Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:01:17.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Genre of 1 Corinthians 131

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

James G. Sigountos
James G. Sigountos
Affiliation:
(Alliance Theological Seminary, 122 S. Highland Ave., Nyack, New York 10960, USA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The genre of 1 Cor 13 remains a problem, despite nearly universal agreement on the structure of the chapter. Eleven different genres have been proposed.Yet, as D. A. Carson has noted, only two of those options, hymn and paraenesis, have attracted much scholarly backing.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 246 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Wischmeyer, O., Der höchste Weg: Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (SNT 13; Gütersloh; Mohn, 1981) 195–205Google Scholar. The summary list is on p. 205.

3 Carson, D. A., Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 52.Google Scholar

4 Contra Berger, K., Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984) 217–18Google Scholar (‘protreptische Mahnrede’); see also his longer discussion in ‘Hellenistische Gattungen und Neues Testament’, ANRW II.25.2, 1138–45, esp. 1140. On paraenesis, see Aune, D. E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 194–7Google Scholar. The claim of Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 626Google Scholar, esp. n. 5, that ‘praise of “virtue” or “eros” is not quite the same thing as an exhortation to agape’ founders on the observation (noted below) that encomia served hortatory purposes in antiquity.

5 Holladay, C. R., ‘1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm’, Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. Balch, D. L., Ferguson, E., and Meeks, W. A.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990) 81.Google Scholar In a similar vein, Martin, R. P., The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 42Google Scholar, has suggested that this chapter is an aretalogy, but the problems with this identification are well documented, though relating to a different text, by Lee, T. R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50 (SBLDS 75; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1986) 42–3.Google Scholar

6 Some, such as Fee, Corinthians, 626, and Carson, Showing the Spirit, 52, question the value of the parallels, but Spicq, C., Agapè dans le Nouveau Testament (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1959) 2.63Google Scholar, correctly recognizes that Paul's composition is too close to the parallels to ignore, for ‘… il est assuré que saint Paul, pour mettre en valeur l'excellence de la charité, s'est conformé à l'usage de la rhétorique classique, rédigeant sa composition sur le type traditionnel des éloges de vertus’.

7 Apart from the remark of Spicq quoted in the previous note, the other modern suggestion that 1 Cor 13 is epideictic rhetoric was made by Robert Grant, M., ‘Hellenistic Elements in I Corinthians’, Early Christian Origins (ed. Wikgren, A. P.; Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961) 65Google Scholar, where he calls it ‘Paul's panegyric on Christian love’, and states that it ‘reflects a careful study either of rhetorical manuals or of some literary model or models’. His later commentary on 1 Clement identifies chapter 49 as ‘a panegyric’; Grant, R. M. and Graham, H. H., 1 Clement: Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary (ed. Grant, R. M.; New York: Nelson, 1965) 2.80Google Scholar. His usage of the term should probably be interpreted in the broad meaning, as in Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984) 26Google Scholar, rather than the more restrictive technical definition, as correctly given by Lee, Sirach, 91–5. Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 18,156, refers to 1 Cor 13 as an encomium, but provides no analysis. Mack, B. M., Rhetoric and the New Testament (Fortress, 1990) 64–6Google Scholar, offers an analysis of 1 Cor 13 as an encomium, but the sequence of topics fits neither the Greek handbooks and examples discussed below, nor Mack's own presentation of the topics on p. 48.

8 As I was sending this manuscript off, Smit, J., ‘The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in the Light of Ancient Rhetoric’, NovT 33 (1991) 193–216Google Scholar appeared. Smith comes to the same conclusion as I do, using three major Latin handbooks, rather than the Greek materials that will be cited below. But as Russell, D. A. and observe, N. G. Wilson, ‘The Latin panegyrici are less close to M[enander]'s scheme than their Greek contemporaries, though naturally they use many of the same topics’ (Menander Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon, 1981] 270Google Scholar). This observation explains Smit's belaboured and less than convincing discussion (pp. 206–9) of the sequence of topics in 1 Cor 13, for Paul's composition conforms precisely to the order of the Greek handbooks, rather than the Latin ones. The following paper does not otherwise interact with Smit's article, which contains much valuable information on rhetorical Style, a topic which can very profitably be studied from the Latin rhetoricians.

9 For the literature on encomia, see Lee, Sirach, 103, n. 69.

10 Burgess, T. C., ‘Epideictic Literature’, Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1902) 119–20.Google Scholar

11 See the edition of Rizzo, J. J., The Encomium of Gregory Nazianzen by Nicetas the Paphlagonian (Subsidia Hagiographica 58; Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1976)Google Scholar.

12 Theon is first-century, according to Kennedy, G. A., Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton, 1983) 56–7Google Scholar. The reference to encomia of virtues is in Rhetores Graeci (ed. L. Spengel; Leipzig: Teubner, 1854) 2.112Google Scholar, lines 14–15: τά δέ τῶν άψύχων έγκώμια, οίον μέλιτος, ύγείας, άρετῆς, καί τῶν παραπλησίων, άναλόγως ποιησόμεθα άπό τῶν προειρημένων τόπων έπιχειροῦνντες, έξ ν ἅν δυνατόν .

