I have a feeling I’ve ranted about this before, but commentaries and articles continue to claim that 1 Corinthians evidences “Deliberative Rhetoric”, and conferences continue to apply rhetorical criticism to this or that part of the Pauline Corpus.

I don’t think it’s a complete waste of time – Paul certainly makes use of a number of rhetorical conventions – but I think we are being led astray if we think that the overall structures of Paul’s letters can be explained by the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric.

I would suggest that in attempting to be attentive to the arrangement of Paul’s communication, it is necessary to move beyond the examination of genre (or form, or rhetorical convention), to consider broader issues of mental imagery and schemas.  And it is necessary to move beyond the practical assumption of a monolithic Greco-Roman culture, to consider Paul as a “Hebrew of Hebrews” within a Greco-Roman environment.  Of course, it would be naïve to think that the two cultures are completely separable; but it would be equally naïve to think that the communicative strategies of the one have been completely dissolved in the other. 

There is a parallel in Australian Aboriginal cultures: My dad’s research has concerned the ways in which Australian Aboriginal users of English frequently use the language in distinctive (and sometimes culturally subversive) ways.  Discourse is often distorted and misunderstood if it is interpreted using the imagery and communication-patterns of non-Aboriginal Australian English.  It is essential, he argues, that Aboriginal English discourse be understood on its own terms – despite using the “imperial” language [1].

Paul identifies the Corinthians as those who share with him (no doubt by adoption) in inheriting the ancestry of Israel (1 Corinthians 10:1); and Paul’s discourse must be understood with reference to the shared imagery and communication-patterns of this utterly self-conscious cultural identification. 

So if 1 Corinthians is not best described as “Deliberative Rhetoric”, how might we describe it?  I suggest, “Kerygmatic Rhetoric”… but that’s something for another time.

This post might be a bit long, so I’ll sum up the main point immediately – and you can read on if you think it’s interesting: The recent development of “cultural linguistics” includes the idea that our communication draws on cultural “schemas” (mental imagery) by which we make sense of the world.  Could it be that one cultural schema of early Judaism was the pattern of “reversal” by which God vindicates the persecuted and punishes the boastful?  And if we were better attuned to this underlying schema, might we hear parts of the New Testament more attentively?

Okay, now to fill it out: Firstly, “cultural linguistics”.  My dad, Prof. Ian Malcolm, is an emeritus professor of linguistics in Australia.  He recently gave a paper in which he outlined some features of this development in linguistics.  In part, cultural linguistics considers how various groups, to varying degrees, share “mental imagery” that allows them to make sense of events and figures and stories, and to expect them to run a certain course.  One cultural schema might be that of the “body”:

When we say, for example,  “I can’t take it in,” or “He’s full of beans,” or “The boss blew his top,” we are operating according to the image of the body as a container, an image which, although we might be unaware of it, is embedded in our language; when we talk about the head of the page, or the school, or the bed, or whatever, we are following our culture’s pattern of projecting from our body onto the objects around us

One cultural schema among users of Australian Aboriginal English is the “tracking” pattern of repeated “movement” and “stopping” – which is expressed in much story-telling, reporting of events, etc.

I wonder if, for first century Judaism (for which the Psalms were an important resource for regular corporate recitation), the pattern of “human persecution” and “divine vindication” might have been a cultural schema that informed the way that history was read and expected to run.  Consider the Jews who defiantly held out, against impossible odds, in Jerusalem or Masada – expecting God to step in at the last minute (or perhaps after death) and rescue them.  Or consider Stephen’s reading of Hebrew history according to Acts 7:

• Abraham was promised that his descendants would be mistreated before God would step in
• Joseph suffered at the hands of his jealous brothers before God rescued him
• Moses was almost abandoned as a baby, before being adopted
• Moses was rejected and persecuted by fellow Israelites, before being commissioned by God
• Moses was again rejected as a ruler, before God judged Israelite idolatry
• Jesus, the Righteous One, was persecuted and crucified, before God raised him

Perhaps, in predicting that he would be “raised after three days”, Jesus was simply sharing this expectation that God would vindicate the righteous – and so the disciples, understandably, had no clear expectation that this would actually happen literally in the days following his crucifixion.

And perhaps, if Paul shared this “cultural schema”, which became further modified as it was applied to the death and resurrection of Jesus, it may have gone on to structure his expression of Christian identity and ethics in ways that, today, we are not fully appreciating… such as the flow of 1 Corinthians

Since the popularisation of Rhetorical Analysis, it has been a commonplace to view 1:10 as the “thesis statement” or “propositio” of 1 Corinthians:

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

So, for example, this is the position of Margaret Mitchell and of Ben Witherington.  According to their readings, this issue of “unity”/”division” is then the main theme of the letter, right through to its climax in chapter 15.

One reason I find this problematic is that chapter 15 just has to be squeezed so hard to make it fit: It simply isn’t presented as being about the problem or solution to ecclesial divisions.  For this and other reasons, I like what I’ve recently encountered in a new German introduction to the New Testament: Pokorny and Heckel suggest that in fact, 1:18 ought to be viewed as the thesis statement of the letter:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Pokorny and Heckel (p231) view it as no accident that the letter begins with an exploration of the cross and ends with an exploration of the resurrection.  Amen to that!

