PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

Witherington follows Mitchell in viewing 1:10 as the programmatic thesis statement or
propositio of the letter, 111 setting the theme for the entire discourse, as elaborated by a
short narratio in 1:11-17. This passage as a whole is said to set up chapters 1–4 as:
an exposition of true wisdom (as offered in the gospel) meant to cause the
Corinthians to decide to change their factious behavior. 112
It does seem that this section envisages divisions that are political in nature, rather than
doctrinal. The use of similar formulations in Greco-Roman 113 and Jewish 114 depictions of
the Sophists, 13.10). Philo writes: “Now I am speaking of those who are unclean,
meaning those who have never tasted education, or those who act treacherously: Having
received education in a crooked way, they have transformed the beauty of wisdom
[σοφίας] into the ugliness of sophistry [σοφιστείας]” (Philo, Every Good Man is Free, 4).
Dio Chrysostom describes a trip to Corinth, perhaps actually in the late first century: “And
there at this time, around the temple of Poseidon, one could hear many of the wicked
Sophists, crying out and reviling one another, and their so-called disciples fighting one
another… [and] myriads of lawyers, twisting judgements” (Dio Chrysostom, Eighth
Discourse: On Virtue (Diogenes), 8.4b-6).
111 As does Collins: “The identification of 1 Cor 1:10… as the formal expression of Paul’s
thesis allows the letter to be seen as a plea for the unity of the community”. Collins, First
Corinthians, 14.
112 Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 98. Cf.
Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 65-66. As Martin points out, “socio-rhetorical
commentaries often rely on a classical rhetorical arrangement”. Martin, “Invention and
Arrangement,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. Sampley and Lampe), 53; note 20.
113 Depictions of political “division” by Greco-Roman speakers and writers often include
the problems of “zeal” and “strife”, and call for unity of mind and purpose for the sake of
political harmony. Diodorus’ account of battle and betrayal is simply notable for using the
same terms that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians to depict division and factions: “When the
treason became obvious to all throughout the city, and the multitudes were divided into
factions – those wishing to fight with the Athenians, and those wishing to help the
Lakedemonians, a certain person, acting on his own initiative, proclaimed that those who
wished could take up arms with the Athenians and Megarians” (Diodorus Siculus,
Library, 12.66.2). Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus is illustrative of the fact that influential
Greek literature commonly combined the problems of zeal and strife, as Paul goes on to
do in 1 Corinthians: “As when he has reached the end of youth, bearing its light follies,
what plagues are outside a person’s great suffering? Are there any troubles a person does
not experience? Envy, factions, strife, fights, and murders” (Sophocles, Oedipus at
Colonus, 1230-1235). Plutarch uses similar terminology to describe political unrest: “For
conflicting passions and violent motions prevailed in every place. For those rejoicing did
not keep quiet but came face to face with those who were in much fear and suffering in
such a great city; and, being arrogant about what was coming, came into strife with them”
(Plutarch, Lives, Caesar, 32.2-3).
114 Jewish writers similarly appeal for harmony in the face of divisive “strife”. Pseudo-
Phocylides illustrates: “They [that is, the sun and the moon] always have harmony; for if
there were strife among the blessed ones, heaven would not stand” (Pseudo-Phocylides,
Sentences, 74-75). Josephus blames problems on political factionalism, and reports the
159