Читать книгу 1 Corinthians - B. J. Oropeza - Страница 10

After the letter’s introduction Paul jumps straight into his primary concern and purpose for writing to the Corinthians—he appeals that members live in unity with one another and end their internal divisions (1:10). This is the letter’s prothesis, which sets forth what the communicator intends to prove; it functions as the statement of purpose for the entire discourse (see also Introduction).75 The appeal in 1:10 also suggests the letter body is deliberative in terms of rhetorical species.76 Corporate unity and factions is language relevant to the political sphere, and our apostle primarily attempts to persuade the congregation to take a futuristic course of action in favor of solidarity.

The theme of bodily unity and discord is clearly prominent in various passages, but sometimes it is more implicit in others. After the prothesis, a brief statement of facts or narratio then follows in which Paul mentions that he learned of the factions from Chloe’s people, and he addresses their divisions over apostolic leaders (1:11–17).77 Repetition (anaphora) of the phrase “I am of . . . ” followed by a string of ironic rhetorical questions elicit pathos. We find here a passionate apostle reasoning with this congregation against their divisive behavior. This section is followed up by supporting proofs of the prothesis starting in 1:18. The divisive allegiances named in 1:12 are repeated in chapter 3, providing a subtle structural message:

A Allegiances Divide the Body of Christ (1:10–17)

B The Cross of Christ and Spiritual Wisdom Mend Divisions (1:18—2:17)

A1 Allegiances Divide the Temple of God (3:1—4:5)

Paul then discloses how he has presented himself as a paradigm to imitate in order to end these allegiances (4:6–21).

Appeal to Unity (1:10)

The exhortative, I appeal to you, forms an inclusio with 4:16, which suggests that the first four chapters function as a unit with this same theme.78 When the apostle makes strong urges he often addresses recipients as brothers and sisters (1:10; 16:15; Rom 12:1; 1 Thess 4:10; 5:14). This designation often identifies the beginning of a new topic or pericope in this letter (2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 10:1; 12:1; 14:6; 15:1). Such familial language exhibits Paul’s solidarity with them so as to make what he insists on more attractive.79 It likewise evokes pathos; the recipients get the impression that family members are to be affectionate with one another, and to live in agreement.80 Although familial language is informal and compatible with private letters, Paul’s appeal by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ gives the letter a formal ring found in public and official letters.81 Paul speaks as Christ’s representative, as though Christ himself were present and making the appeal.82 The letter, then, portrays Paul with the blended imagery of a family member and political delegate, and his message is both affectionate yet authoritative.

He challenges them to strive for agreement by speaking the same thing regarding the issues he will address. They are to be restored to a condition they originally had when united in the same mindset and opinion.83 His appeal invites them to recall their solidarity as one body in Christ after their conversion, a thought that naturally leads to a discussion about baptism in 1:13–17. At the same time, this exhortation aims to prohibit schisms from continuing among them. The idea of unity in the face of schism finds special relevance in the type of strife and quarreling typical of rhetorical students competing against one another (see on 1:17; 3:1–3). It is also found in political debates.84 The oratory and political realms frequently overlapped one another, especially when sophists participated in city assemblies and could be sent on embassies before magistrates. Often, their success in political circles caused them to be puffed up and provoked caricatures of them as windbags.85 Our apostle’s language imagines a situation in which the strife in Corinth includes comparisons related to persona and quarrels over the oratory skills of their Christian leaders.86

Divisive Alliances and Baptism (1:11–17)

The reason Paul exhorts them is because it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers and sisters, by those of Chloe, that there are discords among you. Chloe is presumably a member of the Corinthian congregation who is an independent woman of high status, the mater familias or head of her own household. Those associated with her probably belong to her household, whether family members, slaves, or former slaves.87 They appear to be carriers of the Corinthians’ letter to Paul (see 7:1).88 They either told him about divisions that were not mentioned in the letter, or more likely, he received this news from the letter (and perhaps their elaboration of it) that they read to him. In ancient papyri letters the passive reporting used here normally refers to written rather than oral information.89

