Funerals and baptisms, ordinary and otherwise: ritual criticism and Corinthian rites

Abstract

The emerging field of ritual studies gives Second Testament scholars innovative ways of approaching the rites of the Jesus movement and thus enables them better to re-create the community life reflected in the language of the Second Testament. In the case of Corinth, placing the rites of the Jesus movement there in the context of Mediterranean ritual activity alerts interpreters to an expulsion rite conducted as a funeral at 1 Corinthians 5:2 and directs them to rites with features analogous to baptism on behalf of the dead (1 Cor 15:29). This study sets the Corinthian extension of baptism to the dead alongside funerals conducted for the living and imaginary or honorary funerals, with the aim of characterizing the creative modification rites could undergo in the Greco-Roman world. As a result, a ritual critical approach provides a way of integrating baptism on behalf of the dead into the baptismal practices of the Corinthians, and it suggests how rites marking entry into and exit from their community were related.

**********

A man from Jen asked Wu-lu Tzu, "Which is more important, the rites or food?"

"The rites."

"Which is more important, the rites or sex?"

"The rites."

MENCIUS 6b:1

Ritual Studies and Second Testament Studies

In his magisterial study of Greek religion, Walter Burkert begins treatment of archaic and classical Greek religion, the heart of the work, with these words: "An insight which came to be generally acknowledged in the study of religion towards the end of the last century is that rituals are more important and more instructive for the understanding of the ancient religions than are changeable myths" (54). Burkert aligns his analysis with this insight, placing sacrifice at the center of Greek religion and starting his examination of it with a chapter entitled "Ritual and Sanctuary" (54-118).

What is taken for granted by many historians of ancient Mediterranean religion is alien to others, however. For various reasons enumerated by scholars both in and outside the field, Second Testament scholarship places ritual at the periphery, not the center, of its work (Smith 1990: 34, 43-46, 65-71, 95; Douglas: 19-28; Gorman). Only German religionsgeschichtlich scholarship from the early part of this century came close to paying adequate attention to ritual (e.g., Reitzenstein, Lietzmann). With the field's current interest in recovering the community life behind the writings of early Jesus groups this neglect may come to an end. At this point, however, study of the ritual life of the Jesus movement is in its infancy.

This observation does not belittle existing Second Testament scholarship on ritual as much as underscore how new and, consequently, how experimental the approach is. To date it is critics of the established interpretive paradigm or scholars charting the course of social-scientific interpretation who recognize the centrality of rites to communities and propose treating them. A 1996 issue of METHOD AND THEORY IN THE STUDY OF RELIGION is a good case in point. In an article immediately following Ron Cameron's critique of eschatology as an interpretive category for the Second Testament, Burton Mack calls for a sweeping redescription of the origins of the Jesus movement based in part--the fourth of five propositions or theses--on the central importance of ritual to all human communities (255-56). Baptism and the common meal or last supper appear four times among the thirty issues he lists as needing attention. For one of those issues, "The rationales and practices of baptism," he identifies someone outside the guild of Second Testament scholars, Jonathan Z. Smith, as the person best suited to the task (249, 262). This choice is symptomatic of Mack's unhappiness with his colleagues and the state of the field.

Mack's wish list embodies a polemic that is foreign to John Elliott's WHAT IS SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM? Nevertheless, Elliott, too, makes it clear what Second Testament studies should be doing with regard to Jesus movement rites. In the book's appendices he draws attention both to ritual as a subject of study (Appendix 2) and to ritual studies as an interpretive approach that falls under social-scientific criticism (Appendix 4) (1993:110-21, 124-26).

By comparison, the work already done on Second Testament ritual falls far short of the programs Mack and Elliott call for. One need only look through the pages of the BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN at articles by Mark McVann, Bruce Malina, and Elliott himself (McVann 1988, 1991; Elliott 1991). Recent issues of SEMEIA are also worth mentioning. SEMEIA 41, which treated performative and speech-act theory, and SEMEIA 65, which treated textuality and orality, that is, oral performance, contain articles that bear on ritual (Hancher; Grimes 1988; Ward).

SEMEIA 67 has ritual and the biblical text as its focus, but the title and content of the issue confirm how exploratory, even unformed, the approach is (Hanson; McVann 1994b). TRANSFORMATIONS, PASSAGES, AND PROCESSES: RITUAL APPROACHES TO BIBLICAL TEXTS not only betrays an indebtedness to Victor Turner but also shows a certain open-endedness. The editor, Mark McVann, is frank about this, likening that issue of SEMEIA to a fragile ship venturing into turbulent, murky, and still relatively uncharted waters. What unity there is, he notes, is limited: "There is, then, no unity of point of view, except the recognition that ritual is something important and that biblical scholarship will be well-served by an exploration of its meaning for biblical interpretation (1994a: 10)." SEMEIA 67, it can fairly be said, is experimental, but even more unified studies remain suggestive rather than definitive. The fourth chapter of Jerome Neyrey's PAUL, IN OTHER WORDS treats ritual in Paul under the functional rubrics of making and maintaining (group) boundaries (75-101). That said, it is more a sketch for a larger work than an exhaustive study.