autonomous adjudication of intramural conflict “in complete independ-
ence of ‘the world,’” which is to say, among the “holy” confreres and not
before the “unjust” civic authorities (1 Cor 6:1; R.A. Horsley 1997, 245).
Nonetheless, R.A. Horsley claims, this “did not mean completely shutting
themselves off from the society in which they lived”; “[t]he believers should
thus not cut off all contact with ‘the immoral of this world, or the greedy
and robbers’” (1997, 245)—even though this is precisely what the rhetoric
of 1 Corinthians 5–6 repeatedly implies. As R.A. Horsley himself contends:
“The assembly’s independence and autonomy, moreover, meant that mem-
bers should work out any and alldisputes within the community and have
norelations with the dominant society, such as resorting to the established
courts” (1997, 246; emphasis mine).
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 8–10, regarding the consumption of food-
offered-to-idols, R.A. Horsley writes: “Paul insists on political-religious sol-
idarity over againstthe dominant society which was constituted precisely in
such banquets or ‘fellowship/sharing’ with gods. For the members of the
new alternative community that meant cutting themselves offfrom the very
means by which their previously essential social-economic relations were
maintained” (1997, 249; emphasis mine). According to R.A. Horsley: “The
law and the courts in the Roman Empire were instruments of social con-
trol, a vested interest of the wealthy and powerful elite which operated for
their own advantage over that of those of lesser status.” Paul’s insistence
that “the assembly run its own affairs” would represent “a complete dec-
laration of independence and autonomy” akin to other contemporary
“[s]tatements of self-government” (R.A. Horsley 1997, 246–47; cf. Wengst
1986, 76–77, who underscores repeatedly that, in 1 Cor. 6:1–8, Paul “pre-
supposes the recognition of law and norms,” despite the inherent injustice
of the Roman legal system).
In fact, Paul’s outrage at the Corinthian community’s practice expresses
not diplomatic anxiety about imprudent behaviour or a strategic misstep
but, rather, reflects the standard anxieties of ancient honour: “Or do you
not know that the ‘saints’ will judge the world?...Do you not know that we
shall judge angels, not to mention biotica?” (1 Cor. 6:2–3). The underlying
rationale is the old-fashioned one of the hierarchy of superior over inferior:
in R.A. Horsley’s terms, the purview of an “elite [to wit, the ‘saints’] which
operated for their own advantage [to inherit the kingdom of God: see 1 Cor.
6:9–10] over that of those of lesser status,” for example, all the “bad” peo-
ple listed in 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9–10. There is little, if anything, in Paul’s
argument here to distinguish early Christian aspirations from those of the
last legal lords.
Why Christianity Succeeded (in) the Roman Empire 275