So many of Paul's letters follow a nice fixed form:
following the conventional epistilary opening, the body begins
with a expository section containing theological concepts and
then moves to a hortitory section containing practical advise;
then the letter ends with more epistilary conventions.
I Corinthians has the conventional epistilary opening and
closing, but the body of the letter is quite different from
the typical Pauline epistle. Rather than the two-fold
division outlined above, I Corinthians contains a series of
discourses on topics which often seem quite unrelated.
It may appear at first to the reader that Paul was
following a "stream of consciousness" order, simply discussing
items as they came to his mind. The reader may see the topics
discussed as a hodge-podge of items. An in-depth analysis of
the patterns in this discourse, however, reveals that
I Corinthians shows much more structure than may be apparent
on an initial reading.
The historical background to I Corinthians
The apostle Paul came to the city of Corinth on his
second missionary journey, probably in the spring of A.D. 50
(Barrett 1968:5). Acts 18:1-18 records how Paul stayed with
Aquila and Priscilla, working with them as tentmakers during
the week and preaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath days.
When Silas and Timothy finally arrived from Macedonia, he
devoted himself to preaching and teaching all the time.
Opposition arose from the Jews and Paul moved his preaching to
the house of Titius Justus, a God-fearer who lived next door
to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, was
converted, along with many of the Corinthians. In all, Paul
stayed about a year and a half, probably until the fall of
A.D. 51 (Barrett 1968:5). It was during this time that the
Jews dragged Paul before the judgment seat of Gallio, the
Roman proconsul. Their effort to stop his preaching by legal
means failed, but it aids us in dating the event. An
inscription found at Delphi places Gallio in Corinth between
January 25th and August 1st in A.D. 52. It is therefore
likely that he became proconsul in the spring of A.D. 51.
This date may be a year too early, but the chronology is close
if not exact (Conzelmann 1975:12-13).
After Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla left Corinth for
Ephesus, Apollos came to Corinth (Acts 18:27-19:1). Perhaps
Peter also visited the city, for we find a Cephas party
mentioned in I Cor. 1:12. When Paul returned to Ephesus on
his third missionary journey, he began correspondence with the
church at Corinth that included probably four letters from him
and at least one letter from them. In I Cor. 5:9-11 Paul
refers to a previous letter he had written them (unless, of
course, the word "wrote" be taken as an epistolary aorist
referring to I Corinthians). Some have identified this
previous letter with II Corinthians 6:14-7:1, but it is more
likely that this letter has been lost (Guthrie 1970:425-426).
In reply, they sent a letter to Paul asking questions
(I Cor. 7:1), perhaps carried by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and
Achaicus (16:17). Several sections begin with the words ?e??` de´ 'Now concerning' (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12); these are
usually taken as referring to the Corinthians' questions in
their letter (cf. Morris 1958:115, 124, 166, 237, 242). If
this is correct, the letter read something like the following
reconstruction (this was composed using I Cor. 1:2, 14; 7:1,
25, 38; 8:1, 4; 10:23; 11:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12, 17; Rom. 16:23;
III John 2; I Clement 1:1; Morgan-Wynne 1983:7, 10-11; Bruce
1971:102; Barrett 1968:4; and Doty 1973:2, 4-5, 30-31):
The church of God which is at Corinth to Paul. Rejoice.
We pray that you may be in health, even as we are. We thank
God for you, remembering you in our prayers.
There have been some matters of discussion among us, and
knowing your wisdom, we are writing for your decision in these
matters.
Is it a good thing for a man not to touch a woman? If so,
does a man do well if he should give his virgin in marriage?
Should we eat things sacrificed to idols? Some say that we
all have knowledge that no idol is anything in the world and that
there is no God but one. And we know that all things are lawful.
Now we remember you in everything and maintain the
traditions even as you have delivered them to us. But as to
spiritual gifts, is it better to speak in tongues or to prophesy
in church?
How should we take up the collection for the saints in
Jerusalem?
Some among us would like Apollos to return. Send him back
to us soon.
This letter is sent by the hand of Stephanas and Fortunatus
and Achaicus whom you know to be faithful in the Lord. They will
tell you more than what we have written.
Gaius, and the church in his house, greets you. Cripus
greets you. Greet Apollos. Greet Aquila and Prisca, and the
church in their house. Rejoice.
Paul's answer to them was the letter we call
I Corinthians.
In the opening, Paul associates Sosthenes, a Christian
brother, with himself. Some have connected him with the
Sosthenes mentioned in Acts 18:17 (Barrett 1968:31). Bruce
notes that he was probably "someone well known to the
Corinthian church who was with Paul in Ephesus at the time of
writing" (Bruce 1971:30). But Conzelmann is right in noting
that "the fellow-writer is not a fellow-author" (1975:20).
Paul uses the singular Greek pronoun for "I" eighty-six times
in the letter (Aland, Bachmann, and Slaby 1978:82).
The Structure of the Letter
The body of the letter of I Corinthians is composed of
ten discourses, whose main topics are division (1-4),
fornication (5-6), marriage (7), food offered to idols (8-10),
head coverings (11), the Lord's Supper (11), spiritual gifts
(12-14), the resurrection from the dead (15), the contribution
for the saints (16), and the coming of Apollos (16). The
discourses on marriage, meat offered to idols, spiritual
gifts, and the contribution seem to be written in answer to
the Corinthians' letter. The discourses on division,
fornication, head coverings, the Lord's Supper, and the
resurrection seem to have arisen from reports brought by some
members of Chloe's household (1:11) and by Stephanas,
Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17). There are indications of
oral reports also in 5:1, 11:18, and 15:12, although there is
no indication of the source of this information.
The discourse on marriage actually seems to be in answer
to two questions (7:1, 25). However, the responses to both
are similar, and it seems best to treat this as one discourse.
The motivation for the order in which the subjects are
addressed is not entirely evident. Presumably the subjects
that are introduced by ?e??` de´ 'Now concerning' are in the
same order as in the Corinthians' letter, although even this
is not certain. The sections on fornication and marriage are
found together, probably because both have to do with sexual
issues. In the same way, the worship concerns of head
coverings, the Lord's Supper, and use of spiritual gifts are
grouped together, even though the first two interrupt what
would have been a continuous reply to the Corinthians' letter.
Perhaps the lengthy treatment given the subject of division,
the back reference to that subject in 11:18, and the primary
place accorded it indicate that it was foremost in Paul's
mind. In the same way, the ordering of the discourse on the
resurrection as the last major discussion may indicate its
importance, although it is possible that the contribution
received only four verses of attention due to constraints
imposed by the size of the scroll on which the letter was
written (note that the subject merits two chapters in
II Corinthians). But Paul may have seen the end of the scroll
coming and decided to address the question of the resurrection
before he ran out of room.
