1 Corinthians 1-4 has long been regarded as an apologia for Paul's ministry. This label is, however, misleading because of the presence of hortatory sections which clearly build upon Paul's argument within the apologia. For example, in 1.10 Paul exhorts the Corinthian congregation to hold the same views. The statements ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες (ν. 10a) and ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ (v. 10c) point to an agreed judgement.² The former statement has clear parallels in Thucydides, 'holding the same view' (τὸ αὐτὸ λέγοντες), and Polybius, 'speaking with one heart and mind' (λέγοντες ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πάντες), refers to forming an identical view or judgement.³ 1.10c has parallels in Pollux, μίαν γνώμην ἔχειν, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus where αὐτοί τε οὐκέτι μίαν γνώμην ἔχοντες.⁴ The lack of a common mind in the Corinthian church lies behind the strife-creating σχίσματα (vv. 10-11) caused by, it has been argued, their perception of themselves as μαθηταί and ζηλωταί of certain Christian teachers in Corinth.⁵

Paul subsequently specifies in 4.1 precisely how they ought to think about the function of Apollos and himself, οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος κτλ. It is therefore important not to find in 1.10 a mere call to consensus, for Paul instead wants to restore them to 'the same mind and the same judgement' as himself on this matter, hence his use of καταρτίζειν.⁶ The following verses do not imply that the church lacks unity. Indeed, on the contrary, the majority, if not all, seem undisturbed by the attitude reported to Paul by members of Chloe's household, and seem to have reached agreement on the invitation to Apollos to return in 16.12.⁷ They have conceptualised the role of Apollos and Paul and others according to a culturally determined perception of secular

teachers. Paul must push them outside this cultural sphere and invite them to follow him not as μαθηταί but μιμηταί.⁸

The apostle applies OT citations (in vv. 1.19, 1.31, 3.19-20) to the issue which threatens the unity and hence future ministry of the church.⁹ As E. Best has rightly noted, 'He [Paul] is more concerned to refute what he believes to be a serious error on the part of the Corinthians than to reinforce his own position over against them.'¹⁰ His apologia must be seen as his critique of the Corinthians and not simply a justification of his modus operandi. Like Aristides, who concluded his apologetic oration to a friend with 'Call these remarks a defence (ἀπολογία), or if you wish, a well intentioned censure (ἐπιτίμησις), or even a combination of the two',¹¹ Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-4 clearly combines both.

Paul's critique commences not with the verses normally designated apologia (1.10-4.21), but rather with the thanksgiving (1.4-9). This would certainly be consistent with the literary convention he adopts in the opening sections of his letters, for it has been amply demonstrated that Paul often introduces with a preliminary comment in his thanksgiving portion issues which receive fuller development in the body of the letter.¹² But though it has been argued from literary precedent that 1.4-9 connects with 1.10-4.21, the exact nature of that nexus has not been finally established.¹³ P. T. O'Brien therefore maintains that, though other elements in 1 Corinthians were introduced in 1.4-9, 'Paul's apostolic authority [discussed in 1.10-4.21] [was] not prefigured in the introductory thanksgiving.'¹⁴ But Τ. Y. Mullins, cor-

rectly as we shall see, observes that at least in relation to 1 Corinthians 1, too rigid a boundary should not be drawn between the thanksgiving and what he designates the 'disclosure' section which follows.¹⁵ W. Wuellner's rhetorical analysis of 1 Corinthians 1-4 also suggests that verses 4-9 lead to the main theme in 1.10.16 The following section seeks to clarify the nature of this connection.

In 1 Corinthians 1.4-9 Paul attends to a danger engendered by the sophistic movement: the debilitating sense of inadequacy felt by many who lacked a rhetorical education. This is well demonstrated in Dio Chrysostom's discourse, 'On Training for Public Speaking', in which a man of wealth and influence seeks Dio's help to overcome his lack of paideia and public speaking skills. The enquirer and Dio agree that a public figure needs experience and training both in public speaking and eloquence, for such abilities cause their possessor to be 'loved, influential and honoured' instead of 'looked down on' (καταφρονεῖσθαι). So Dio provides a syllabus which lists authors to read, recommending that one begin with and return periodically to the most important of all, Homer.¹⁷ Further evidence comes from Plato, who indicated what steps to take (within the context of paideia) to ensure that one did not 'fall behind others in experience', and Epictetus, who described how students bristled at the exposure of gaps in their understanding.¹⁸