13 Hermogenes: έγκωμιάζομεν δέ καί πράγματα οον δικαιοσύνην, 2.11.20–1, Spengel; Aphthonius: Έγκωμιατέζομεν δέ … πράγματα δέ ώς δικαιοσύνην σωφροσύνην, 21.12–15 Rabe.

14 Aphthonius, 25.1–27.11 Rabe; Libanius in Foerster, R., Libanii Operi (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1927Google Scholar; reprinted Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1963) 8.257–61; 306–24.

15 See Marrou, H. I., History of Education in Antiquity (London: Sheed and Ward, 1956) 172, 282–3Google Scholar, and Stanley Bonner, F., Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley: University of California, 1977) 250–3.Google Scholar

16 For the outline, see, e.g., Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature’, 120–6; Lee, Sirach, 188–206; Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, xiii-xxix, 270.

17 Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature’, 121.

18 Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 219–20.Google Scholar

19 Somewhat different outlines can be found in Dover, K., Plato: Symposium (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980) 123–4Google Scholar, and Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, xiv–xv. This speech is very similar in its construction to the outline found in Theon, 2.109–12, Spengel, and is discussed by Marrou, Education, 198–9, and Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature’, 131–2. For some reason, Conzelmann, Corinthians, 219, cites only part of the speech. This omission makes it difficult at best to see the structural correspondence between Agathon's speech and 1 Cor 13.

20 I am indebted to Prof. Elizabeth Asmis of the University of Chicago Classics Department for pointing this last feature out to me, and for identifying the short epilogue. Her comments on a 1980 draft of this paper were extremely helpful.

21 As it is not possible to understand the latter passage without considering the larger context of 3.1–4.63, the speeches in 4.1–32 will also be considered.

22 The other two encomia are also worth study, but they are less significant for the topic at hand.

23 Aphthonius 31.10 Rabe.

24 Compare Aphthonius' advice, cited above, to close with a solemn prayer.

25 Sirach, 206–39; Balch, D. L., ‘Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus on the Jews’, JSJ 13 (1982) 102–22.Google Scholar

26 A comprehensive survey of rhetorically oriented interpretations of Paul may be found in Hughes, F. W., Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians (JSNTSup 30; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989)Google Scholar. More general bibliographies may be found in Watson, D. F., ‘The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliography’, JETS 31 (1988) 465–72Google Scholar, and idem, The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliographical Update’, JETS 33 (1990) 513–24.Google Scholar

27 Contra Wischmeyer, Weg, 205, who asserts that there is no direct praise in 1 Cor 13, as there is in 1 Esdras 4.

28 Lee, 179–81 is a good survey; Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2nd ed.; München: Max Hueber, 1973)Google Scholar §404, ‘Die comparatio eignet sich besonders für das epideiktische genus …’

29 The epilogue actually extends into 14.1a, as will be suggested below.

30 Conzelmann, Corinthians, 223; followed in great detail by Wischmeyer, Weg, 208–17. So sure is Wischmeyer of this approach that she begins (207) her treatment of the various forms with the statement ‘… daβ nämlich 1 Kor 13 eine geformte Rede sei. Dies ist in der Tat überall anerkannt und steht nicht eigens zur Diskussion’.

31 The problem is well summarized by Holladay, ‘1 Corinthians 13’, 80–1.

32 So correctly, Petzer, J. H., ‘Contextual Evidence in Favor of καυχήσωμαι in 1 Corinthians 13.3’, NTS 35 (1989) 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but it seems unlikely that verse 3 describes χαρίσματα Rather, just as verse 2 goes beyond the tongues mentioned in verse 1, so also verse 3 goes beyond the spiritual gifts of verses 1 and 2 to the topic of rewards for self-sacrifice.

33 Of course, one should not suggest that Paul thought that tongues, prophecy, or sacrificial giving should be discarded. The comparison simply shows the great importance of love.

34 Claude, Jenkins, ed., ‘Origen on 1 Corinthians IV’, JTS 10 (1909) 32Google Scholar, §49, ‘… it is not possible to know all mysteries and all knowledge’ (italics and translation mine).

35 Adapted from Petzer, ‘καυχήσωμαι’, 235.

36 Conzelmann, Corinthians, 221, n. 27.

37 Spicq, Agapè, 2.66–7; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 221 n. 27; Petzer, καυχήσωμαι’, 239, n. 3.

38 Petzer, ‘καυχήσωμαι’, 240, argues similarly.

39 On Romans 8.26, see Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 1.421–2Google Scholar. Conzelmann, Corinthians, 221, n. 27, refers to 2 Cor 12.4, but hearing in the third heaven does not necessarily presuppose an angelic language accessible to humans.

40 Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: UBS, 1971) 563–4Google Scholar; Petzer, ‘καυχήσωμαι’.

