¹ Previous versions of this article were presented to the Paul Seminar of the British New Testament Conference (September 1991) and the Ehrhardt Seminar of Manchester University (May 1992). I thank my colleagues for their appreciative comments and criticisms.

² The various proposals, of which there are many, all go back to that of Weiss, Johannes, Der erste Korintherbrief, (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) xl–xliiiGoogle Scholar (see n. 5 below). A recent one is that of Sellin, G., ‘1 Korinther 5–6 und der “Vorbrief” nach Korinth: Indizien für eine Mehrschichtigkeit von Kommunikationsakten im ersten Korintherbrief, NTS 37 (1991) 535–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sellin argues that 1 Corinthians is a composite of three letters. Letter A (= 11.2–34; 5.1–8; 6.12–20; 9.24–10.22; 6.1–11) is the previous letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5.9, while Letter B (= 5.9–13; 7.1–9.23; 10.23–11.1; 12.1–16.24) is Paul's response to the letter from Corinth (7.1). Letter C (1.1–4.21) is a third letter. For others, see the survey found in Hurd, J. C., The Origin of I Corinthans (London: SPCK, 1965; Macon, GA: Mercer, 1983Google Scholar, reprint) 43–7; also Merklein (next note).

³ See esp. Merklein, H., ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes’, ZNW 75 (1984) 153–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lührmann, D., ‘Freundschaftsbrief trotz Spannungen. Zu Gattung und Aufbau des Erster Korintherbriefs’, Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von H. Greeven (ed. Schrage, W.; BZNW 47; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986) 298–314Google Scholar. Cf. also Belleville, L. L., ‘Continuity or Discontinuity: A Fresh Look at 1 Corinthians in the Light of First-Century Epistolary Forms and Conventions’, EQ 59 (1987) 15–37Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 12–14Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 4–5Google Scholar; Fee, G., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 15–16Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 272–7Google Scholar; Schrage, W., Der erste Brief an die Korinther 1: 1Kor 1,1–6,11 (EKK VII/1; Braunschweig: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991) 63–94Google Scholar. Many of these works give summaries of the various proposals.

⁴ Origins, 50. Hurd has well expressed the difficulty this dual occasion presents for explaining the composition of 1 Corinthians. He avers, as others do, that ‘there is no real possibility [i.e., no indication] that an exchange of information between Paul and Corinth intervened between the arrival of these two groups of travelers’ (Ibid., 53). For this reason, it is quite improbable that 1 Corinthians is a composite of two or more separate letters to Corinth. We are thus forced to accept, according to Hurd, another (also somewhat improbable) scenario, namely, that Chloe's people and the Stephanas group met ‘Paul within a period brief enough that one letter (I Corinthians) could deal with both sets of problems’ (Ibid., 50).

⁵ See Bruce, F. F., I & II Corinthians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971) 23–5, 52–3Google ScholarPubMed, for a very similar scenario. Bruce pays little or no attention, however, to considerations of epistolary form and structure to support his brief and undemonstrated conjectures. Furthermore, to my knowledge, his views have received no critical appraisal. Variations of this proposal have also been put forth: see Smith, David, The Life and Letters ofSt Paul (New York: George H. Doran, n.d. [1919] 259)Google Scholar; Evans, Ernest, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Clarendon Bible Commentary: Oxford: Clarendon, 1930) 20–1Google Scholar. Smith thinks that 1.1–6.11 had been completed upon the arrival of the Stephanas group (he consigns 6.12–20 to an earlier letter), while Evans thinks that Paul had reached the end of chapter 6. Along similar lines, but reversing the order of events and thus the order in which the material was composed is the proposal of Serna, Eduardo de la, ‘Los origenes de 1 Corintios’, Bib 72 (1991) 192–216Google Scholar. He argues that Paul had begun a response to the letter from Corinth when fresh oral information (from Chloe's people) prompted him to add new material, including chapters 1–6. De la Serna's proposal recalls that of Weiss (n. 2 above) who maintained that portions of chapters 7–16 had already been composed when the arrival of Chloe's people prompted him to expand this material with 1.1–6.11 (+ some of 16). The expanded letter, thus written in two stages, was, for Weiss, Paul's second to Corinth (the first being the one mentioned in 1 Cor 5.9 and comprising 2 Cor 6.4–7.1; 1 Cor 10.1–23; 6.12–20; 11.2–34; some of 16).

