul’s other citations of Scripture; it is part of the quotation. Thus, the “not beyond what is written” seems to be a saying rather than Scripture citation. Second, none of the passages Paul cites earlier mentions being puffed up (φυσιόω). Even so, this notion of being puffed up is similar to and sometimes used in tandem with boasting, and the latter term appears in 4:7.289 In Paul’s most immediate citation in 3:20 (Ps 93[94]:11), the term for boasting, καυχάομαι, appears in Ps 93[94]:3, as well as in Paul’s negative imperative after the reference (3:21). Καυχάομαι is likewise found in the citation of 1:31 (Jer 9:22–23). Although “these things” in 4:6 is more concerned with the content of 3:5—4:5, verse 3:21 may be built on the earlier boasting in 1:31.290 In 4:6, then, is γέγραπται referring to 3:19–21 despite Paul’s convoluted grammar, and would his Gentile audience be informed enough to connect the dots between being puffed up and boasting with Paul’s citation? Perhaps a minority would.
Since both options 4 and 5 seem to target at least a minority of the congregants, another relevant question to ask is this: would Paul make these connections, whether by maxim or citation, regardless of whether most of his auditors would have understood them? I think the answer would be yes. As any learned communicator knows, past or present, certain quotes and words of theirs will not be understood by everyone. Sometimes the words are understood only by few, and yet that does not prevent communicators from saying them anyway. Film makers are experts at this—for example, in a children’s film, the majority of their youthful audiences do not understand every part of the film, especially humorous double entendres that are targeted at their parents! Double entendre (ἀμφιβολία), in fact, was an admirable quality for communicators in the ancient world; use of this device characterized the speeches of Hermocrates of Phocaea (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.609).291 Might Paul being doing something similar here? Perhaps he deliberatively framed his words in a way that would enable some of his auditors to think back on the Scripture he just cited, while others would recognize a popular saying recalling children learning how to write.
Three rhetorical questions now challenge the Corinthians in 4:7:292 Who regards you to be superior (to others)? expects the answer “no one” (cf. Acts 15:9). And what do you have which you did not receive? expects the answer “nothing.” And, why do you boast as though not the receiver? anticipates the response, “I should not be boasting; all that I am and everything I receive is a gift from God.” Seneca admonishes his elite readers that wealth and possessions are meant to share and give away, but instead of being mere stewards of these things, their wealth has caused them to swell with pride and exalt themselves over others (Ben. 6.3.1–4; cf. 2.18.1; 4.6.3). Paul’s words similarly aim to admonish the Corinthians who instead of wealth receive knowledge, salvific benefits, spiritual gifts, and leaders like Paul and Apollos. What they receive should not inflate them with arrogance against others but prompt them with the realization that nothing is theirs as a result of their own achievements. Every good thing they have is a gift from God (cf. Ps 85[84]:12; Jas 1:17; Philo Post. 80)
These questions are followed by three grandiose exclamations: Already you have been satiated! Already you have become rich! Already you have become kings without us! Paul’s irony criticizes the Corinthians’ puffed up attitude by imagining them as smug, wealthy rulers of this world whose high and lofty position contrasts lowly lives like Paul and other apostles.293 These words may reflect sophist boastings (Philo Det. 33–35) or perceptions