This sense of inadequacy could also be engendered or aggravated by the invective of others. Demosthenes, in court with his accuser Aeschines, charges him with not really being an educated man but 'one of those who made stupid pretensions to culture' and who 'falls short': such people disgust everybody when they open their mouths but fail to make the desired impression.¹⁹ Isocrates similarly describes the Lacedaemonians who have 'fallen behind' in paideia — in contrast to the Athenians who excel as either

μαθηταί or διδάσκαλοι.²⁰ The verbatim comparison (συζήτησις) recorded in Philo shows how readily the sophists drew attention to the inadequacies of their opponents, 'the so-called lovers of virtue' who trailed behind as 'almost without exception obscure' individuals, 'easily looked down on', people of 'mean estate'. The sophists by contrast measured their own successful life by its trappings.²¹

Already in 1 Corinthians 1.5-7 Paul introduces this notion of inferiority to the discussion. The verb ὑστερεῖν in verse 7 undergirds Paul's emphasis on the sufficiency of the charismata which Christ has bestowed on them to counter the feeling of inadequacy reflected in the non-biblical sources cited above which was shared by members of the Corinthian church.²²

In what ways did the Corinthians feel deficient? When Paul assures the congregation that they have actually been enriched in Christ in every way, he makes a specific reference to their problem by adding immediately ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει…ὥστε ὑμᾶς μη ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι (vv. 5, 7). The terms λόγος and γνῶσις were used subsequently by opponents to disparage Paul's own rhetorical ability (2 Cor. 11.6), as were other terms found in 1 Corinthians 1-4, in retaliation for his attack on the sophistic tradition.²³ The two terms do not appear together elsewhere in 1 Corinthians; however; the issue of λόγος is discussed in 1 Corinthians 1.10-4.31, where it refers to eloquence.²⁴

The encouragement some ancient authors occasionally gave to the rhetorically untrained to speak and not be intimidated by those with training is not unlike that which Paul offers here.²⁵ Does Paul's own positive experience after being overawed in Corinth also lie behind his prodding the Corinthians to speak without feeling inferior? According to A. D. Litfin, Paul in this section affirms that God initiates both the calling and the enabling of the church in Christ, but he incorrectly assumes that these opening verses contain no evidence of serious problems in the church.²⁶ On the contrary, even as he thanks God Paul alludes to what troubles him, namely the Corinthian sense of inadequacy concerning rhetorical ability (λόγος).²⁷ If Paul did not use rhetoric in his preaching (1 Cor. 2.1-5), then no rank-and-file Corinthian Christian should feel precluded either from speaking in the church (1 Cor. 12-14) or from sharing the Christian message with outsiders.

Paul turns from the issue of inferiority to problems created by zealous adherence to teachers. Various suggestions have been made concerning the nexus between ἔρις (v. 11) and verses 13-17, with their reference to division, baptism and crucifixion. Some suggest that the mystery cults, characterised by special relationships between the baptised and the baptiser, provide the background.²⁸ Others explain the problem as the corruption of the natural affinity between the preacher and individual converts.²⁹ Best, in seeking to understand the issues in 1.13-17 and Paul's discussion in 1.18ff., expresses the difficulty NT scholars face: 'Surely … there must have been some other factor, unknown to us, which led him to introduce baptism; probably something in the nature of the division in Corinth will have related to it.'³⁰

We have explained the Corinthians' intense response to Paul and others

as a conformity to the sophistic environment and its commitment to and zeal for a particular teacher.³¹ Just as one enrolled in the school of a sophist or became a zealous follower and admirer at public declamations, so the newly baptised received instruction from their Christian teacher. Where household baptisms occurred, the entry of a teacher into that social unit had its cultural precedent in the sophistic movement.³² It seems reasonable therefore to explain this nexus of leaders, parties and baptism as another result of the sophistic mind-set of Corinth.