In 1:11 the word for discord (ἔρις) Philo uses to describe sophist rivalries (Mut. 10; Her. 246).90 Eris is also the name of the goddess of discord. In Greek mythology she creates a golden apple with the inscription, “For the fairest,” and presents it as a gift at a wedding feast. Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite, goddesses at the feast, quarrel over which one of them should have the apple. Zeus instructs them to ask the noble-bred Paris of Troy to decide which goddess is the fairest, and he chooses Aphrodite who had bribed him with the promise of giving him beautiful Helen, wife of Menelaus the Mycenaean.91 When Paris abducts Helen, this ignites the entire tragedy of the Trojan War. As anyone in the ancient Mediterranean informed by this story would know, the potential damage that discord might initiate is virtually immeasurable! Eris now threatened the church in Corinth.92

Rivalry in this congregation centers on members claiming I am of Paul, and others, I am of Apollos, and still others, I am of Cephas.93 Various attempts have been made to identify these groups.94 Some important observations we suggest are as follows. First, except perhaps for the last claim, I am of Christ, these allegiances do not appear to be Paul’s invention of Corinthian divisions.95 He repeats the first two claims in 3:4 and the first three in 3:22. Had Paul invented these, his repetition would only serve to irritate the Corinthians who knew their own state of affairs better than Paul. They would doubtless contest his repeated claims of these alliances if they were not true. Second, there is no clear evidence that Paul, Apollos, or Cephas instigated or encouraged these allegiances. The Corinthians probably instigated this rivalry themselves, which stems from their lack of maturity as well as worldly influences. Third, this problem does not seem to involve well-established parties who have drawn their lines in the sand over distinctive theological positions.96 The congregation members are being vocal about their preferences for one leader over the other, which as chapters 1–4 unfold, has more to do with prestige, persona, and oratory skills than the doctrines these leaders teach.

Why wouldn’t Paul commend members who respected his apostolic authority when claiming, I am of Paul? Context reflects that they or their rivals or both expressed their loyalty with strife and derision against other members who did not share their sentiment. They may have quarreled with those who affirmed, I am of Apollos. The two groups apparently argued over who was the better minister (3:4–9; 4:1–6). If Acts 18:24—19:1 correctly portrays Apollos as an eloquent and forceful speaker, his supporters in Corinth likely argued that he was the better orator.97 Paul does not appear to have any problem with Apollos’ eloquent style; his problem is with Corinthian evaluations of that style in competition with other styles, such as his own. Comparisons of this sort provoke strife, arrogance, and encourage status seeking, as explicated in chapters 1–4. Paul challenges them instead with the radically different perspective that apostolic proclamations are centered on weakness and humility characterizing Christ’s crucifixion, and they operate with Spirit-endowed wisdom (1:18—2:16).

Paul repeats the third claim I am of Cephas (Peter) again in 3:22,98 which steers us away from accepting the allegiance as purely invention. If a faction relates to this leader it probably did not consist of many members; otherwise, we might expect Paul to discuss Peter as much as he does Apollos in later chapters (cf. 4:6). We can safely rule out the antiquated view that the apostles from Jerusalem or proselytizers in the name of Peter stirred up this contention in Corinth.99 Earlier discords that Paul experienced in Jerusalem and Antioch with the circumcision party and Peter (Gal 2:1–15) are not problems in Corinth. If he were still in contention with Peter, we could surmise that Paul would not have mentioned him favorably in 9:5 and 15:5. A small minority of Corinthians may have regarded Peter’s apostleship to be more authoritative than Paul’s because Peter knew the pre-Easter Jesus personally and led the original witnesses (e.g., Acts 1–2). Perhaps he recently visited Corinth with his wife and left a positive impression (9:4–5).100

