PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

more significantly still, his apostolic kerygma – on the macro-structure of his letters seems
unnecessarily limiting and exegetically unsatisfying. Christopher Forbes argues that such
an approach (aligning a Pauline letter with one of the “three kinds of rhetoric”) is an
anachronistic over-simplification. He concludes:
In brief, then, I have doubts about the historical usefulness of much current
macro-level rhetorical analysis. 56
Pastoral Rhetoric; Pragmatic Coherence
Hurd interacts to some degree with Epistolary Analysis, but hints that formal conventions
are subject to a more fundamental determiner of structure in 1 Corinthians, namely Paul’s
pastoral strategy. Hurd’s opening question below relates to a table in which Hurd
suggests, respectively, oral and written sources of Paul’s information, to which 1
Corinthians is an ordered response:
Is there a simple explanation for the two blocks of text that float in the columns
opposite to their neighbours? My suggestion is that in two instances a topic in
the oral information related to a topic in the written. In order to simplify his
presentation Paul brought the relevant sections together. 57
Thus Paul’s particular didactic/pastoral intention allows him to break with a formal
structure that might otherwise be expected.
in Biblical Texts (ed. Anders Eriksson et al.; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002), 232-
242; 232.
56 Christopher Forbes, “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul,
and Their Limits,” in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; New
York: T&T Clark, 2010), 143-160; 148. Forbes goes on to point out that, unlike normal
letters, Paul’s letters were “congregational letters” to be read to communities. Thus they
certainly make use of rhetorical features at a micro-level.
57 Hurd, “Good News,” in Gospel in Paul (ed. Jervis and Richardson), 59.
86