PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

Evidence of an Editor
Gerhard Sellin argues that an editorial purpose in canonical 1 Corinthians is both
reasonable and observable. 6 He suggests that after the time of Paul, it became useful and
necessary to systematise Pauline thought for contemporary guidance. Thus, letter-portions
of a similar character were brought together, resulting in two editorial collections
(canonical 1 and 2 Corinthians).
For Harry Gamble, this direction of argument is important if redaction theories are to be
taken seriously:
[T]he redaction of a letter must have a Sitz im Leben, and the cogency of a
redactional hypothesis will necessarily depend not only on its ability to overcome
the literary aporias but also on its capacity to rationalize the redactional effort as
such, i.e., to clarify the editorial Sitz im Leben in its various aspects. This would
entail consideration of the questions how, when, by whom, and to what purpose
the supposed editorial work may have been undertaken. 7
Robert Jewett 8 and Khiok-Khng Yeo 9 argue at length for a redactional Sitz im Leben that
justifies viewing the canonical letters as editorial products. Influenced by Schmithals,
Jewett argues for the detection of distinct historical situations in 1 Corinthians. These
distinct situations are responded to by Paul with distinct material, which can be described
broadly as potentially pro-Gnostic and charismatic on the one hand, and insistently anti-
Gnostic and institutional on the other hand. Yeo discerns these two different backgrounds
behind different parts of 1 Corinthians 8–10, thus suggesting a later editorial combining of
different letters:
6
Gerhard Sellin, “Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes,” ANRW II, 25/4 (1987):
2940-3044; 2981.
7
Gamble, “Redaction,” 403.
8
Robert Jewett, “The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline
School,” JAAR 44/4 Supplement (1978): 398-444.
9
Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction.
68