⁶ On the term σχίσματα, see Baird, William, ‘“One against the Other”: Intra-Church Conflict in 1 Corinthians’, The Conversation Continues. Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (eds. Fortna, R. T. and Gaventa, B.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990) 123–4, 128Google Scholar. Baird shows that the word σχίσμα can be used ‘to describe cliques in a cultic association’ (124). I shall speak of ‘apostolic’ factions in Corinth since Apollos and Cephas, like Paul himself, were probably deemed apostles; Paul evidently so regards them (cf. 3.8, 22; 4.9; 9.1–6, 14; 15.3, 7–9). How the slogan ‘I belong to Christ’ fits with the other three is difficult to say, though it probably claims that the allegiance of believers ought to be to Christ and not to any one of his apostles.

⁷ Origins, 77. ‘Chloe's people’ are members either of her family (children, relatives) or of her household (slaves, freedmen). See Ibid., 48; Barrett, Corinthians, 4.

⁸ Cf. A. J. Malherbe, ‘Did the Thessalonians Write to Paul?’, Conversation (n. 6 above), 253–5. Malherbe explores ‘Paul's habit of not always mentioning letters, but rather of referring to individuals who carried letters between himself and his churches’. The result is that Paul commonly transfers to ‘the carriers and their reports’ certain ‘epistolographical clichés’ that actually describe the (unmentioned) letter (253, 255). In 1 Cor 16.17, Malherbe points out, ‘instead of mentioning the letter [that the Stephanas delegation had brought with them], Paul applies epistolographic language [őτι τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα οὗτοι ὰνεπλήρωσαν] to the bearer(s) of the letter’.

⁹ Malherbe points out, as others have, that the phrase ‘περὶ δέ can, but does not necessarily, refer to a written request’ (‘Thessalonians’, 251). It may also introduce matters that have come to an author's attention orally. In view of 7.1, however, it seems likely (or, at least, best to assume as a working hypothesis) that in 1 Corinthians all the subsequent instances (there are none prior to 7.1) also introduce matters raised by the letter from Corinth.

¹⁰ The problems presented by chapters 8–10 (+ 11.1) are well known (the two seemingly distinct treatments of meat sacrificed to idols in 8.1–13 + 10.23–11.1 and 10.1–22; the excursus on Paul's apostleship in ch. 9) and provide the strongest support for a partition theory. But is it not more plausible that the difficulties and discrepancies arise from Paul's need to respond both to the letter from Corinth (8.1–13) and to the supplemental oral comments of the Stephanas delegation (10.1–11.1) than from clumsy editing of two (or more) letters? Cf. further Merklein, ‘Einheitlichkeit’, 163–73; Lührmann, ‘Freundschaftsbrief’, 308–11.

¹¹ Of course, Apollos is also on the scene (16.12) and Paul's reference to him implies consultation (‘I strongly urged him to come to you with the brothers [= the Stephanas delegation?]’). See Baird, ‘Intra-Church Conflict’, 120. Baird, however, goes too far when he writes ‘sources other than those mentioned in the letter may have brought information to Paul’. Occam's razor needs to be applied to such speculations!

¹² See n. 3 for commentaries of Barrett, Conzelmann, and Fee. For Meeks, see The Writings of St Paul (New York: Norton, 1972) 24.Google Scholar

¹³ Note also that 6.12 (‘All things are permitted to me’) anticipates 10.23 (‘All things are permitted’) while 5.10 (‘idolatry’) and 6.18 (‘Flee πορνεία’) anticipate 10.8 (πορνεὑειυ, twice) and 10.14 (‘Flee from idolatry’; cf. 8.1, 10). Paul is probably responding to oral reports or commentary in ch. 10, as he is in chs. 5–6 (see n. 10 above). See further Merklein, ‘Einheitlichkeit’, 183; Lührmann, ‘Freundschaftsbrief’, 312. The only notable verbal link between chapters 4 and 5 is the term πυσιυ (to be arrogant, puffed up) in 4.6,18,19 which is taken up in 5.2 (cf. 8.1; 13.4). See n. 32 below.