This study takes the position that only those sections
that are introduced by ?e??` de´ 'Now concerning' are in fact
Paul's answers to the Corinthians' letter. All other sections
are in response to oral reports which Paul received from
various sources. Not everyone has always taken this position;
for example, Hurd (1983) has argued that some of the sections
which do not begin with "Now concerning" are also answers to
questions in the Corinthians' letter. It is beyond the scope
of this article to address this question, but interested
readers can consult the justification for the position this
paper takes in Terry (1995:39-42).
When only those sections which are introduced by ?e??` de´
'Now concerning' are treated as replies to questions in the
Corinthians' letter and the other sections are treated as
responses to oral information which Paul had received, the
letter divides nicely into a cyclical structure of ABA'B'A"B",
where A is a response to oral reports and B is a response to
the Corinthians' letter. This is shown clearly in Table 1.
First, two subjects are covered in response to oral reports;
then there are two subjects in response to their letter. This
is followed by a two-one-one-two pattern of two responses to
oral reports, one to the letter, one to an oral report, and
two to the letter. The motivation for this pattern is not
clear, although it may provide groupings of related topics
(discourses 2 and 3 on sex; 4, 5, and 6 on pagan worship
forms; and 6 and 7 on the Christian assembly). In addition,
Paul's travel plans are found both between the first two
discourses and the last two discourses. If the division
defended below and indicated in Table 1 is correct, these
travel plans are found at the beginning of the second
discourse and the end of the next to last discourse, showing
an even greater balance in the overall structure of the book.
Chapter Response to Oral Report Response to Letter
1 Introduction (1:1-9)
1. Church Division (1:10-4:17)
A Division (1:10-17)
2 B Wisdom (1:18-2:16)
3 A' Division (3:1-4)
C Servanthood (3:5-15)
D Wisdom and Division (3:16-23)
4 C' Servanthood (4:1-17)
2. Fornication (4:18-6:20)
Travel Plans (4:18-21)
5 A Fornication (5)
6 B Lawsuits (6:1-8)
A' Fornication (6:9-20)
7 3. Marriage (7)
A Marriage (7:1-16)
B Circumcision &
Slavery (7:17-24)
A' Marriage (7:25-40)
4. Idol Food (8:1-11:1)
8 A Idol Food (8:1-13)
9 B Rights (9:1-27)
10 A' Idol Food (10:1-11:1)
11 5. Head Coverings (11:2-16)6. The Lord's Supper (11:17-34)7. Spiritual Gifts* (12-14)
12 A Spiritual Gifts (12)
13 B Love (13)
14 A' Spiritual Gifts (14)
8. The Resurrection* (15)
15 A The Resurrection (15:1-32)
B Quit Sinning (15:33-34)
A' The Resurrection (15:35-58)
16 9. Contribution (16:1-4)
Travel Plans (16:5-11)
10. Apollos (16:12)
Conclusion (16:13-24)
* Discourses 7 and 8 are peak sections foreshadowed by the
thanksgiving in 1:4-9.
Paul's Use of Chiasmus in Major Sections
Several of the discourses in I Corinthians show chiasmus
of major sections in the form ABA'. The B section in these
discourses has often been mistakenly identified as a
digression or excursus (Guthrie 1970:425; Feine, Behm, and
Kümmel 1966:198-199; and Morgan-Wynne 1983:7). For the moment
skipping the discourse in chapters 1 through 4, we find this
feature in the discourses in 4:18-6:20 (fornication, lawsuits,
fornication), 7:1-40 (marriage, circumcision and slavery,
marriage), 8:1-11:1 (eating meat offered to idols, right of
the teacher to receive pay, eating meat offered to idols), and
12:1-14:40 (spiritual gifts, love, spiritual gifts) (Turner
1976:97). In the latter three, a transition is made that ties
the second subject in with the first in such a way that the
second subject actually becomes an argument for the first.
Failure to note the unity and chiastic structure of
chapters 8 through 10 have led to the misunderstanding that
Paul is allowing freedom to eat meat offered to idols.
Chapter 8 cannot correctly be seen as independent of chapter
10. The whole thrust of the section is to confirm the ruling
of the apostolic decision at Jerusalem in Acts 15, albeit
presented in a persuasive way, rather than as authoritarian
dogma. Paul uses a conditional approach: he introduces the
Corinthians' position in 8:1-6 and seems to accept it as valid
for the moment. Even so, he goes on to argue, there are two
problems with eating food offered to an idol: a weaker brother
may be made to sin, and a Christian should be willing to give
up rights for the sake of the gospel. Having noted these
problems that come with accepting the Corinthians' position,
he goes on in chapter 10 to argue that it is in fact wrong to
eat meat in an idol's temple.
The relationship between fornication and lawsuits is not
so obvious, although it may have been to the first readers
(Guthrie 1970:444). Perhaps the lawsuits were over problems
aggravated by fornication. Richardson (1980:347-348) lists
eight possible scenarios for this possibility, but it remains
precisely that, only a possibility. More likely, the section
on lawsuits is establishing the church's right to judge the
offender (cf. 5:12 "those inside the church whom you are to
judge").
In the same way the first discourse shows a form of
chiasmus with the topics of division and wisdom, although the
form is not the simple ABA'. These topics are combined with
the topic of servanthood (introduced in 3:5) to form a double
chiasmus. The chiasmus may be charted in the following way:
First Set: division, wisdom, division (1:10-3:4)
Second Set: servanthood, wisdom and division, servanthood (3:5-4:17).
When this is done, the structure of the first discourse shows
the double chiastic form of ABA' C(A''/B')C'.
The Endings of Two Discourses
In a couple of places it is questionable whether chapter beginnings actually mark the beginnings of the major embedded
discourses. It is generally agreed that 11:1 is the last
statement of the discussion on meat offered to idols rather
than the first on the subject of head coverings (cf. Morris
1958:150). In the same way, there is some difficulty in
knowing whether to assign the transitional verses 4:18-21 to
the first or second discourse.
It is traditional among commentators to carry the
discussion of the first discourse through 4:21 and begin the
new discourse on fornication with 5:1. This view is not
without its problems. Some commentators who take this view
note that 5:1 begins abruptly (Findlay 1979:807 and Morris
1958:86) or medias in res (Lenski 1946:205) or as a "sudden
bursting of the storm" (Edwards 1885:118; cf. also Robertson
and Plummer 1914:95). A few note either that the discourse
should begin with 4:21 (Calvin 1948:177), or that 4:21 ties
the two discourses together (Alford reprinted 1983:1000). Fee
(1987:194) notes that there are verbal "ties" between 4:18-20
and 5:2-6, and Hurd (1983:89) lists 4:18-21 as a transitional
passage. Several ancient manuscripts marked 4:21 as beginning
kephalaion 2 (an ancient system of chapters) while manuscript
Vaticanus marked the new section as beginning with 4:16.
Various manuscripts also began paragraphs either at 4:16, 17,
or 18 as well as at 4:14 and 5:1 (Nestle, Nestle, and Aland
1957:432; Nestle et al. 1979:447).
