1 Corinthians. B. J. Oropeza

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and physical presence (2 Cor 10:10). This way of scrutinizing preachers already seems to be a problem in 1 Cor 1–4, perhaps prominently by the faction loyal to Apollos (see 1:12), and that is why Paul promotes a different way of perceiving wisdom and proclamation.

Doubtless the Corinthians learned how to criticize oratory performances by listening to many sophists and philosophers who preached publicly in their city. This may have conditioned them to place too much value on the actual appearance and performance of orators, known in rhetorical handbooks as delivery (one of the five components of rhetoric).171 In Lives of the Ten Orators, when asked what is most important in rhetoric, Demosthenes responded, “delivery.” When asked the second and third most important things, he replied, “delivery,” and again, “delivery” (Ps.-Plutarch, Vit. 845D; Theon, Prog. 3.[5]104).172 To impress audiences, orators had to command an appealing appearance and dress and perform well when speaking. The sophists excelled in theatrical qualities.173 Thucydides has the Athenian warrior Cleon bemoaning Athenian susceptibility to eloquent speeches, being persuaded by their eyes and ears instead of facts. He calls them dupes and “worshippers of every new extravagance” left at the mercy of their own ears “like spectators attending a performance of sophists” (Hist. 3.38.2–7). A confident look, pleasant tone of voice, a radiant smile, animated gestures such as striking one’s thigh or stomping one’s foot at climactic moments in one’s speech are some descriptors of delivery (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.519–20; 537).174 The sophist Herodes Atticus is described as having grace, beauty, urbane wit, pleasing diction, a smooth tone, and eloquence “like gold dust shining beneath the waters of a silvery eddying river” (2.564). Even philosophers might be admired for having similar qualities. Given the stoic allusions in the letter (e.g., 1 Cor 6:12–13), the wisdom Paul comes against may extend beyond sophists. Pliny the Younger lauds the Stoic Euphrates who marshals respect and speaks with well-chosen words and “special charm which can captivate and so convince the most reluctant listener. He is moreover tall and distinguished to look at, with long hair and a flowing white beard. . . . His dress is always neat, and his serious manner makes no show of austerity, so that your first reaction on meeting him would be admiration rather than repulsion” (Ep. 1.10).

A combination of pleasant appearance and eloquence also marked out orators to be educated and of prominent status, like elitists or even deities. Alexander the sophist reportedly possessed a “godlike appearance,” curly hair, large eyes, a stately nose, white teeth, and long slender fingers “well fitted to hold the reins of eloquence” (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.570). More relevant for first-century Corinthians was Favorinus who possessed smooth skin, spoke with charm, beautiful eloquence, fascinating tones and rhythms in his speech that enthralled even Romans unfamiliar with Greek (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.489, 491). The Corinthians, enamored by this sophist, built a statue in his honor before he fell into disfavor (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 37). Sophists, normally coming from high ranking backgrounds, were also associated with wealth and social eminence (Philo, Det 33–35; Aristides, Or. 33.19),175 and charged lucrative sums of money to speak (Isocrates, Soph. 13.3–5; Themistius Or. 23.288-89).176 They also encouraged strife, disputes, and contests with other speakers (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.9; Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 2.576, 579–580, 586–88; Isocrates Soph. 14[Or. 13]; Plato, Protag. 335A). It is precisely this type of competitive nature, boasting in rhetorical deliveries, and pandering to social prestige that Paul comes against. The congregation seems to reflect the wisdom of this world in this regard, and ironically resemble Epictetus’s description of a stunning Corinthian student of the sophists whose primary concern centered on his outward appearance instead of moral virtues (Diatr. 3.1). Such mores influenced congregation members to evaluate Christian speakers amiss, and this ultimately caused strife and thinking one person superior to another. Pogoloff aptly explains Paul’s response in this situation: “In Paul’s narrative world, the normal cultural narratives of eloquence and status are radically reversed. What persuades is speech about what is ordinarily unfit for contemplation: not a life which is cultured, wise, and powerful, but one marked by the worst shame and the lowest possible status. Paul’s rhetoric of the cross thus opposes the cultural values surrounding eloquence.”177

      Wisdom from God’s Spirit Rather Than Wisdom of This Age (2:6–16)

Paul speaks of a wisdom that is not of this age nor of the rulers of this age. This is God’s wisdom—it belongs to and comes from God—and in this text it functions prominently in the mode of teaching revelatory discourse. The passage takes on a “quasi-logical” form that strings together the explanatory conjunction “for” five times (2:8, 10, 11, 14, 16).178 This suggests Paul argues from the artistic proof of logos (invented persuasion based on probable argument), and his scripture citation in 2:9 functions as inartistic proof (non-invented persuasion based on law, witnesses, oracles, contracts, etc.).179

Several points are noteworthy in 2:6–8 and together they highlight wisdom in the form of pedagogical and prophetic-apocalyptic discourses. First, our apostle now takes on the role of a teacher. His verb we speak (λαλοῦμεν) replaces preaching (καταγγέλλω) to suggest a pedagogical emphasis (2:6, 13).180 Aristotle and other ancient educators spoke in the first-person plural, as did teachers of practical exercises on rhetoric. Theon’s “we” in the prelude of his progymnasmata refers to himself before the personal pronoun includes his students subsequently.181 Similarly, Paul may be using “we” in 2:6–7a inclusive of himself and perhaps his colleagues as teachers, and then he seems to include his many students who have received God’s Spirit in 2:7b, 12. Given a time in which orators were hired by wealthy parents who sought to have their sons trained in rhetorical skills for future public careers,182 it follows that Paul might discuss an alternative form of education in wisdom.

Second, Paul teaches wisdom among those who are mature. Are these his Corinthian recipients? Yes, because they have received the prerequisite of God’s Spirit needed to discern this wisdom (6:11, 19; 12:13)—and no, because they still behave immaturely (3:1–3). They still need to realize the implications of who they are as Christ’s followers.183 Maturity here imagines advanced or adult learners who understand and live up to standards of teachings disclosed to them. A state of being mature or τέλειος may suggest completeness in training (cf. 14:19–20; cf. Col 1:28; Eph 4:11–13).184 This term is used also of skilled sophists and philosophers (Isocrates Antidosis 199–200; Plato Phaedr. 269E; Crat. 403E; Philo Det. 32–49, 65–68, 132–33).185 Perhaps certain Corinthians used it to identify skillful orators. When Paul denies speaking with words taught by human wisdom (2:13), as Pogoloff discerns, “the most natural teachers would be the rhetorical schools . . . the Hellenistic reader would find the meaning unmistakable.”186 If so, Paul gives maturity in education a new meaning. Maturity in Christ is not measured by rhetorical skills but teaching that unveils God’s wisdom through the Spirit. This type of learning is neither competitive nor gained by money but comes as a gift from God. Unlike rhetorical education that was reserved for upper classes, divine wisdom is granted to anyone willing to receive it—whether slave, free, man, woman, educated, or uneducated—as long as the person has God’s Spirit.СКАЧАТЬ