But though this might explain the background, the issue of baptism per se does not fully account for Paul's argument. He not only dismisses the idea that Christ can be divided but then, negatively, links himself with both crucifixion and baptism in the name of Jesus — μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἢ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου ἐβαπτίσθητε (v. 13). None can claim to have been baptised in the name of Paul.³³ J. Munck suggests that Paul criticises converts who have put 'the teachers they invoke — he mentions himself as an example (1.13) — in the place of Christ';³⁴ that is, following teachers with blind loyalty had unwittingly resulted in the messengers of the crucified Messiah occupying the Messiah's rightful place in the church. Paul responds with three questions which parade the folly of this unthinking cultural response to their teachers (v. 13).³⁵ Thus Paul redirects the confession of the sophistic-minded Christians to declare that their new allegiance amounts to nothing more than loyalty to formerly honoured gods. They may well have been acquainted with Corinthian confessions of belonging to Aphrodite, Apollo and Dionysos (τὰς Ἀφροδίτὰς ἐμι, Ἀπέλλονος ἰμί and Διονύσου).³⁶ By transferring their affirma-

tion of loyalty from the sophistic to the pagan religious sphere Paul delivered a stunning rebuke, for they would never have imagined that their party slogans amounted to this.

These verses, then, form more than a mere 'shaming section' in Paul's argument³⁷ — and declaring that 'it can only be viewed as a sardonic rebuke of the Corinthians' proclivity to personality-centred ἔριδες' does not expose the issues at stake.³⁸ A sophistic understanding of the Corinthian Christians' exclusive relationship to individual teachers amounted to idolatry even though they adhered to those who were Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 1.17b-31 Paul judges the boasting of the sophistic tradition, concluding with a scriptural prohibition against all boasting (v. 31), for it is incongruous with his message and commission. He declares that 'he was not sent to baptise, but to preach the gospel' (οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα μὴ κενωθτῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Litfin rightly argues that the issue here is not the theological content of Paul's preaching, but 'the form or manner of preaching', with οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου governing the argument that follows.³⁹ The phrase here means 'without rhetorical skill'.⁴⁰

The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1.17 as 'without rhetorical skill' in relation to Paul's preaching for fear of evacuating the message is also dismissed as an argument Anderson has already discussed in relation to Litfin's

work. 'In short, Paul uses σοφία in this whole passage in terms of content, not form.'⁴¹ In 1.17 Paul reflects on his preaching of the gospel when he came to Corinth, and it would therefore seem entirely appropriate to link this passage to his description of his 'preaching' subsequently in 2.4, where 'his speech and his kerygma were not delivered in the persuasiveness of rhetoric'. 1 Corinthians 2.4 should be seen as an explication of 1.17.⁴²

The reason Paul gives for eschewing this rhetorical method of presentation is that it actually 'empties' (κενοῦν) the cross of its essential message (v. 17c).⁴³ How could this occur? Evidence from Philo indicates that rhetorical methods often overshadowed the message as a means to persuade the audience. Audiences surrendered their critical faculties to the techniques of the sophists.⁴⁴ Epictetus likewise bespeaks the elevation of eloquence and rhetorical ability over content.⁴⁵ Paul came to Corinth determined to present not simply Jesus as the Messiah, but 'him crucified'. He did not aim to persuade his audience of the truth of this message by the use of the three pisteis in rhetoric, namely ἦθος, πάθος and ἀπόδειξις. His reasons for it are clearly spelt out in 1 Corinthians 2.1-5: he does not wish their πίστις to rest in human wisdom but ἀν δυνάμει θεοῦ. As in 2.4 and 2.5, so also in 1.18 Paul adapts the rhetorical term δύναμις with respect to λόγος to indicate where the true 'eloquence' or the 'power' of persuasion of the preached message resided.⁴⁶ In both passages it rested with God through the crucified Messiah, and not with the rhetorical technique of Paul or any other evangelist. Because rhetorical techniques clouded content he declared them unsuitable. Attention would be diverted from the message of the crucified God as Paul or Apollos as orators themselves become the focal point.