If indeed the new discourse begins at 5:1 (or even at 4:21), this would be unique among the discourses of I Corinthians, for all the other discourses (1:10; 7:1; 8:1; 11:2; 11:17; 12:1; 15:1; 16:1; and 16:12) begin with a verse containing the conjunctive particle de´ 'now'. In addition, they all end with verses that contain a transitional particle, either de´ 'but' (7:40; 11:16; 11:34; 14:40; 16:12), ???ste 'so' (11:33; 14:39), ????? 'therefore' (10:31), or ?a´? . . . de´ 'for . . . but' (6:20; 16:11). But neither 5:1 nor 4:21 contain inter-colon transitional conjunctions (4:21 does contain ??´ 'or' and 5:1 contains ?a?´ 'and', but both connect clauses within a colon).
For the purposes of this analysis, it is suggested that the first discourse actually ends with 4:17 and the new discourse begins with 4:18. In favor of this are the following facts: First, the verses 4:18-21 are all on a single subject—Paul's proposed visit to Corinth. This subject is picked up again in 16:5-9. It hardly seems right to begin the new discourse in the middle of this subject. This small section can fit with either the preceding discourse or the following as far as content is concerned. But when put with the following discourse it provides a meaningful introduction to the stern words of chapter 5. Second, it also contains ideas elaborated on in chapter 5: those of being puffed up (vv. 18-19) and having power (vv. 19-20). These words are picked up in 5:2 and 5:4, respectively. Third, it contains the phrase "kingdom of God," a term which is picked up again in 6:9-10. Fourth, beginning the discourse on fornication with 4:18 would make this discourse begin with a verse containing de´ 'now' and have the discourse on division end with verses containing ????? 'therefore' (v. 16) and d?a` t???t? 'because of this' (v. 17). Fifth, commentators have noted the difference in tone between 4:14, where Paul is admonishing the Corinthians as children, and 4:21, where Paul is threatening to come against the arrogant with a whip (cf. Bailey 1983, 162; and Barrett 1968, 117). And finally, verses 16 and 17 contain similar ideas to those found in other verses that end discourses. The idea of imitating Paul in verse 16 also brings to a close the discourse on eating meat offered to idols in 11:1 and the idea of the practice of all the churches in 4:17 closes the discourse on head coverings in 11:16. Therefore it seems best to take the first discourse as ending at 4:17 and 4:18 beginning a transition into a new section. But however one divides the text at this point, it does not affect the macrostructure, for the material in the paragraph in question is merely transitional and not central to either section.
The Macrostructures of the Discourses
When one examines the arguments in summary form and the
key ideas of I Corinthians, a macrostructure can be abstracted
for each of the ten discourses and the conclusion in
I Corinthians. They are as follows:
Discourse 1 (1:10-4:17):
I appeal to you to avoid division and strife due to
following men (Paul, Apollos, and Cephas), for such boasting
is due to the wisdom of men, but in God's wisdom they are
servants of Christ.
Discourse 2 (4:18-6:20):
Flee fornication and lawsuits with one another, and deliver
an incestuous fornicator to Satan.
Discourse 3 (7:1-40):
Let everyone remain in the marital status in which he was
when called, but it is not a sin to get married if an
unmarried person cannot control his passions.
Discourse 4 (8:1-11:1):
Do not eat meat offered to idols in an idol's temple, for
this is not a right but idolatry and can lead a weak brother
into sin; but eat meat bought at the meat market or at a
friend's dinner without asking any questions.
Discourse 5 (11:2-16):
A man ought not cover his head when he prays or prophesies,
but a woman should.
Discourse 6 (11:17-34):
When you meet to eat the Lord's Supper, wait for one another
and remember the body and blood of the Lord.
Discourse 7 (12:1-14:40):
Seek spiritual gifts, especially prophecy, which builds up
the church, but above all, show love.
Discourse 8 (15:1-58):
Just as Christ was raised from the dead, so you should
believe that Christians will be raised at His coming with a
spiritual body.
Discourse 9 (16:1-11):
Every Sunday let each of you put something aside and store
it up for the contribution for the saints at Jerusalem. I
will come after Pentecost, and Timothy will come now.
Discourse 10 (16:12):
Apollos will not come now.
Conclusion (16:13-18):
Be subject to and acknowledge those workers who have devoted
themselves to the service of the saints.
Culture as a Unifying Theme
The question may be asked as to whether the discourse
macrostructures given above can be further combined into one
overall macrostructure. Some of them seem to have little in
common with others. Yet there are two themes which run
throughout the whole book. First, every problem which Paul
discusses has its roots in Greek culture. And second, almost
every argument appeals to Christ in some way.
If a unifying theme is sought, it is found first in the
conflict of Christianity with the cultural background of
Corinth. As Conzelmann has noted, "We have here to do with
people who have only recently become Christians; what were the
ideas they brought with them into the community?" (1975:15).
Most, if not all, of the problems which Paul discusses in
I Corinthians can be attributed to the influence of the
Corinthian cultural setting on the Christians there. It is
generally accepted that the glorification of wisdom, the
eating of meat offered to idols, and the denial of a bodily
resurrection were aspects of Greek culture. In addition,
ecstatic utterances may have been found in some Pythian and
Dionysiac religions (Bruce 1971:21), although the "speaking in
tongues" in I Corinthians should not be viewed as a part of
pagan religion. But Greek religion may have been an influence
on the Corinthians' high estimate of this gift. Some of the
problems that Paul deals with are moral problems, such as
fornication, drunkenness, the desires of greed and for revenge
that accompany lawsuits. But even these problems are
culturally based, for Greek society did not place a strong
condemnation on them.
Perhaps the most misunderstood cultural influence in
modern days is the Greek attitude toward women wearing head
coverings. Regarding this, Guthrie writes, "Paul urges
Christian women to respect the social customs of their time,
in spite of their new-found freedom" (1970:445). But in fact,
Greek women were under no necessity to wear a covering on
their head in Greek society, especially when they were at
worship (cf. Kittel 1965:III, 562; Conzelmann 1975:185; Terry
1995:26-31). Rather than Paul pleading for respect of social
customs, in I Corinthians 11 he is arguing for the maintenance
of the Christian tradition (11:2). Some women were being
influenced more by what society allowed than by what
Christianity taught.
The Centrality of Christ
Although the cultural influences behind the problems at
Corinth stand out, the word "culture" is not found in the
text. Rather the key concept in I Corinthians is the Lord
Jesus Christ. The term "Christ" is found 64 times in I
Corinthians. This is second in frequency of usage only to
Romans (which has the word 66 times) among the New Testament
books. The term "Lord" is found 66 times, and Jesus 26 times
(Aland, Bachmann, and Slaby 1978:2-304).
