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.
of three (v. 12). The next connection consists of a threefold elaboration of the metaphor of the temple of God (vv. 16-17). The conclusion is a climax consisting of three steps: all things are yours, you are of Christ, Christ is of God. The elaboration of ‘all’ is a polysyndetic enumeration of three times three elements (vv. 21b-23).
In vv. 5-8 Paul, Apollos and God are evaluated on the basis of their achievements, respectively planting, watering and making grow. In vv. 10-15 Paul and Apollos are evaluated first on the basis of the nature of their work: laying the foundation and building on it. Next the result of their work, more in particular the permanence of it, functions as the criterion they are evaluated by. In vv. 18-20 the Corinthians are evaluated on the basis of their wisdom. Theirs is would-be wisdom, which in God’s sight is folly and means nothing.
Accumulation (e)poikodo/mhsij, kli=mac, gradatio), one of the standard forms of amplification (au!chsij), plays an important part in this passage. In vv. 21-23 this figure is applied exactly in the approved manner. The connections in vv. 9 and 16-17 offer somewhat less strict executions of the same figure. Finally, the other tripartite forms, which have been identified in the paragraph on style, may also be considered as applications of this figure in a more loose manner. Next to this, comparison (su/gkrisij), the second standard form of amplification, also holds an important place in this passage. In vv. 5-8 two unimportant actors, Paul and Apollos, and an important one, God, are compared to each other within the same category of agriculture. In vv. 10-15 comparison is made between two more or less equally important actors, Paul and Apollos, within the category of building.
The climax in vv. 21-23 forms the conclusion of this entire passage, in which the status of the different actors is defined. The result is a ranking, in which the Corinthians hold the middle position. On the one side they are superior to Paul and Apollos, but on the other side they are inferior to Christ and God. Besides, Paul himself also holds a middle position. Compared to God he is on one line with Apollos and means nothing. In the mutual comparison with his colleague he, who has planted and laid the foundation, clearly ranks above Apollos, who has only watered the plants and built on the foundation which was already there. In the end the Corinthians are credited with an ambivalent position. Their position is higher and more honorable than the one of Paul and Apollos, but lower and less honorable than the one of Christ and God. So this might be called an ambivalent encomium (e)gkw/mion a)mfi/docon).