Thus both of the tensions here may be addressed by giving careful attention to the situation and nuanced argumentation of chapter 15.
Chloe and Stephanas in Chapter 16 and Chapter 1
Two tensions arise from Paul’s personal greetings in chapter 16. Firstly, it is surprising that Paul does not greet, or offer greetings from, “Chloe’s people”, from whom he reports having heard significant news about the Corinthian church in chapter 1. Secondly, it is surprising to find that Stephanas appears to be present with Paul in chapter 16, given that Paul seems initially not to remember him in chapter 1, and makes no reference to his presence at that point.166
Merklein does not find either of these issues to be particularly significant.167 He asserts that it is enough to mention Chloe’s people in chapter 1, without needing to reiterate an acknowledgement of them at the close of the letter. Similarly, Merklein appeals to the pragmatics of a letter text to suggest that a reference to Stephanas’ presence in chapter 1 is unnecessary, given that this would have been known to the Corinthians anyway.
It could further be pointed out that there is no information as to whether Chloe’s people were even part of the Corinthian church at all, or their whereabouts at the time of the sending of the letter. Likewise, Paul provides few details from which to reconstruct Stephanas’ movements.
But what of Paul’s apparent failure to recall Stephanas in chapter 1? Schenk considers such a failure to be unthinkable if Stephanas were in fact present – as Schenk believes is
166 Again, Schmithals finds that these tensions point undeniably to partition. He points to
“the question which has caused exegetes much racking of the brain, as to how Paul could be silent in I,1:11 about Stephanas and his companions but in I,16 about the people of Chloe – a puzzle that is in fact insoluble if one holds to the unity of 1 Corinthians. Rather, Epistle A is delivered by Stephanas, and Epistle B has been prompted by those of Chloe. It would indeed be most strange if Paul had only belatedly recalled in I,1:16 Stephanas who was present with him”. Schmithals, Gnosticism, 94; emphasis original.
implied in chapter 16.168 It is worth considering, however, whether Paul may have had a rhetorical reason in chapter 1 for singling out the people he baptised and for separating the mention of Stephanas. Baptism is mentioned six times in this crucial section that
introduces the issue of divisions (1:10-17); and nowhere else in the main body of the letter are people from Corinth named – not even the man who has publicly committed sexual immorality in chapter 5. These facts may hint that there was something about this issue of baptism, and the particular people Paul first names, that was known both to Paul and the Corinthians in relation to the divisions, but which is now obscure. It may be, for example, that Paul wanted to separate the mention of Stephanas (a local leader whom he commends in chapter 16) from any hint of the squabbling over baptism. Of course, this cannot be insisted upon; but the fact that it can neither be emphatically denied again illustrates Merklein’s point that there will necessarily be obscurities and apparent incongruities in dealing with a letter text, which carries pragmatic coherence between author and primary audience.
Apparent Editorial Interpolations
Redaction Criticism is often accompanied by the suggestion of editorial interpolations that aim to improve overall coherence, and to sharpen the letter’s application to the redactional situation. It has already been noted that Sellin is unconvinced by most of the suggestions of editorial interpolations in 1 Corinthians, although he does, for example, think that 1:2c is given away as an interpolation by a catholicising tendency.169
Such assertions of interpolation, without manuscript evidence, are hard to evaluate, particularly because they require an accessible redactional situation that makes better sense of them than their literary context. I remain unconvinced that it can be argued with sufficient certainty that original circumstances could not have supplied adequate reason for – specifically – reminders of catholicity. Indeed, such reminders do not appear at all out of place in a letter that argues vigorously against proud autonomy.
168
Schenk, “Der 1 Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung,” 223.
There are, of course, numerous other passages (besides those that are argued to have an editorial catholicising tendency) that have been identified as possible interpolations in 1 Corinthians. Murphy-O’Connor discusses claims of interpolation in relation to 2:6-16; 4:6; 6:14; 7:29-31; 10:1-22; 11:3-16; 13; 14:34-5; 15:21-2; 15:29-34; 15:31-2; 15:44b-48; and 15:56.170 Aside from those discussed above, however, these instances generally relate to individual possible additions, rather than alleged elements of a comprehensive redaction of the letter. Thus I do not discuss them here, as my focus is on the general unity and coherence of the letter, a coherence that would not be jeopardised by the odd questionable verse.
3. Kerygmatic Rhetoric and the Coherence of 1
Corinthians
My thesis, that the arrangement of 1 Corinthians be viewed as exhibiting kerygmatic
rhetoric, essentially pursues the credible possibility that Paul draws on, but creatively
transforms, certain conceptual motifs from his cultural-theological heritage in order to present a pastorally strategic response to a set of problems in Corinth that he conceives as having major theological significance. This allows a smoother reading of the letter than a more limited application of Rhetorical Criticism has provided, particularly in relation to the meaning and function of the resurrection chapter.
Conclusion to Chapter 2
In this chapter I have acknowledged that the literary integrity of 1 Corinthians has often been challenged, resulting in various redaction theories, as well as a range of conceptions of the letter’s coherence. Objectors to the compositional unity of the letter point to a lack of unified literary coherence, and possible evidence of an editor. Redaction theories, however, face problems of historical plausibility, both in terms of the claim for an aggressively singular Pauline Corpus, and in relation to the utilisation of 1 Corinthians by Clement of Rome.
170
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians” in Keys to First
Various conceptions of the literary unity of the letter have therefore been offered. The background of Greco-Roman letter forms has been of limited benefit, given that the letter “body” is so flexible. Rhetorical Criticism has commendably sought to be attentive to the flow of the letter’s argumentation, but has often been limited to rhetorical patterns that were allegedly generic across the Greco-Roman world, rather than creative rhetorical resources expressive of Paul’s particularity. Numerous scholars have noted that Paul’s pastoral motivation results in a literary coherence that is pragmatic between author and first audience. The situation/s behind the letter have been investigated and evaluated as having a certain entextualised coherence by various commentators. Some have argued that Paul’s response to these situations exhibits a theological unity, perhaps drawing on patterns from Paul’s theological heritage. My own perspective continues this trajectory of thought, but emphasises that such patterns from Paul’s theological heritage have been renegotiated in the light of the Christ event, to become focused as kerygma.
The exegetical tensions in canonical 1 Corinthians may be somewhat relieved by this perspective. In particular, Paul’s pastorally driven rhetoric, his distinctive approach to ethical persuasion, and his adoption of ABA’ patterning into his overall schema offer some insight into the parts of the letter that have been seen as problematic for the letter’s overall coherence.