The arguments that Paul advances in trying to solve the
various problems are rooted in Christ. Paul's argument about
divisions in chapter 1 begins with an appeal in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ (1:10). He implies that they were
baptized in the name of Christ (1:13-15). For Paul, Christ is
the crucified One, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God
(2:23-24); He is the foundation of the church (3:11). In
discussing fornication, Paul notes that Christ is our Passover
lamb (5:7); therefore, we should cleanse out the old leaven of
sin from our lives. He argues that for a Christian to commit
fornication is to join Christ to a prostitute (6:15). He
refers to the command of the Lord in the instructions about
marriage (7:10-11). In discussing food offered to idols, Paul
states that Christians have one Lord, Jesus Christ. When we
eat the Lord's Supper, we share in the body and blood of
Christ (10:16). Paul exhorts the Christians to imitate him,
as he imitates Christ (11:1). In discussing head coverings,
he argues that Christ is the head of every man (11:3). In the
discussion on the Lord's Supper, he recounts the words of
Jesus on the night that He was betrayed (11:23-25). In the
discourse on spiritual gifts, he calls Christians the body of
Christ (12:27). And he grounds his discussion of the
resurrection in the resurrection of Christ (15:3-23).
A Unified Macrostructure
With these two concepts in mind, the following tentative
macrostructure could be suggested. Whether this was in fact
the motivating idea which was in Paul's mind when he produced
I Corinthians is highly questionable, but it can be said to
fairly represent a summary of the text which he produced. It
reads as follows:
(14) Obey Christ rather than following social customs, such as
boasting about men, committing fornication and suing one
another, getting a divorce, eating meat offered to an
idol, having women pray bareheaded, getting drunk,
valuing ecstatic utterances, doubting the resurrection,
and spending all your money on yourself.
Themes as Meta-Structures
Now the question remains: is this in fact a mental
concept which Paul had in mind before beginning I Corinthians
or not? While it does represent a good generalization that
fairly summarizes the whole book, it is open to some
criticisms. For one thing, this suggested macrostructure is
so general that it could generate any number of given texts.
For another, it introduces the terms "Christ" and "social
customs" from the theme, but such terms do not appear in most
of the sectional macrostructures. The term "Christ" does
appear in the discourses as they are worked out by Paul, and
various social customs are dealt with in I Corinthians. But
these seem to be a part of a recurrent theme rather than a
part of a macrostructure. Finally, this suggested
macrostructure would make the macrostructures of the component
discourses of less importance than the theme, although an
over-all macrostructure ought to be discoverable out of the
macrostructures of the constituent discourses.
Now a recurrent theme in a discourse is not necessarily
a part of its macrostructure. This is not to say that it is
not a controlling mental concept, just that it is not
necessarily a part of the central idea. Such a theme does
play a part in structuring the discourse. But it is woven
into the fabric of the text, appearing, disappearing, and
reappearing. As such, the mental structure that embodies the
theme may be referred to as a "meta-structure" because it
occurs throughout the text. Thus, it seems best not to take
the tentative macrostructure suggested above as an actual
macrostructure that existed in the mind of Paul.
I Corinthians is one of these complex discourses that
requires more than a simple statement of a single
macrostructure to account for its final form. Ten
macrostructures of component discourses have been isolated
together with a "meta-structure" that takes the form "Obey
Christ rather than following social customs." These
conceptual structures are mapped onto a mixture of rhetorical
patterns that include a cyclical (ABA'B'A''B'') treatment of
response to oral information and response to the Corinthians
letter. Several of the component discourses take the form of
a simple chiastic structure (ABA'). The discourse is laid out
with balance in mind as regards the number of discourses per
cyclical unit, forming a pattern (2-2-2-1-1-2). Balance is
seen in the location of the transitional paragraphs about
Paul's travel plans: between the first two discourses and also
between the last two. All of these elements are needed to
explain the high level organization of the complex book of
I Corinthians.
Types of Grammatical and Conceptual Patterns
Not only is the high level structure of I Corinthians
complex, the lower level sturctures are as well. Before
looking at the specifics, it is necessary to review the kinds
of patterns that are found in I Corinthians.
Where a paragraph structure is made up of two elements,
there are two possible patterns: AA' and AB. The AA' pattern
is a parallelism structure. The two elements, whether
sentences or paragraphs, are either conceptually or
grammatically parallel to one another or parallel in both
ways. I Corinthians contains numerous examples of this pattern
on a microparagraph level, including pairings in 6:7, 12;
7:12-13, 16, 22, 28; 9:1ab, 1d-2b, 5-6, 7; 10:16, 21, 23;
11:4-5, 22; 12:15-16, 17, 26, 28-29; 13:11, 12; 14:4, 15, 23-24; 15:21-22, 55; and 16:23-24. On a slightly higher
paragraph level, the microparagraph in 15:13-14 is parallel to
the microparagraph in 15:16-17.
The AB pattern contains two paired elements which are
connected to one another in some fashion but also are quite
different in form. A good example of this pattern is a
question-answer paragraph, such as is found in 11:22 and
14:15. A similar structure is a question-command paragraph.
Examples of this are found in 7:18, 21, 27. This structure is
the functional equivalent of a conditional command. If the
question is answered positively, the command applies. The
example in 7:27 is a case of two question-command microparagraphs with a parallel pattern, as shown in (15).
The resulting structure from combining two AB patterns inside
an AA' pattern is a cyclical ABA'B' pattern. It also contains
a conceptual ABB'A' chiasm: bound to a wife, loosed from a
wife, loosed from a wife, bound to a wife. The complex
structuring of such a passage can be appreciated only when
these multiple patterns are allowed to come into focus.
There are also several possible patterns for paragraphs
when they are made up of more than two elements. First of
all, there is a parallel structure AA'A", such as those found
in 4:8, 12:4-6, 22-24, 29, 30, 13:1-3, 15:42-44, and 16:19-20.
Second, there is a linear structure ABC, where different items
follow in some sort of logical order on one another. This
structure follows a common Western way of thinking and writing
and is not difficult to analyze; it is easily seen even in a
particle perspective, as discussed above. Third, there is a
cyclical pattern ABA'B' with four elements, as shown in (15)
above for 7:27, or ABCA'B'C' with six. Other four element
cycles are found in 7:32-34 and 14:6-11. Fourth, there is a
chiastic pattern ABB'A' with four elements or ABCC'B'A' with
six. It is possible to combine the central elements into one
in order to have an odd number of elements. Chiasmus is so
common in I Corinthians that the next section is devoted to a
discussion of it. Finally, there is inclusio, an ABCA pattern
that repeats the first element.
Now the simple pattern ABA' can be either a reduced form
of chiasmus, a defective cycle, or a simple case of inclusio.
The exact rhetorical scheme is impossible to tell since all
three of these cases show the same pattern. In this study,
however, such a pattern is analyzed as chiasmus since it is so
pervasive throughout I Corinthians.
Chiasmus on the Paragraph Level
As noted earlier in this study, several of the
discourses show a form of ABA' chiasmus. But chiasmus is
present, not only on the macroparagraph level, but also on the
microparagraph and intermediate levels. The major studies of
chiasmus in I Corinthians have been by Lund (1942; reprinted
1992) and Bailey (1983). If there is a fault in their work,
it is that they tend to find chiasmus throughout the book,
even in locations where other rhetorical strategies seem to be
used. Lund is better than Bailey about identifying alternate
rhetorical schemes, but even he takes the use of chiasmus to
an extreme. But there are many clear cases of chiasmus in
this letter, and several of these are discussed below.