I think things are finally feeling somewhat clear, in terms of understanding the essence of what I’m trying to argue, and how I need to argue it.  There is still a lot of work to do – but this is currently how I see the dissertation coming together:

Paul and Identification with Christ:

Messianic Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians

A New Examination of the Arrangement of 1 Corinthians

Chapter One

The Unity of 1 Corinthians: Textual, historical, rhetorical and exegetical arguments for the unity of 1 Corinthians

Chapter Two

Paul’s Personal and Rhetorical Contexts: Roman Citizen; Greek Epistolarist; Hebrew Pharisee; Apostle of Christ

Chapter Three

1 Corinthians 1-4 and Paul’s Theology of the Cross: Over-manifest boasting in Corinth is confronted with the necessity of the crucified Christ

Chapter Four

1 Corinthians 5-14 and Paul’s Ethics: The Christological cruciform corrective is applied to a recognisable pattern of ethical issues, moving from sexual immorality, greed and impurity of bodies (5-7) to issues of exploitative relationships within the body (8-14)

Chapter Five

1 Corinthians 15 and Paul’s Theology of the Resurrection: Over-manifest confidence in Corinth is confronted with the necessity of future post-mortal resurrection

Chapter Six

Conclusion: Four Contributions of This Project to the Study of Paul:

a) Pauline rhetoric

b) The flow and theme of 1 Corinthians

c) Pauline theology

d) Pauline ethics

The more I think about it and look into it, the more I think Paul was centrally gripped by the narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection – which he understood according to categories suggested by the Hebrew Scriptures… and this central narrative creatively shaped the flow of his thought and writing.  Lately I’ve been reading and re-reading Colossians (the Greek is surprisingly easy), and below is the way I hear the flow of this letter: I’ve tried to represent rhythmic/rhetorical movement by the use of indentations and terminology…

1:1-2:5: Christ in You; You in Christ

Christ in You

1:3-8: The mystery of the gospel, growing & bearing fruit throughout the world

You in Christ

1:9-14: The knowledge of him, growing & bearing fruit in the Colossians

Christ in You

1:15-20: Christ supreme in creation & salvation (in the cross)

You in Christ

1:21-23: Christ sufficient for Colossians’ salvation (in his body)

Christ in You

1:24-29: Paul continues suffering on behalf of Christ’s body, proclaiming Christ

You in Christ

2:1-5: Paul’s concern for the Colossians – that they might know Christ

2:6-4:1: Walking in Christ

Recall Christ, the Head of the Body

2:8-19: Don’t be carried away by human philosophy, but grow into Christ

Dying with Christ

2:20-23: Don’t seek to restrain the body with worldly restrictions

Rising with Christ

3:1-4: Set your minds on that which is above, where Christ is

Dying with Christ

3:5-11: Put to death those bodily members that are worldly: Bodily immorality & (relational) sins of the mouth

Rising with Christ

3:12-17: Clothe yourselves with relational virtues & love, exhibiting the grace of Christ, the peace of Christ, the word of Christ

3:18-4:1: Exhibit the submission and love of Christ in household relationships

4:2-18: Service of Christ in the World and the Church

Proclaiming the Mystery of Christ

4:2-6: The word of Christ before outsiders

Slaves of Christ in the Church

4:7-18: Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark, Barnabas, Justus, Epaphras, Luke, Nymphas, Archippus, Paul

As part of my research, I’m wanting to evaluate and push forward discussion of rhetoric in Paul.  I think that classical rhetoric has been pushed too far in terms of trying to explain the movement of Paul’s letters, and that other influences (such as Paul’s Hebrew heritage) need to be given more consideration.  Here are my current thoughts, as this applies to 1 Corinthians:

Michael Gorman identifies four patterns of reversal in Scripture and Jewish tradition, which could have provided Paul with a background for “a narrative pattern of reversal”:

God’s exaltation of the humble, God’s vindication of the persecuted and of righteous sufferers, God’s ultimate resolution of messianic “birth pangs” in the new age, and God’s raising of the dead.[1]

It is more precise and helpful to consider this narrative pattern of reversal as two closely related patterns, one of death followed by resurrection, the other of humiliation followed by exaltation.  Both patterns clearly preceded Paul and also survived after him, but few early Christians exploited them as fully as did Paul.[2]

At the heart of my thesis is the contention that 1 Corinthians may be attentively heard as expressing the fundamentality of identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, in order to move the Corinthian church from presumptuous autonomy to dependence on God in Christ.  I think it can be argued that this rhetorical arrangement makes good sense both in terms of Paul’s history and Paul’s literary-rhetorical environment.

I suggest that for Paul himself, the Damascus Road experience involved repudiating a model of religiosity characterised by (retrospectively presumptuous) zealous cleansing of Israel, and adopting a model of religiosity characterised by dependent participation in the identity of Israel’s crucified, risen, and presently hidden Messiah Jesus.  Thus Paul’s formative experience of Jesus, as one whose resurrected Lordship had been startlingly hidden by the outrageous shame of his crucifixion, created in Paul a heightened sensitivity to what he perceived to be effectively presumptuous/autonomous religiosity, and provided an obvious antidote: The necessity of identification with the Messiah who is surprisingly found in the cross, and who will one day be revealed in glory.

In responding to perceived presumptuous/autonomous spirituality in Corinth, then, Paul was able to creatively draw on the “apocalyptic” rhetorical movement from emphatic present hiddenness and apparent humiliation through to future revelation and vindication, thereby emphasising the necessity of sharing in Christ’s death – and hiddenness – before sharing fully in the manifestation of Christ’s resurrected glory.

This may perhaps be thought of as “theological rhetoric”, because Greco-Roman patterns of argumentation are not adhered to in a straightforward way, but are put into the service of a chiefly theological arrangement.