Joop F.M. Smit, «Epideictic Rhetoric in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians 1–4», Vol. 84 (2003) 183-201
In the discussion as to whether Paul uses Classical rhetoric First Corinthians 1–4 plays a key-role. In this article an overview is given of the main characteristics of the epideictic genre and in the light of this it is argued that in 1 Cor 1–4 Paul presents the four types of this genre: a paradoxical encomium in 1,18-31; an honorable encomium in 2,6-16; an ambivalent encomium in 3,5-23 and a dishonorable encomium in 4,6-13. In this manner he gives a deliberate proof of his rhetorical ability so as to restore his image, damaged by the impressive performance of Apollos who visited the city after him and apparently took the prize. So, after all, there seems to be Classical rhetoric in Paul.
The predominant argument in this passage is the paradox. Notably in vv. 20-25 and 26-29 this figure occurs in almost every clause. Although some logical connectives occur25, reasoning does not figure prominently here. Paul primarily proclaims what God has done. These proclamations of God’s acts are amplified one by one, in quantitative as well as in qualitative respect. The statement that God makes the wise get lost is elaborated by means of an authoritative quotation of Scripture (vv. 18-19). That God makes the wisdom of the world foolishness forms the culmination of a series of rhetorical questions, which are arranged in increasing length (v. 20). God’s decision to save the believers is enlarged by placing it within his all-embracing wisdom (v. 21). The proclamation of the crucified Christ as God’s power and God’s wisdom forms the culmination of an extended preparatory period (vv. 22-24) and subsequently is once again underlined by the oxymoron of verse 25. God’s election of people without status to shame those with status is impressively amplified; the three brief qualifications of verse 26 (anaphora, asyndeton, ellipsis) are amply elaborated in vv. 27-29 (anaphora, polysyndeton, redundant repetition). Also in this case the period forms a climax and ends in an oxymoron (v. 28). God’s salvation of the believers in Christ Jesus is enlarged successively by means of a relative sentence, a threefold polysyndetic enumeration and an authoritative quotation of Scripture (vv. 30-31).
This passage not only shows many characteristics of epideictic rhetoric, it also appears to belong to a definite type of this genre. Paul plays a paradoxical game with appearance and reality. The crucified Christ, apparently the culmination-point of shame and folly, he praises as in reality God’s power and God’s wisdom. This turns all normal relations of social status upside down. Those who think to be wise, are in reality foolish before God. Those who are without power, not of noble birth and despised, are in fact chosen by God in Christ Jesus. This apparently is a paradoxical encomium (e)gkw/mion para/docon)26.
In 1 Cor 2,1-5 Paul brings up for discussion his former visit to
vCorinth. He admits in an exaggerated manner that at the time, his appearance, according to the generally received rhetorical norms, was far below the standard. The superior logic and the self-assurance of the succesful rhetor were totally missing27. In the paradoxical encomium, however, he demonstrates that before God wholly different standards apply. For God chooses the folly of preaching and the things that are despised in the world. Paul’s previous appearance did fully comply with these most high, divine norms. So the criticism, which the Corinthians level against this appearance as inferior in rhetorical respect, is null and void.
2. First Corinthians 2, 6-16
The subject of this entire passage is ‘we’, that is to say the preachers Paul and Apollos. The intention clearly is to place this ‘we’ upon a high pedestal. They speak God’s hidden wisdom (vv. 6-9). To them God has revealed this wisdom by the Spirit (vv. 10-12). They are pneumatics who have the mind of Christ (vv. 13-16). ‘We’ are presented as speakers, whom God in person has inspired and to whom He has revealed his deepest secrets.
This passage consists of lengthy periods. These are marked by numerous, often redundant, repetitions of words in literal or varied form (paronomasi/a) and also by many explanatory appositions. These devices lend a lofty, solemn character to this passage28.
The theme of ‘divine inspiration’ is typical of epideictic rhetoric. It belongs to this genre that speakers plead to be inspired by a deity regarding the form as well as the content of their oration29.