It is important to note that three kinds of chiasmus
exist in I Corinthians: lexical, in which words are repeated
in a chiastic pattern; grammatical, in which grammatical
structures are repeated in a chiastic manner; and conceptual,
in which concepts are repeated chiastically. Some patterns
have only a single one of these types, but others show a
combination of them.
Now Bailey (1983:177) identifies 3:1-23 as showing an
ABB'A'' scheme found in (16).
(16) A Paul and Apollos (3:1-4)
B The illustration of the field (3:5-9b)
B' The illustration of the building (3:9c-15)
A' Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (3:21-23)
Certainly this pattern exists, but the problem with it is that
it omits the passages about the Corinthians being God's temple
(3:16-17) and about the wisdom of men (3:18-20). A pattern
without such breaks can be found in 3:21-4:7 as shown in (17).
(17) A Boasting (3:21)
B Paul and Apollos (3:22-23)
C Servants of Christ (4:1-5)
B' Paul and Apollos (4:6)
A' Boasting (4:7)
But this pattern as well as Bailey's suggested pattern has a
difficulty. They both cut across the chiastic macroparagraph
structure of the first discourse as given in (18) and shown
also in Table 1.
(18) A Division (1:10-17)
B Wisdom (1:18-2:16)
A' Division (3:1-4)
C Servanthood (3:5-15)
D Wisdom and Division (3:16-23)
C' Servanthood (4:1-17)
This major structure also exists. Bailey's pattern shown in
(16) has taken the elements of A'CD in this analysis and made
them ABA'. The problem is that his analysis here is too
small. But the analysis in (17) also is legitimate, and it
too cuts across the boundary lines of the analysis given in
(18). This tells us that the rhetorical structure of the
first discourse is quite complex and is probably composed of
several patterns interwoven together (cf. Longacre 1979 on
both an episodic and a chiastic structure in the Genesis flood
narrative and Pike 1987 on the multi-dimensional patterns of
the Sermon on the Mount). Certainly the C section of (18) in
3:5-15 on servanthood is composed of two major paragraphs, as
Bailey notes, which form an AA' parallelism. Note again that
there are multiple patterns within this passage.
Within the first discourse another chiasm can be noted
in the paragraph (3:16-17) about the Corinthians being the
temple of God as shown in (19).
(19)
A
????
???´date
??´t?
?a?`?
?e???
e?ste
(3:16)
not
do you know
that
temple
of God
you are
B
?a?`
t?`
p?e??µa
t???
?e???
????e??
e??
??µ???
and
the
Spirit
of
God
dwells
in
you?
C
e??´
t??
t?`?
?a?`?
t???
?e???
f?e?´?e?
(3:17)
If
anyone
the
temple
of
God
destroys
C'
f?e?e??
t???t??
??
?e?´?.
will destroy
this
one [O]
God [S]
B'
??
?a`?
?a?`?
t???
?e???
a?´???´?
e?st??,
the
for
temple
of
God
holy
is
A'
???´t??e´?
e?ste
??µe???.
which
are
you
The A, B, and C elements are all conceptually and lexically
connected.
The second discourse also shows evidence of chiasmus on
a smaller scale. The passage in 6:13-14 (noted by Fee
1987:253-254) shows a complex pattern of two lexical chiasms
embedded within a cyclical XYX'Y' pattern as shown in (20),
another example of multiple patterns.
(20)
X
A
ta`
ß??´µata
(6:13)
the
foods
B
t???
?????´a?
for the
stomach
B'
?a?`
??
?????´a
and
the
stomach
A'
t????
ß??´µas?? .
for the
foods
Y
?? de`
?e?`?
?a?`
ta?´t??
?a?`
ta??ta
?ata???´se?.
and
God
both
this
and
these
will destroy
X'
A
t?`
de`
s??µa
???
t???
p???e?´a?
the
but
body
not
for the
fornication
B
a???a`
t???
????´??,
but
for the
Lord,
B'
?a?`
??
??´????
and
the
Lord
A'
t???
s?´µat? .
for
the body.
Y'
??
de`
?e?`?
?a?`
t?`?
??´????
??´?e??e?
(6:14)
the
but
God
both
the
Lord
raised
?a?`
??µa??
e??e?e?e??
d?a`
t???
d??a´µe??
a??t???.
and
us
will raise up
through
the
power
of him
Fee (1987:257) also notes that the next verses contain a
lexical and conceptual chiasmus as shown in (21).
(21) A members of Christ(6:15)
B members of a prostitute
B' the one joined to a prostitute(6:16)
A' the one joined to the Lord(6:17)
The third discourse begins with several examples of
lexical chiasmus as noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992:151-152), who has noted that 7:2-5 form a chiasmus as shown in
(22).
(22)
A
d?a`
de`
ta`?
p???e?´a?
(7:2)
because of
but
the
fornication
B
e?´?ast??
t?`?
e?at???
???a???a
e??e´t?,
each [man]
his
own
wife
let him have
?a?`
e??a´st?
t?`?
??´d???
a?´?d?a
e??e´t?.
and
each [woman]
her
own
husband
let her have.
C
t???
???a???`
??
a???`?
t?`?
??fe???`?
a?p?d?d?´t?
(7:3)
To
the wife
the
husband
the
due
should give
??µ??´??
de`
?a?`
??
????`
t???
a??d??´.
likewise
and
also
the
wife
to the
husband.
C'
??
????`
t???
??d?´??
s?´µat??
(7:4)
the
wife
her
own
body
????
e????s?a´?e?
a???a`
??
a???´?
not
rule over
but
the
husband [does];
??µ??´??
de`
?a?`
??
a???`?
t???
??d?´??
s?´µat??
likewise
and
also
the
husband
his
own
body
????
e????s?a´?e?
a???a`
??
????´.
not
rule over
but
the
wife [does].
B'
µ?`
a?p?ste?e??te
a????´????,
e?? µ?´t?
a?`?
(7:5)
not
defraud
one another,
except
maybe
e??
s?µf?´???
p??`?
?a?p?´?,
??´?a
s???a´s?te
t??? p??se?????
by
agreement
for
a season
that
you may say
prayers
?a?`
pa´???
e?p?` t?` a??t?`
???te,
and
again
together
be
A'
??´?a
µ?`
pe??a´???
??µa??
??
sata?a??
that
not
tempt
you
the
Satan
d?a`
t?`?
a???as?´a?
?µ???.
because of
theThe chiasmus is conceptual, with fornication equaling a lack of self-control, having a person being the same as not defrauding and being together, and giving due equaling not having authority over one's own body. There is also a lexical chiasmus in verse 4 using the words a???´? 'husband' and ????´ 'wife'. At the same time, the grammatical structure of verses 2-4 is a series of parallel units: AA' BB' CC' DD', where the last three primed elements omit the predicate. Again, there
exists an overlay of patterns, not merely a single structure.