Unlike the other claims, I am of Christ is not repeated again. Is Paul referring to maverick members who reject all human leaders and listen only to Christ, whether by adhering only to Jesus’s oral teachings or listening to his words allegedly through visions, prophecy, or some other charismatic experience? This is possible, but given that Paul ultimately supports this allegiance by affirming that the Corinthians belong to Christ (3:23; 6:15, 20), it may be better to suggest that this particular claim is Paul’s own invention.101 If so, this is an ironic twist that ends the string of claims by redirecting Corinthian thought to the perspective that all of them belong to Christ. This naturally leads to the rhetorical question Is Christ divided? The picture presented here invites the congregation to view its members in solidarity as one corporate body in Christ. Contrariwise their divisions evoke an image of Christ’s body being dismembered. The feet no longer claim to be part of the same body with the hands. The ears no longer claim to be part of the same body with the eyes. Christ’s limbs are being split apart.102 The rhetorical force of this question thus prompts the response, “No, Christ is not split up!”

The subsequent questions and context of 1:13–17 recall the Corinthians’ conversion (1:2) and present the ironic image of Paul being crucified for them and they being baptized into his name. These questions expect the reply, “No, it was Jesus, not Paul, who was crucified for us and we are baptized in Jesus’s name!” Our apostle plays down the importance of his own role by claiming that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas (Acts 18:8; Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 16:17).103 The households of Crispus and Gaius may be included though not mentioned.104 Paul’s trivialization may suggest that members thought themselves superior to others based on the prominence of the minister who had baptized them.105 Perhaps in their new faith they still assumed from mystery religions that ceremonies of initiation created a special bond between the initiator and the one initiated.106 Prior to their conversion some of them may have participated in such cults (cf. 12:2). The result in any case spelled tragedy—one of the very things that united unrelated Jews and Gentiles into one body as siblings in Christ had become a rallying point for divisions (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27–28). This problem prompts Paul to make the unusual assertion that Christ sent me not to baptize but to proclaim the gospel about Christ crucified. Exactly who he baptizes is unimportant, for Paul is called to proclaim the gospel rather than perform baptisms (9:16; 15:1; Gal 1:15–16; Rom 15:20).107 This sense of priorities is important for the Corinthians to know because they have a “tendency to magnify the messengers and miss the message.”108

Even the very message of the gospel Paul must qualify so that it, too, does not become a pawn of these divisions through preferences over which minister proclaims it. The gospel he preaches is not with clever wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ be rendered ineffectual.109 The “wisdom of speech” expressed in 1:17, when compared with 2:1–5 that also generally combines σοφία (“wisdom”) with λόγος (“speech”), provides us with a strong clue that Paul is referring primarily to speeches associated with sophist rhetoricians. Though at times wisdom distinguishes philosophers from sophists (Plato, Gorgias; Plutarch, De laude 12 [543E–F]), it was also understood in relation to those possessing practical expertise, cleverness, and rhetorical skill.110 Wisdom found special relevance in the rhetorical traditions of Greeks and Romans.111 Eloquence and wisdom were in fact closely aligned as the rhetorical handbooks confirm; the former, for example, Cicero perceives as “nothing else but wisdom delivering copious utterance” (Part. or. 23.XXIII.79).112 Paul speaks against a type of rhetoric similar to the sophists, which the Corinthians seem to hold in high esteem. Such speaking for Paul should never become the ground for disrupting fellowship, and it must not be permitted to eclipse the message of the cross that saves, transforms, and empowers lives.

75. Aristotle distinguishes between the “statement of the case” (πρόθεσις) and the proof for it (Rhet. 3.13.1–2). The Latin propositio is the equivalent (Witherington 1995:94).

76. See Inkelaar 2011:77–80, 143; Mitchell 1991:198­–99; cf. 20–64, 68–111.

77. On narratio/diēgēsis, see e.g., Quintilian Inst. 4.2.1–3, 31; Cicero Inv. 1.19.27–30; Kennedy 1984:24.

78. The appeal, παρακαλῶ, commonly appears in deliberative rhetoric, whether in oratory or epistolary form (e.g., Isocrates Or. 5.13.114; Ep. 1.5; Demosthenes Ep. 1.10; Mitchell 1991:44­).

