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.
Corinthians display in their estimation of the apostles from whom they have received everything. Paul’s remark that he does not write this to shame the Corinthians (v. 14) betrays that his words may be taken in that sense and suggests that such intention does play a part 37.
This passage is marked by a high degree of Gorgian figures of style. In v. 7 we find an anaphoric accumulation (climax) of three rhetorical questions. V. 8 contains a hyperbolic accumulation (climax) with anaphora and paronomasia (basileu/w). V. 9 is marked by hyperbole with homoioptoton (-ouj; -oij) and merism. V. 10 consists of a threefold parallelism enhanced by anaphora and ellipsis of the verb; each of the three parts forms an antithesis. In vv. 11-12a a paronomasia (a!xri th=j a!rti) is followed by a polysyndetic enumeration of six verbs in the first person plural. Vv. 12b-13a exhibit a threefold, asyndetic parallelism, each part of which consists of a participle and a verb in the first person plural, forming an antithesis; homoioptoton (-menoi; -oumen) further enhances this form. In v. 13b hyperbole reaches a climax all the more impressive because of paronomasia (perikaqa/rmata; peri/yhma) and alliteration (p).
The Corinthians and the apostles are estimated by criteria current in epideictic rhetoric. The question, raised in v. 7, as to whether fame has been gained on account of someone’s own merit or not is a typically epideictic consideration. Wealth and the highest and most honorable social position, that of kingship, mark v. 8. This is followed by the lowest and most dishonorable social position, that of criminals condemned to death, in v. 9. The standard epideictic qualifications of foolish and wise, weak and strong, honored and dishonored are used in v. 10. In vv. 11-13 estimation takes place on account of achievements: six activities are enumerated which typify the apostles as an infamous and poor lot. Then three humiliating qualifications follow: cursed, persecuted, slandered. This series ends with the lowest point of shame, that of being esteemed by everybody as scum and refuse.
The dominant form of argumentation in this passage is the comparison (su/gkrisij) between ‘you’, the Corinthians, and ‘we’, the apostles who are their opposite. As already noticed in the paragraph on style, in the introduction and elaboration of this comparison accumulation (e)poikodo/mhsij) also plays a part. After the introduction of v. 7 , the comparison begins in v. 8 with ‘you’, who are rich and honored. Then in v. 9 ‘we’ are presented as without honor and despised.