A little farther on in the third discourse Fee
(1987:299) has noted that 7:12-14 form what he calls "a
perfect triple chiasm" as shown in (23).
(23) A any brother has
B an unbelieving wife
C any woman has
D an unbelieving husband
D' the unbelieving husband is sanctified
C' through his wife
B' the unbelieving wife is sanctified
A' through her husband
Once again note that the lexical chiasmus is embedded within a
different grammatical pattern--this time a couple of
parallelisms: AB is parallel to CD and D'C' is parallel to
B'A'. Once again, a single pattern is not sufficient to
explain the structure.
The fourth discourse also contains several examples of
chiasmus. Youngman (1987:189) has noted that there is a
chiastic pattern in 9:4-12 as shown in (24).
(24) A Church workers (9:4-6)
B Secular workers (9:7)
C God's ordinance (9:8-10)
B' Secular work (9:11)
A' Church workers (9:12)
Further, 9:16 contains a lexical and structural chiasmus as
shown in (25). It is apparent only in the Greek, for much of
the structure is lost in translation.
(25)
A
e?a`?
?a`?
e??a??e??´??µa?
if
for
I preach the gospel
B
????
e?´st??
µ??
?a?´??µa .
not
is
to me
boast
C
a??a´???
?a´?
µ??
e?p?´?e?ta?.
necessity
for
on me
is laid
B'
???a?`
?a´?
µ??´
e?st??
woe
for
to me
is
A'
e?a`?
µ?`
e????e??´s?µa?.
if
not
I preach the gospel
But the most obvious example of chiasmus in the fourth
discourse is found in 9:19-22 as shown in (26). It has been
noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992:147), Bailey (1983:167),
Youngman (1987:195), and Fee, although the latter states that
it is chiastic "in form only, not in content" (1987:423).
Each of the six elements ends with a purpose clause beginning with ??´?a 'in order to'. The chiasmus is conceptually
defective in the B' element, although Bailey (1983:167) and
Youngman (1987:195) argue that the weak are the same as the
Gentiles. It is true that the weak person in 8:7 is someone
accustomed to idols, that is, a Gentile, but there are weak
Christians who are not Gentiles, and Gentiles who are not
weak. It hardly seems worth limiting Paul's meaning to
preserve the chiasm.
Another example of chiasmus in the fourth discourse is
noted by Youngman (1987:202) in 10:7-10 as shown in (27).
This chiasm is grammatical rather than conceptual.
(27)
A
µ?de`
e??d????a´t?a?
??´?es?e,
?a??´?
t??e?
a??t???
(10:7)
do not
idolators
become
just as
some
of them [did]
??´spe?
?e´??apta?,
e??a´??se?
??
?a?`?
fa?e???
?a?`
as
it is written,
Sat down
the
people
to eat
and
pe???
?a?`
a??e´st?sa?
pa?´?e??.
drink
and
rose up
to play
B
µ?de`
p???e?´?µe?
?a??´?
t??e?
a??t???
e?p?´??e?sa?,
(8)
let us not
fornicate,
just as
some
of them
did
?a?`
e?´pesa?
µ?a??
??µe´?a?
e??´??s?
t?e???
????a´de?.
and
fell
one
day
twenty
three
thousand
B'
µ?de`
e??pe??a´??µe?
t?`?
???st?´?,
?a??´?
t??e?
a??t???
(9)
let us not
test
the
Christ,
just as
some
of them
e?pe?´?asa?,
?a?`
??p?`
t???
??´fe??
a?p?´????t?.
tested,
and
by
the
snakes
they were destroyed
A'
µ?de`
?????´?ete,
?a?a´pe?
t??e`?
a??t???
e???´???sa?,
(10)
do not
grumble,
just like
some
of them
grumbled
?a?
a?p?´???t?
??p?`
t???
??????e?t???.
and
they were destroyed
by
the
destroyer
The B and B' colons contain first person subjunctive verbs in
their independent clauses, sandwiched between second person
imperative verbs in the main clauses of the A and A' colons.
There is an apparent imbalance to this nice scheme, however,
for the A colon is followed by a quotation from Ex. 32:6 (LXX)
to illustrate it and the other colons are not.
A fifth example of chiasmus in the fourth discourse is
found in 10:16-21 as shown in (28). Both Bailey (1983:169)
and Youngman (1987:208) have previously noted this example.
(28) A The cup of blessing . . . is it not a sharing (10:16)
The bread . . . is it not a sharing
B Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers (10:18)
C That food offered to idols is anything (10:19)
C' They sacrifice to demons and not to God (10:20)
B' I do not want you to be sharers with demons
A' You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord (10:21)
You cannot partake of the table of the Lord
Here the correspondences are conceptual rather than
grammatical. The A and A' elements deal with the cup and the
bread (or table) of the Lord's Supper. The B and B' elements
relate that eating a sacrifice makes one a sharer or partner
with an altar or a demon, respectively. The C and C' elements
discuss sacrifices offered to idols.
The fifth discourse has an example of embedded chiasmus
in 11:8-12 as shown in (29). Lund (1942; reprinted 1992:148)
has shown that these verses form a ABCB'A' chiasm with the A,
B, B', and A' elements containing lexical chiasms using the words a???´? 'man' and ????´ 'woman'.
(29)
A
???
?a´?
e?st??
a???`?
e??
???a???`?,
(11:8)
not
for
is
man
from
woman
a???a`
????`
e??
a??d??´?.
but
woman
from
man
B
?a?`
?a`?
????
e??t?´s??
a???`?
d?a`
t?`?
???a???a,
(11:9)
indeed
for
not
was created
man
because of
the
woman
a???a`
????`
d?a`
t?`?
a?´?d?a.
but
woman
because of
the
man
C
d?a`
t???t?
??fe?´?e?
?? ????`
e????s?´a?
e?´?e??
(11:10)
because
of this
ought
woman
authority
to have
e?p?`
t???
?efa????
d?a`
t??`?
a???e´????.
on
the
head
because of
the
angels.
B'
p??`?
???´te
????`
??p?`?
a??d??`?
(11:11)
however
neither
woman
without
man
???´te
a???`?
??p?`?
???a???`?
e??
????´?.
nor
man
without
woman
in the
Lord
A'
??´spe?
?a`?
??
????`
e??
t???
a??d??´?,
(11:12)
as
for
the
woman
from
the
man
???´t??
?a?`
??
a???`?
d?a`
t???
???a???´?.
so
also
the
man
through
the
woman
ta`
de`
pa´?ta
e??
t???
?e???.
the
but
all things
from
the
God
The first two elements have the chiastic order "man-woman-woman-man," while the last two have the order "woman-man-man-woman." Once again, multiple overlaid patterns exist.
The whole sixth discourse can be divided into an ABA' chiastic pattern as shown in (30).
(30) A The Lord's Supper at Corinth (11:17-22)
B How Jesus Instituted the Lord's Supper (11:23-25)
A' The Lord's Supper at Corinth (11:26-34)
The B element at the center is marked by narrative texttype.