79. See Trebilco 2012:26.

80. Cf. Plutarch Frat. amor. 2.1[478D–479B]; Collins 1999:71.

81. Likewise, παρακαλῶ is found both in official (Schnabel 2006:85) and private letters (Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006:58).

82. Cf. Steyn 1996:484.

83. To be restored (κατηρτισμένοι; see LSJ 910) is variously rendered “be made complete” (NASB), “be perfectly joined together” (AV), “be refurbished” (Garland 2003:40). The idea of restoration, of fixing what is broken, dislocated, or torn (σχίσμα can refer to a rift or tear) best fits the idea of a fragmented corporate body.

84. e.g., Polybius Hist. 5.104.1; Josephus A.J. 12.283; further, Malcolm 2013b:8–9; Welborn 1987b:85–107.

85. See Winter 2001:32, 38; Thiselton 2000:117.

86. See Introduction; Excursus at 2:1–5.

87. Other options include that they are business agents of Chloe (possibly a non-Christian from Ephesus: Fee 1987:54) or a woman’s group opposed to hierarchical structures of the factional groups (Schottroff 2012:720–21).

88. On slaves as couriers, see Richards 2004:181. On Stephanas as the courier back to Corinth, see 16:17.

89. See ἐδηλώθη and examples in Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006:59–64.

90. See further, Winter 2001:38–39.

91. Stasinus Cypria; Lucian Dial.d. 20; Mulroy 2012:80–82.

92. On ἔρις in vice lists, see 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Rom 1:29; 13:13; 1 Clem. 35.5; 3 Bar. 8.5.

93. The genitive of relationship in Greek is used in 1:12: “I [am] of,” or more freely, “I belong to” (3:22–23).

94. See surveys in Adams/Horrell 2004:13–26; Sumney 1999:34–78; Merklein 1992:1.134-52; Hurd 1965:75–142.

95. If the four slogans are caricatures of Corinthian allegiances (so Mitchell 1991:83–86), the first three seem real regardless of the precise words congregants might have used.

96. Rightly, Strüder 2003:431–55. Similarly, Clarke 1993:92–93.

97. On Apollos’s eloquence, see Pogoloff 1992:181–83; Winter 2002:178. More speculatively, Welborn 2011:403–10, suggests that Apollos accepted financial support in Corinth, and Gaius was his patron.

98. “Peter” (Greek Petros), the name Jesus gave Simon (Matt 16:17–18), is equivalent to the Aramaic Kepha’ according to Fitzmyer 2008:143.

99. Revived recently by Goulder 2002. Against this view of the opponents in 2 Cor 3, see Oropeza 2016:232–38.

100. See Barrett 1982:28–39.

101. Prothro 2014:250–65, argues from the grammatical sequence “μέν . . . δὲ . . . δὲ . . .” in 1:12 that a break in the fourth claim, “I am of Christ” cannot be ruled out.

102. Conversely, see 12:14–17. The passive μερίζω in 1:13 suggests being “split up”: see LSJ 1103.

103. Nash 2009:18, provides a convenient list of Corinthian members.

104. Cf. Acts 18:8; Pascuzzi 2009:823–24.

105. Another option is that the perpetrators of this division gave “special authority” to baptize only to certain leaders but not others: cf. Schottroff 2012:720–21.

106. See Chester 2003:290, 303.

107. “For” in 1:17 refers to 1:16b and explains “that is not my calling—nor my point” (Fee 1987:63).

108. Hays 1997:24.

109. In 1 Cor 1–3 the nuance of σοφία (“wisdom”) varies depending on verse: cf. Mihaila 2009:92–93; Barrett 1968:67–68. Here the shade of cleverness/eloquence is apparent; at times philosophy may be more evident as Keener 2016:176, suggests. See options in Kammler 2003:28.

110. Cf. Pogoloff 1992:111–12; Litfin 1994:192; Vos 1996:93–94.

111. Cf. Litfin 189.

112. See also Quintilian Inst. 12.2.6; Cicero Inv. 1.1; cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 47.1.