Not only eloquence poses a threat to the gospel. Paul also argues, by citing two OT passages, that God intended to destroy the wisdom of the wise, since it had not been the means by which he had come to be known. Who the wise and prudent were was outlined by Paul in 1.20ff., namely σοφός, γραμματεύς, ὁ συζητητὴς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ('the debater of the age'). But to whom do these terms refer? H. A. W. Meyer thought σοφός was generic, γραμματεύς referred to Jewish scribes and συζητητής to the Greek sophists.

He suggested that ὁ συζητητής described those engaged in sophistic disputes, citing in support Xenophon's observation that συζήτησις was in vogue among the sophists.⁴⁷ E. A. Judge and others agree that the last term refers to orators or sophists.⁴⁸ It has also been suggested that the first two terms merely cling to the OT citations, the third being Paul's real concern in Corinth.⁴⁹ Another proposal is that the first two refer to Greek and Jewish teachers, with the third then comprehensively covering both cultures.⁵⁰ Alternatively an exclusively Jewish referent has been claimed for all three words by reason of the OT citations in verses 19 and 20.⁵¹ But the immediate context includes the Jewish demand for signs and the Greek search for wisdom, so that it may be difficult to claim one ethnic identity for the three terms. Some maintain that the first two refer to the knowledge of learned men and the third to their activity in seeking to convince others that their knowledge is true while others teach falsehood. Finally, and because of this diversity of opinion, some commentators have simply regarded them as a general reference to wise men, scholars and disputants.⁵²

The important question is whether subsequent discussion throws any light on 'the debater of this age'. If so, it would not only resolve the uncertainty for commentators, but more importantly, it would further explain Paul's criticism of the sophistic tradition (assuming verses 20-31 are united in

dealing with this issue). It will be argued that just as the σοφός and γραμματεύς are discussed in verses 20-25, so the activity of the sophists and orators as the debaters of this age is reflected in the argument in verses 26-31.

Munck has already demonstrated that the terms mentioned in verse 26, σοφοί, δυνατοί and εὐγενεῖς, were used of those instructed by the sophists, and that the σοφοί are the sophists whose parents are δυνατοί and εὐγενεῖς. He drew his evidence from the early third-century works of Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists and of Diogenes Laertius.⁵³ The recent work of G. W. Bowersock and E. L. Bowie firmly establishes that this is the social class from which the sophists came.⁵⁴

Surveying the use of these terms by first-century authors quickly reveals that they are commonly applied to the ruling class of eastern cities. Thus, in an essay on 'How to tell a flatterer from a friend', Plutarch says that ὁ σοφός could at the same time be described as πλούσιος, καλός, εὐγενής, βασιλεύς and the rich man as a ῥήτωρ καὶ ποιητής. These were obviously terms which epitomised social status; and those to whom they were applied would have been flattered.⁵⁵

Dio Chrysostom, Philo and Plutarch all discuss εὐγένεια.⁵⁶ Dio observes: 'The descendants of families of ancient wealth were called "well-born" by a certain class.' This class he calls 'ignorant', contrasting their popular use of the term with that of philosophers. These families also distinguish between 'the noble' (γενναῖοι), and 'the well-born' (εὐγενεῖς), on the one hand and 'the free-born' on the other. In addition, Dio objects to the misuse of another set

of categories, namely 'ignoble' (ἀγενεῖς) and 'mean' (ταπεινοί), which were used of certain strata of society.⁵⁷

Philo notes that some in his own day sing the praises of 'εὐγένεια as the greatest of gifts and [so] deserve the strongest censure. This is because they think that those who have generations of wealth and fame behind them are εὐγενεῖς.' His contemporaries won praise by their 'silver, gold, both honours and offices' and 'good condition and beauty of body', and used 'ignoble' as a term of reproach. Philo denounced those who spring from great houses, who 'boast and glory' in the splendour of their race.⁵⁸

Plutarch, in a fragment of a larger work, 'Concerning good birth', says that it is but 'ancient wealth' and 'ancient reputation'. He calls it 'a gift of uncertain fortune' (τύχη) and exposes it so that all may see 'that this inflated name of good birth hangs on two alien pegs'.⁵⁹ While all these authors denounce εὐγένεια in one form or another, it remains clear that the term referred to a powerful group in first-century society who possessed 'old money' and great prestige.