The seventh discourse is the most chiastic of all the discourses, showing several levels of embedded chiasmus. In
this regard, it seems significant that this discourse is
within the peak of the letter (Terry 1995:119-125). First,
the whole discourse can be seen as one large chiastic pattern
(here labeled XYX' to avoid confusion) as shown in (31).
(31) X Spiritual gifts (12)
Y Love (13)
X' Spiritual gifts (14)
Bailey (1983:178) has pointed out that what is here called the
X element (12:1-31) can be itself interpreted as a chiastic
pattern. Strictly speaking, the chiasm runs from 12:4-30
rather than over the whole twelfth chapter. The secondary
level of chiasmus is here labeled RSR' as shown in (32).
(32) R Various types of gifts (12:4-11)
S The body and its members (12:12-27)
R' Various types of gifts (12:28-30)
In the same way the Y element (13:1-13) also contains a chiastic pattern, as shown in (33).
(33) R Transition (12:31)
S Love and spiritual gifts (13:1-3)
T Characteristics of love (13:4-7)
S' Love and spiritual gifts (13:8-13)
R' Transition (14:1)
This has been noted by Lund (1942; reprinted 1992:175-176) and
Osburn (1976:150-152) among others.
Both Lund (1942; reprinted 1992:184) and Bailey
(1983:178) have noted that the first part of the Y' element
(chapter 14) is chiastic in structure, although they have
differed over how much text it covers. Lund sees the
structure as covering 14:5b-13, while Bailey extends it to
14:1b-25. There are two problems with Bailey's analysis: it
is not in enough depth (forming merely an RSR' chiasm) and his
S element could be labeled as saying the same thing as the R
and R' elements. Bailey labels the R (14:1b-5) and R' (14:13-25) elements "Prophecy is better than tongues"; he has the S
element composed of the three parables of the flute (14:7),
bugle (14:8-9), and the foreign language (14:11-12). The
problem is that the point of the central S element is also
that prophecy is better than tongues. It is just that in
these verses Paul is arguing by analogy. The chiasm should be
more specific than what Bailey proposes. Lund's (1942;
reprinted 1992:184) analysis is superior in this respect. The
pattern given in (34) basically follows Lund with minor
variations to improve the correspondences.
(34)
R
µe?´???
de`
??
p??f?te?´??
??`
??
(14:5b)
greater
but
the
prophesying
than
the [one]
?a????
???´ssa??,
e??t?`? e?? µ?`
d?e?µ??e?´??,
speaking
in tongues
unless
he interprets
S
??´?a
??
e?????s?´a
?????d?µ?`?
?a´ß??.
(14:5c)
so that
the
church
edification
may receive
T
A
. . . e?a`?
e?´???
p??`?
??µa??
???´ssa??
?a????,
(14:6)
. . . if
I come
to
you
in tongues
speaking
t?´
??µa??
??fe??´s?, . . .;
what
you
will I profit?
B
??´µ??
ta`
a?´???a
f???`?
d?d?´?ta, . . .
(14:7)
likewise
the
lifeless
sounds
giving
T'
A'
???´t??
?a?`
??µe???
d?a`
t???
???´ss??
(14:9)
so
also
you
through
your
tongue
e?a´? µ?`
e??´s?µ??
??´???
d??te,
p???
???s??´seta?
unless
intelligible
word
give
how
will one know
t?`
?a???´µe???; . . .
the
thing spoken?
B'
t?sa??ta
e?? t?´???
?e´??
(14:10)
so many
perhaps
kinds of
f?????
e??s??
e??
??´sµ?, . . .
languages
there are
in the
world
S'
p??`?
t?`?
?????d?µ?`?
t???
e?????s?´a?
??te??te
(14:12)
for
the
edification
of the
church
seek
??´?a
pe??sse?´?te.
that
you may abound
R'
d??`
??
?a????
???´ss?
p??se??e´s??
(14:13)
therefore
the one
speaking
in a tongue
should pray
??´?
The T and T' elements of this chiasm contain an ABA'B'
cyclical structure of question-illustration. Again there are
multiple overlaid patterns.
Besides these intermediate levels of chiasmus in the
seventh discourse, there are several examples of low level
chiasmus in chapters twelve through fourteen also. For
example, there is a lexical chiasm in 12:3 as shown in (35).
(35)
A
. . .
???de?`?
e??
p?e?´µat?
?e???
?a????
(12:3)
no one
by
the Spirit
of God
speaking
B
?e´?e?,
'??a´?eµa
'??s????,
says
"cursed
Jesus"
B'
?a?`
???de?`?
d?´?ata?
e??pe???,
??´????
'??s????,
and
no one
can
say
"Lord
Jesus"
A'
e?? µ?`
e??
p?e?´µat?
a???´??.
except
by
Spirit
Holy
This has previously been noted by Lund (1942; reprinted
1992:164).
In the same way, Lund (1942; reprinted 1992:165) has
also noted a lexical and conceptual chiasm in 12:12, as shown
in (36).
(36)
A
?a?a´pe?
?a`?
t?`
s??µa
e?´?
e?st??
(12:12)
just as
for
the
body
one
is
B
?a?`
µe´??
p???a`
e?´?e?,
and
members
many
has
B'
pa´?ta
de`
ta`
µe´??
t???
s?´µat??
p???a`
??´?ta
all
and
the
members
of the
body
many
being
A'
e?´?
e?st??
s??µa,
???´t??
?a?`
??
???st?´?.
one
is
body
so
also
the
Christ.
But perhaps the best example of embedded chiasmus is
found in 13:8-13, as shown in (37). It has been noted by Lund
(1942; reprinted 1992:176) and Osburn (1976:151-152).
(37)
A
?a?a´pe?
?a`?
t?`
s??µa
e?´?
e?st??
(12:12)
just as
for
the
body
one
is
B
?a?`
µe´??
p???a`
e?´?e?,
and
members
many
has
B'
pa´?ta
de`
ta`
µe´??
t???
s?´µat??
p???a`
??´?ta
all
and
the
members
of the
body
many
being
A'
e?´?
e?st??
s??µa,
???´t??
?a?`
??
???st?´?.
one
is
body
so
also
the
Christ.
This chiasm forms the S' element of the intermediate level
chiasm in (33) which is the Y element of the high level chiasm
in (31). The corresponding elements are not only conceptually
parallel, but to a certain extent grammatically as well.
A further example of chiasmus in the seventh discourse
is found in 14:33b-36, as shown in (38).
This chiasm is purely conceptual. The point presented in a
phrase at the beginning (the A element) is repeated at the end
in the A' element with a compound question (or it can be
analyzed as two questions).
Finally, the eighth discourse also contains an example
of chiasmus in 15:12-13, as shown in (39).
(39)
A
???
de`
???st?`?
????´sseta?
??´t?
e??
?e?????
(15:12)
if
but
Christ
is preached
that
from the
dead
e???´?e?ta?,
he is raised
B
p???
?e´???s??
e??
??µ???
t??e?
??´t?
how
do say
among
you
some
that
a??a´stas??
?e?????