41 Fee, Corinthians, 634.

42 Fee, Corinthians, 635.

43 Petzer, ‘καυχήσωμαι’, 241.

44 Understood here with the use of defamiliarization, as understood in Russian Formalism, see Ibid., 234, n. 1.

45 The same thought is expressed in Ibid., 247, ‘How can someone else profit from the death of a martyr?’, and could be answered from 4 Mace 17.20–2.

46 Martin, Spirit and Congregation, 45–6.

47 So correctly Fee, Corinthians, 634; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 564.

48 Similarly, the very strangeness of the phrase ‘give over my body that I may be burned’ underscores the unlikeliness of the act, contra Fee, Corinthians, 634.

49 Nock, A. D., Conversion (Oxford: University, 1933Google Scholar; reprinted, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988) 201.

50 Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature’, 123; Lee, Sirach, 201.

51 Lee, Sirach, 202–3.

52 Aphthonius 26, Rabe.

53 RSV. The list of Eros' deeds in Symposium 197cl-d5 is similarly a string of short verbal phrases with Eros as the subject.

54 Robertson, A. and Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC, 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914) 292Google Scholar: ‘… aimed at the special faults of the Corinthians’. See also Spicq, Agapè, 2.77, n. 3; Fee, Corinthians, 636.

55 Fee, Corinthians, 626.

56 Compare Holladay, ‘1 Corinthians 13’, 81: ‘Few, if any, would now deny its Pauline authorship’ with Mack, Rhetoric, 64–5: ‘Paul made use of the poem …’

57 Lee, Sirach, 183–4.

58 This observation has great significance for the meaning of 1 Cor 13 within the wider context of chapters 12–14, a topic I hope to explore in a later article.

59 Aristotle Rhetoric 1.9.41; since praise and blame are contraries, once one knows the sources of praise one also knows the sources of blame. Aphthonius notes that ‘[The vituperation, or ψόγος] is divided into the same headings as the encomium’ 27.17–18 Rabe.

60 So correctly, Wolff, C., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8–16 (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische, 1982) 123Google Scholar; Fee, Corinthians, 637 (though his suggestion that οủ ζηλοî refers primarily to the leaders of an anti-Paul movement founders on 3.3: the ζῆλος is in the community, not just its leaders.

61 Could ‘… I shall know not the logos of the “puffed-up ones”, but rather their power’ be the background for the ‘super apostles’ of 2 Cor 10–13, who are interested in just such a challenge?

62 Clement of Rome uses the same strategy when, in a letter condemning divisions in Corinth, the acts in this encomium of love state that ‘Love knows nothing of schism, love does not rebel, love does all things in harmony’ (1 Clem. 49.5).

63 Witness, e.g., the discussions of Spicq, Agapè, 2.81–91; Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 293–4, and Fee, Corinthians, 637–9. Certainly the Corinthians understood them.

64 H. Braun, ‘περπερεύομαι’, TDNT 6.93–4.

65 Horsley, R., ‘Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom at Corinth’, CBQ 39 (1977) 224–39Google Scholar; Braun, ‘περπερεύομαι’, 94, ‘The broader context at least hints at the rhetorical and aesthetic background of περπερύεσθαι with the rejection of σοφί λόγου …’; also Wolff, Korinther, 123. Braun's suggestion that the verb should be linked with ζηλοί should be rejected, as the negative verbs describe a series of independent actions.

66 See Cranfield, Romans, 1.126.

67 Spicq, Agapè, 2.87.

68 Quotation is from Martin, Spirit and Congregation, 50; Fee, Corinthians, 639. See also Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 294.

69 Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 294.

70 The specific comparison is between the Corinthian's όδός, expreseed in 12.31a, ζηλοῦτε δέ τά χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα and Paul's όδός in 14.1a, διώκετε τήνὰγάπην. I hope to defend this idea in a subsequent article. Implicit comparison is also used in the acts section of the third speech (on women) in 1 Esdras 4.15–16.

71 Lund, N. W., ‘The Literary Structure of Paul's Hymn to Love’, JBL 50 (1931) 271.Google Scholar

72 E.g., Fee, Corinthians, 641–2; Martin, Spirit and Congregation, 52–4; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 225; Carson, Showing the Spirit, 66.

73 Lee, Sirach, 203–6.

74 Correctly, Carson, Showing the Spirit, 72–5, esp. 74; Fee, Corinthians, 651.

75 Lee, Sirach, 205–6. See also the examples cited by Balch, ‘Two Apologetic Encomia’, 121, n. 31, and the discussion of hortatory elements in encomia in Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature’, 229–34.

76 While the foregoing is lexically true, semantically οίκοδομή in chapter 14 appears to be merely a concrete manifestation of άγάπη.

77 For a similar device in the OT, see Goldin, Judah, ‘The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?’, JBL 96 (1977) 27Google Scholar, n. 4. To fully justify reading διώκετε τήν άγάπην with chapter 13 will involve an analysis of the argument structure of chapters 12–14 and the exact place of the encomium within that structure, topics I hope to treat in a subsequent article. Clement of Rome seems also to have ended his encomium of love with a hortatory subjunctive, 1 Clem 50.2.