In Paul’s argument against dissensions, Paul is said to have tried to regain his authority before the Corinthians. The first rhetorical unit is thus seen as an apologia. In his argument, he seemingly uses the concept of paterfamilias known to have evoked power and control. However, such a proposal neglects the fact that Paul’s argument is against exactly such type of discourse in which one seeks to elevate one teacher against another. Rather, in the use of the concept of paterfamilias we should see Paul redefining the concept and filling it with affection.
The social structure of the Corinthian ecclesia is a reasonable cause for the dissensions that had occurred between her members. The people from the higher social strata of the church may have sought to advance their honor by desiring to extend their patronage over those teachers in the church that could help them in that regard. This situation was aided by the fact that the members of the Christian community have failed to allow the cross to redefine the new entity to which they now belonged. Rather, they perceived the Christian ecclesia according to different social models that were available at that time in the society at large: household model, collegia model, political ecclesia, and Jewish synagogue. As a result, the apostle Paul, in the first four chapter of 1 Corinthians, shows how the cross has overturned the social values inherent in these models. He argues that the Christian ecclesia is a new entity, with a unique identity, and distinct network of relations, which should separate those inside the Christian community from those outside.
The dissensions in the Corinthian church bring up the question of the mention of Apollos’ name in Paul’s argument against the partisan spirit. Over time, there have been different proposals as to the role that Apollos had in the dissensions as well as his function in the argument of 1 Corinthians 1-4. Some say that Paul and Apollos were rivals and thus Paul formulates his argument against dissensions as a subtle attach on Apollos and his party. Others say that Apollos’ role in the dissensions is a more indirect one, give his modus operandi. Apollos is seen as a preacher characterized by rhetorical skill (cf. Acts 18:24-28), who has made a great impression on the Corinthian congregation especially on those of a certain high social status, who have used Apollos against the less skillful Paul in order to advance their honor. Thus, in this view, Apollos is seen as having an unintentional and indirect role in the dissensions, being played by some in the congregation. Others, however, see Apollos as having no role in the dissensions, the mention of his name by Paul being only as a way of example and with direct application to others. This view is based on a certain interpretation of meteschēmatisa in 1 Corinthians 4:6. An analysis of these views and their supporting arguments leads us to believe that the fault for the dissensions falls not on Apollos, but on the Corinthians. Paul and Apollos share a close collaboration in the mission work; it is the Corinthians who have pitched one against the other.
First Corinthians 1-4 discusses the concept of sophia or wisdom as a central theme. It seems to be both a worldly standard by which the Corinthians judged their teachers and a concept which Paul redefines in light of the cross. Over the last century, two major proposals have been put forth as an explanation for the background of sophia: Gnosticism and Hellenistic Jewish wisdom. Those who advance the hypothesis of Gnosticism behind the concept, correctly identify in these chapters words and terminology that are commonly associated with Gnosticism. However, the literary context of 1 Corinthians 1-4, as determinative of meaning for these words, suggests different meanings associated with the cross. Moreover, claiming Gnostic influence on the writing of 1 Corinthians is guilty of anachronism. The Hellenistic Jewish wisdom proposal is likewise based on alleged linguistic and conceptual parallelism with Philonic type wisdom. It is argued, among other things, that the Corinthians were taught such wisdom by Apollos. This argument, however cannot be sustained, when we look at Apollos’ ministry in light of the information we have in the New Testament. As a result, both Gnosticism and Hellenistic Jewish wisdom are not viable hypothesis for the background of sophia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.