There is little need to argue that the term οἱ δυνατοί had long referred to the rulers of cities. Thucydides provides many instances of such use — sometimes in contrast with ὁ δῆμος and other times with οἱ ἀδύνατοι. Of particular interest is his description of Cylon as 'both well born and powerful' (εὐγενής τε καὶ δυνατός).⁶⁰ Α. Sänger, depending heavily on Josephus, observes that oἱ δυνατοί derived their status from wealth, and that this ancient wealth and reputation was an ingredient of the 'well born'.⁶¹

It was Isocrates who from an earlier period had argued that the men who were 'superior and pre-eminent' in the history of Athens were not only 'well born' and of 'reputation', but were also noted for their wisdom and eloquence. If one wanted to learn how the greatness and glory of Athens was achieved, Isocrates suggests, ask of one of its leaders, "What was his birth?' and 'What was the character of his education?'⁶² Little, moreover, had changed by the

time of the Roman Empire: the assemblies of the cities still elected magistrates whose qualifications for office included a property requirement. In essence, they were nominated because they were 'well-to-do' (εὔπορος).⁶³ They had enjoyed that form of education available only to the rich, that is, the well born.⁶⁴ The assemblies' concern was unchanged: to elect 'members of the local ruling class, men of good family and property'.⁶⁵ Based on this wealth of literary evidence we can conclude that 1 Corinthians 1.26 refers to the ruling class of Corinth from which orators and sophists came. Furthermore, the catalogue of Corinthian inscriptions clearly shows that orators contributed to the political life of the city and would have been regarded as among the δυνατοί, the εὐγενεῖς and the σοφοί.⁶⁶

We may add to this evidence an actual sophistic debate (συζήτησις) from the first century which develops an argument strikingly similar to that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1.26-31. The extant verbatim report of this debate contains much boasting about status and indicates that external evidence of success functioned as a μάρτυς. Sophists exploited a contemporary interpretation of the Platonic view of the senses as the soul's allies to show that their acquisition of 'wealth and fame and honours and offices and everything else of that

sort' enabled them to enjoy what nature intended.⁶⁷ They thus provided a list of the trappings of their success, supplementing wealth with a claim they were ἔνδοξοι and πλούσιοι. Their 'fame and honours and office' show that they were ἡγεμόνες, ἐπαινούμενοι, τιμώμενοι, whilst the words 'everything else of that sort' further testify to their success. In a demeaning σύγκρισις the sophists aligned these terms with a set of antonyms which bore 'witness of the life' of their opponents, the 'so-called lovers of virtue'.

Clearly these sophists were among the well born and the powerful, and would have paraded their education as proof of wisdom.⁶⁸

Paul in Corinthians 1.26-28 uses a similar set of antonyms to show God's work contrasted with Fortune's blessing.⁶⁹

God has, in the words of the Magnificat, 'put down the mighty from their seat and exalted the humble and meek'.

While the Greeks seek wisdom and the Jews ask for a sign, the debaters of this age boast that their lifestyle testifies to the class to which they belong, namely the wise, the powerful and the well born. God, however, has put to shame οἱ σοφοί by choosing those whom they themselves describe as τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 27b); τὰ ἰσχυρά by choosing those described as τὰ ἀσθενῆ (v. 27c); and τὰ ὄντα by choosing τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα, τὰ μὴ ὄντα.⁷¹

Paul argues that God has chosen to humble all, including the sophists, for a purpose: so that no flesh might boast before him (v. 28b). This he did by eviscerating any claim to secular wisdom which could commend them or bring any to the true knowledge of God (v. 21).

According to Paul, God had called few from the class to which the sophists belonged — though they would have certainly considered themselves worthy of the privilege. Upon those who were 'easy to look down on' (εὐκαταφρόνητοι, to quote the sophists in Philo's Det. 34), God had actually bestowed an all-sufficient status in Christ, namely σοφία ἀπὸ θεοῦ…δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις (v. 30). Thus, whilst Aristotle recorded that men said, 'By Fortune, Τυχή, I am a man of noble birth, wealth and power,'⁷² Paul could affirm that by an act of God in Christ the Corinthian Christians had a lasting status conferred upon them, even though there were many whose secular status was the antithesis to that of the wise, the powerful and the well born.