????
e?´st??;
resurrection
of the dead
not
there is no?
B'
e??
de`
a??a´stas??
?e?????
????
e?´st??,
(15:13)
if
but
resurrection
of the dead
not
there is
A'
???de`
???st?`?
e???´?e?ta?.
neither
Christ
has been raised
The ninth and tenth discourses in chapter 16 are very
short and do not seem to contain examples of chiasmus. The
examples listed here are not exhaustive. Both Lund (1942;
reprinted 1992) and Bailey (1983) list other examples,
although the correspondences for some of them seem rather
strained; only the most obvious have been listed above. But
these are enough examples to show that Paul made ample use of
the rhetorical device of chiasm at all levels of the text.
Constraints Imposed by Discourse Structure
The letter of I Corinthians is thus seen to be a highly
structured piece of literature, not a hodge-podge of thought
that simply follows "stream of consciousness." It shows
patterning at both higher and lower levels of discourse. This
structuring constrains the way in which this letter should be
understood because every author, including Paul, is
constrained in the way in which he or she can intelligibly
present his or her material by the grammar of discourse.
Among other things, an author is constrained by the idea
or ideas which may be described as macrostructures (or theses)
and meta-structures (or themes). A text which is continually
cluttered with extraneous ideas will not be easily understood;
it will lack the coherence that the audience expects. There
are many ways in which these central ideas can be presented,
but there is a finite number of rhetorical patterns that can
be used to arrange them. It is this finite number of patterns
that constrains the presentation and ordering of material in a
discourse. These patterns are to a certain extent culturally
determined. While chiasmus may be perfectly acceptable in a
given society, such as it was in the ancient Hebrew and Greek
worlds, it may not be a pattern which is readily used in other
societies. This helps to explain why some passages are
misunderstood in the modern western world, where the average
reader does not expect to find chiasmus in ancient documents
and probably does not recognize it when it is encountered. It
also helps to explain why western readers, expecting a
linearly organized text, often miss the cyclic and chiastic
patterns of organization in 1 Corinthians, such as those shown
earlier in Table 1.
Thus constrained by the grammar of Greek discourse, the apostle Paul fashioned his letter to the Corinthian church
known as I Corinthians according to a definite pattern of
structure.
References
Aland, Kurt, H. Bachmann, and W. A. Slaby, eds. 1978.
Vollständige konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament.
Vol. 2, Spezialübersichten. Berlin and New York: Walter
De Gruyter, 1978.
Alford, Henry. 1983. The New Testament for English readers. 4
vols. reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House.
Bailey, Kenneth E. 1983. The structure of I Corinthians and
Paul's theological method with special reference to
4:17. Novum Testamentum 25:152-81.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. 1968. A commentary on the first
epistle to the Corinthians. (Harper's New Testament
commentaries, Henry Chadwick, gen. ed.) New York and
Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. 1971. I & II Corinthians. (The new
century Bible commentary, Matthew Black, gen. ed.)
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.
Calvin, John. 1948. Commentary on the epistles of Paul the
apostle to the Corinthians: Volume first. (Vol. 39 of
Calvin's commentaries, translated by John Pringle.)
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Conzelmann, Hans. 1975. A commentary on the first epistle to
the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch.
(Hermeneia commentary series.) Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1975.
Doty, William G. 1973. Letters in primitive Christianity.
(Guides to Biblical Scholarship series.) Philadelphia:
Fortress Press.
Edwards, Thomas Charles. 1885. A commentary on the first
epistle to the Corinthians. London: Hodder and
Stoughton; and Hamilton, Adams & Co.
Fee, Gordon D. 1987. Commentary on the first epistle to the
Corinthians. (The new international commentary on the New
Testament, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, gen. ed.) Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Feine, Paul, Johannes Behm, and Werner Georg Kümmel. 1966.
Introduction to the New Testament. 14th revised ed.
Translated by A. J. Mattill, Jr. Nashville and New
York: Abingdon Press.
Findlay, G. G. 1979. St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians.
(Vol. 2 of The expositor's Greek Testament, W. Robertson
Nicoll, gen. ed.) reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Guthrie, Donald. 1970. New Testament introduction. 3rd ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press.
Hurd, John Coolidge, Jr. 1983. The origin of I Corinthians.
2nd ed. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Kittel, Gerhard. 1965. Theological dictionary of the New
Testament. Vol. 3. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company. S.v. "?ata?a??´pt? ?t?.," by Albrecht Oepke.
Lenski, Richard C. H. 1946. The interpretation of St. Paul's
first and second epistle to the Corinthians. Columbus,
Ohio: Wartburg Press.
Longacre, Robert E. 1979. The discourse structure of the
flood narrative. Journal of the American Academy of
Religion 47 (Supplement B): 89-133.
Lund, Nils W. [1942] 1992. Chiasmus in the New Testament. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press; reprint,
Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.
Morgan-Wynne, John. 1983. Introduction to I Corinthians.
The Southwestern Journal of Theology 26 (Fall): 4-15.
Morris, Leon. 1958. The first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. (Vol. 7 of The Tyndale New Testament
commentaries, R. V. G. Tasker, gen. ed.) Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland. 1957. Novum
Testamentum Graece. 23rd ed. Stuttgart, Germany:
Privileg. Wurtt. Bibelanstalt.
Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, Matthew
Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen
Wikgren, and Barbara Aland. 1979. Nestle-Aland Novum
Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. Stuttgart, Germany:
Deutsche Bibelstiftung.
Osburn, Carroll D. 1976. That which is perfect. In Freedom in
Christ, ed. Carl Brecheen, 139-171. Abilene, Texas: Abilene
Christian College Bookstore.
Pike, Kenneth L. 1987. Teaching in His image: The structure
of the Sermon on the Mount. Arts & Letters 1 (June):3-11.
Richardson, Peter. 1980. Judgment, immorality, and sexual
ethics in I Corinthians 6. In Society of Biblical
Literature 1980 seminar papers, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier,
337-357. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. 1914. A critical
and exegetical commentary on the first epistle of St.
Paul to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. (The international
critical commentary on the holy scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments, Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer,
and Charles Augustus Briggs, gen. eds.) Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark.
Terry, Ralph Bruce. 1995. A discourse analysis of First
Corinthians. (Publications in Linguistics, 120). Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of
Texas at Arlington.
Turner, Nigel. 1976. Style. (Vol. 4 of A grammar of New Testament
Greek, by James Hope Moulton.) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark
Ltd.
Youngman, Scott. 1987. Stratificational analysis of a
hortatory text: I Corinthians 8.1-11.1. M.A. thesis,
University of Texas at Arlington.
This article was previously published as:
Terry, Ralph Bruce. 1996. Patterns of discourse structure in I Corinthians. Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 7, no. 4:1-32.
The Unicode accents in this document require Mozilla 1.0+, Netscape 6.0+, or Opera 6.0+ to display correctly. Internet Explorer 6.0 will display the Greek, but not all Greek accents. See the Perseus web site for help in setting your browser to display Greek.