'Therefore', Paul adds, 'as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord"' (v. 31). This is an apt and compelling citation concerning status from Jeremiah 9.23-24a.

Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man boast of his might,
Let not the rich man boast of his riches,
But let him who boasts, boast of this,
that he knows and understands Me.

The boasting about the μάρτυς of life reflected in the social class of verse 26, as well as the arrogance displayed by Alexandrian sophists in Philo's Det. 34, was proscribed by this text.

What is implicit in the reference to ὁ συζητητής (v. 20) thus becomes explicit in verses 26-31 as Paul sustains his assault on sophistic boasting. In 1 Corinthians 1.26-31 Paul does not simply record God's shaming of the Corinthian sophists' boastful μάρτυς — an argument from a successful life — to support his apologia that God has overthrown wisdom as the grounds upon which he can be known (1.19). He cites without further comment at this stage the universal proscription from the OT that the only legitimate boasting is that which glories in the Lord's accomplishments.⁷³

Secular Corinth, however, held no monopoly on boasting, as Paul's subsequent discussion shows. In 3.18-23 Paul warns the σοφὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ who boast ἐν ἀνθρώποις in the church against self-deception. He commands 'the not many wise' to become foolish in order to become wise, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's eyes. The proof of this lies in the two OT citations, Job 5.13 and Psalm 94.11: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness' and 'The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile' (vv. 19-20). Paul's conclusion is ὥστε μηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις (v. 21a). This injunction confronts the boasting of the few Corinthian Christians who were regarded as wise by secular Corinth's standards and who, as Christians, continued boasting about their secular teachers.

Paul, however, is also concerned that it is inappropriate for the Corinthians to boast of their Christian teachers, as confirmed by the following verses. In verse 21b Paul affirms πάντα γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν and then explains himself: 'whether Paul or Apollos or Peter or the world or life or death or the present or the future', πάντα ὑμῶν. He then adds in verse 23: 'You belong to Christ.' The church members do not belong to Paul or Apollos or Peter: Paul, Apollos and Peter actually belong to them.

Paul radically reverses the μαθητής/σοφιστής perception by which the congregation measured its relationship to the teachers, for the secular Corinthian precedent was totally inappropriate in the church. While sophistic Corinth may have affirmed ἐγὼ εἰμι…, and the Corinthian church did the same of its teachers, Paul is in effect stating, Παῦλος ἐστιν ὑμῶν. So within the

Christian church 'the sophist' belongs to the μαθηταί. The ministry of the Christian teacher is to be seen in functional and not status terms, as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 3.5 with the use of'what' (τί) rather than 'who' (τίς). It has been observed that 1 Corinthians 3.18-23 'sums up the entire argument beginning in 1.18'.⁷⁴ This passage clearly rejects the Corinthian affirmations of loyalty in 1.12 and is the culmination of the argument spanning 1.10-3.23.

In 1 Corinthians 4.6ff. Paul again addresses Corinthian boasting in their teachers.⁷⁵ This is linked with being 'puffed up' on behalf of Paul against Apollos and vice versa (v. 6). Previous discussion makes it clear that the disciples of sophists were engaged in ἔρις and ζῆλος and that the term 'puffed up' aptly epitomises the competitive spirit which existed.⁷⁶

In verse 6 Paul indicates that he is making use of λόγος ἐσχηματισμένος, that is, the rhetorical device called 'a covert allusion', ταῦτα δὲ, ἀδελφοί,

μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν δι' ὑμᾶς. In order to appreciate the significance of Paul's shaming the church for imbibing aspects of the sophistic tradition one must understand the device and how he uses it in 1 Corinthians 4.⁷⁷

Rhetoricians made use of the covert allusion for a number of reasons. They did so when they wished to speak in an indirect way. They may have wished to say one thing obliquely and yet pursue something else in practice, or to say the opposite to what they were actually doing. It could also be used to speak one's mind (λεχθήσεσθαι παρργσίας ἔνδειξιν) but to forestall audience distress by including some ameliorating information. The device was particularly helpful for the sake of 'decency' (εὐπρέπεια), to maintain the safety of the speaker, or out of deference to the status of the persons addressed (δι' ἀξίωσιν τῶν προσώπων). Such persons could include a noble or honoured citizen, a general, a ruler, an entire city or even a country.⁷⁸ The covert allusion could usually be identified by the use of irony. Dionysius of Halicarnassus said, 'In short, the figure of irony is generally a sign of 'figured speech' (σχῆμα ἐσχηματισμένων), and subsequent discussion by Paul shows that he certainly mingled irony with the rhetorical device.⁷⁹

How did Paul use this device? B. Fiore expresses surprise that Paul, in using λόγος ἐσχηματισμένος in 4.6, actually draws the Corinthians' attention to the fact. He suggests that the apostle 'thereby negates the covertness of the rhetorical form' and makes 'explicit censures'. "Whatever good is to be gained through oblique references would seem to be lost in the ironical characterisation of the Corinthians in 4.7-8.'⁸⁰ He is not sure why Paul has done this and suggests that 'perhaps pastoral demands of the community in crisis can explain his abandonment of the rhetorical restraint of a lecture hall or judicial forum'.⁸¹ The key to understanding him, however, lies in assessing the proportions as Paul mingles irony with this rhetorical device,⁸² for he ironi-

cally uncovers his covert allusion in the following section in order to advance his case.

Paul begins in 1 Corinthians 4 with ameliorating words, building on the encouragement of 3.21-4.2. As has been noted, he reaffirms their enrichment in Christ (1 Cor. 3.21-3; cf. 1.5) before moving on. He then tells the Corinthians that they need to regard both Apollos and Paul in non-status functional terms (4.1ff.), and rebukes them for usurping the role of the divine judge when they dare to assess his ministry. He concludes with a call to judge nothing prematurely (vv. 3-5). The ταῦτα of verse 6 may well refer to the immediately preceding section and its words of encouragement. Paul says that he has applied these things for their benefit so that they will not go beyond the things that have been written (v. 6a).83 At this point, however, a marked change takes over when Paul refers to what they have been doing (εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου, v. 6c). Three penetrating questions follow: τίς γὰρ σε διακρίνει; ('For who made you a judge?');⁸⁴ τί δὲ ἔχεις ὃ οὐκ ἔλαβες and the supplementary question εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες, τί καυχᾶσαι ὡς μὴ λαβών (v. 7). These questions vigorously rebuke the Corinthians for comparing Paul and Apollos, and for boasting as if gifts originated from themselves.

In the next verse Paul declares ironically that the Corinthians ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι, ἤδη ἐπλουτήσατε, ἐβασιλεύσατε.

1 Corinthians 4.8	Sophists' boasting
'full' (κεκορεσμένοι)	'robust' (ὑγιεινοί κτλ)
'rich' (ἐπλουτήσατε)	'rich, notable' (πλούσιοι, ἔνδοξοι)
'reigning' (ἐβασιλεύσατε)	'leaders' (ἡγεμόνες κτλ.)85

These terms find a ready echo in the sophists' boasting. Paul adds, again with irony, that he wishes they would act according to their status in Christ and behave like kings, so that he could share their status with them.⁸⁶ He notes how

God had put the apostles to shame: 'For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; for we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men' (v. 9).

Ironically, in the next verse Paul wrests away the high-status terminology of the elite of secular Corinth introduced in 1 Corinthians 1.26 and applies it to the Christians' status in Christ: but you are wise in Christ (ὑμεῖς δὲ φρόνιμοι ἐν Χριστῷ = οἱ σοφοί) … but you are strong (ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰσχυροί = οἱ δυνατοί) … but you are esteemed (ὑμεῖς ἔνδοξοι = οἱ εὐγενεῖς).⁸⁷ He also takes over the terminology of low status of the Corinthian Christians in 1.27-28, τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου, τὰ ἀσθενῆ τοῦ κόσμου, τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου and τὰ ἐξουθενημένα and τὰ μὴ ὄντα, and applies it to the apostolic teachers in 1 Corinthians 4.10, describing them as μωροί, ἀσθενεῖς, ἄτιμοι.⁸⁸

Status in Corinth

God's calling

Apostolic status

1.26	4.10	1.27-28	4.10
secular	in Christ	secular	in the world
'wise' (σοφοί)	'wise' (φρόνιμοι)	'fool' (μωρά)	'fools' (μωροί)
'powerful' (δυνατοί)	'strong' (ἰσχυροί)	'weak' (ἀσθενῆ)	'weak' (ἀσθενεῖς)
'well born' (εὐγενεῖς)	'esteemed' (ἔνδοξοι)	'low born' (ἀγενῆ)	'dishonoured' (ἄτιμοι)
		'despised' (ἐξουθενημένα)
		'nobody' (μὴ ὄντα)89

In addition terms of ignominy describe the apostles: 'To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless, and we labour working with our own hands.⁹⁰ We have become, and are now the refuse of the world, the off-scouring of all things' (vv. 11-13).⁹¹

Paul assures them that he uses irony to admonish and not shame them, for he says that his relationship to them is not as that of a παιδαγώγος to the sons of a household, but that of a father in Christ (vv. 14-15).⁹² They are exhorted to imitate him (Παρακάλω οὖν ὑμᾶς μιμηταί, vv. 14-17).⁹³ The full weight of irony is to be seen in these verses, for whilst Plato disparaged the sophists as 'imitators of realities', Paul ironically summons the Corinthians with their sophistic orientation to an altogether different form of imitation.⁹⁴ They must not, like the disciples of a sophist, model themselves on their teacher's mannerisms and techniques of rhetoric. Instead they ought to emulate the apostles of the crucified Messiah with their low status and suffering — and the ignominy which that brings before the sophistic milieu of Corinth. This imitation, called his 'ways in Christ' (v. 17), bears no resemblance to that of the sophistic tradition.

In verses 18-21 Paul concludes his discussion of the sophistic problem with a reference to those who have become 'puffed up' in the face of his delayed return to Corinth. These 'certain people' (τινες), already arrogant, have grown even more so with the church's request for Apollos to return. Verses 18-19a suggest that the supporters of the only other genuine candidate for the Corinthian church's loyalty, Apollos, are interested in him because of his δύναμις and λόγος. The tradition of the sophist's μαθηταί was to imitate their sophist.⁹⁵ Given that Apollos was a man of powerful eloquence (ἀνὴρ λόγιος, δυνατός) with regard to the scriptures, who engaged in dialogue εὐτόνως and demonstrated his convictions through the scriptures (Acts 18.24, 28), the fact that some preferred Apollos is not altogether unexpected.

But Paul declares that when he arrives, D.V., his concern will not be in the 'eloquence' (λόγος) of the puffed-up, but their power (ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν), because the kingdom of God is not ἐν λόγῳ ἀλλ' ἐν δυνάμει. The juxtaposition

of these two important rhetorical terms resembles Philo's complaint against the sophists. While they are competent as speakers, yet they prove themselves to be impotent in living.⁹⁶ Here, as in 1 Corinthians 2.4-5, Paul is not averse to taking a key rhetorical term, δύναμις, and relating it not to rhetoric but to the kingdom of God. He warns that choices concerning his coming will be determined by the Corinthians: he can come with a rod or with love in a spirit of gentleness (v. 21).

Some suggest that Paul in his development of 1 Corinthians has demonstrated his own rhetorical sophistication. But that Paul consciously structured the letter along the lines of an oration is uncertain; and those who think he did disagree on the details.⁹⁷ His ability to do so is not in doubt,⁹⁸ but if he had, he would have exposed himself to the charge of engaging in what he condemns, given his critique of the sophistic movement and his parody of the rhetorical form in 4.6ff.⁹⁹

More certain is that Paul inverts a basic sophistic perception by declaring that in the church the teacher belongs to the disciples rather than vice versa, as was the case in the secular world of Corinth. He also overturns the notion of imitating a teacher's mannerisms and techniques, instead challenging the disciples of the crucified Messiah to emulate his position of ignominy. Finally, a critique of the sophistic tradition emerges based on its inappropriateness as

an essential qualification for church leadership. The censure of Christian admiration for rhetorical skill permeates Paul's apologia, both as he defends his own modus operandi and as he formulates definitions of Christian leadership and discipleship.