¹⁴ See Aune, D. E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 158–225Google Scholar, with useful bibliographies. For a survey of the literature, see now Jervis, L. A., The Purpose of Romans. A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation (JSNT, Supplement Series 55; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 41–55Google Scholar. The works of P. Schubert, C. J. Bjerkelund, R. W. Funk, W. Doty, J. L. White and H. Gamble are particularly notable for Jervis. See also Schrage, Korinther, 71–94 and Lieu, J., The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986) 37–51.Google Scholar

¹⁵ White, J. L., ‘Ancient Greek Letters’, Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (ed. D. Aune; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 95.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Ancient Greek Letters’, 97. See pp. 96–100 for an extensive bibliography on the Pauline letters.

¹⁷ White also labels this section ‘Paul's apostolic presence section’. For this label, see Funk, R. W., ‘The Apostolic Presence: Paul’, in Parables and Presence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 81–102Google Scholar(= ‘The Apostolic “Parousia”: Form and Significance’, in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox [ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967] 249–68)Google Scholar. Cf. Jervis, Purpose, 110–31.

¹⁸ The first three components of White's ‘concluding section’ of the Body corresponds to the five epistolary features that Funk collectively labels the ‘apostolic presence’ section (see n. 17 above). Though Funk claims that the ‘apostolic parousia’ contains five elements, Jervis points out that ‘there are only three such major functional units’ and these three correspond to White's first three elements: ‘(1) Paul's writing of the letter … (2) Paul's dispatch of an emissary …; and (3) Paul's visit’ (Purpose, 113).

¹⁹ Observe that in Rom 15.14–33, which is the ‘concluding section’ of the Body of Romans, Paul also writes of the collection (cf. 2 Cor 8.16–24; 9.1–5), as he does in 1 Cor 16.1–2.

²⁰ The key word here is ‘cluster’. As mere conventions, the various components of the ‘concluding section’ (as of the other sections of a letter) may well be found in other structural units of any particular letter. For example, compare 11.1 with §4.

²¹ It is noteworthy that Funk regards 1 Cor 4.14–21, not 16.1–12, as the ‘apostolic parousia proper’ of 1 Corinthians (‘Presence’, 82). In addition to 1 Cor 4.14–21, Funk lists Rom 15.14–33; Philem 21–2; 1 Thess 2.17–3.13; 2 Cor 12.14–13.13; Gal 4.12–20; Phil 2.19–24. See further n. 29 below.

²² See Rom 15.15; 2 Cor 13.10; Phlm 21; (Phil 3.1). See also Col 4.16–18; 2 Thess 3.14; Heb 13.22. Sometimes Paul's hand-written closing greeting makes an authoritative or solemn reference to the letter: cf. esp. 1 Thess 5.27; see also 2 Thess 3.17. But in 1 Cor 16.21 Paul merely gives a ‘greeting … with my own hand’ (cf. Gal 6.11). [N.B.: In the citation of Pauline passages here and in footnotes 7, 21, 23, 25, 28 below passages from Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastorals (as well as Hebrews) are listed separately because they are often deemed to be deutero-Pauline. Parentheses enclose passages containing the epistolary feature under discussion but seemingly ‘out of place’ in view of White's abstracted outline (e.g., Phil 3.1 above). However, passages cited from Philippians and 2 Corinthians may be less ‘out of place’ than appears at first sight if, as often argued, these two Pauline letters are composites of two or more originally independent letters.]

²³ See 2 Cor 12.17–18; (Phil 2.19–23, 25–30); (1 Thess 3.2-S); see also Eph 6.21–2; Col 4.7–9; Heb 13.23.

²⁴ Of course, in this passage, Paul's visit is not so much anticipated or hoped for as doubted and feared.

²⁵ See (1 Cor 11.34); Rom 15.15, 22–4, 28–9,32 (1.10–15); 2 Cor 12.14, 20–1; 13.1,10 (8.16–24; 9.1–5); Phlm 22; (Phil 2.24); (1 Thess 3.9–13); see also Heb 13.23.

²⁶ This ‘parenetic section’ is characteristically brief (see Aune, Literary Environment, 191; Jervis, Purpose, 132–4). The long passages often labelled ‘parenesis’ in some of Paul's letters (Rom 12.1–15.13; Gal 5.13–6.10; 1 Thess 4.1–5.22) and supposedly distinguishable from the Body proper are not in view here. The discussion of parenesis in Jervis’ monograph is indicative of the uncertainty of scholars about how to assess these passages (Purpose, 44–7,110,134). Jervis rejects the view (attributed to Funk) that the long parenetical passage of, say, Romans is actually an epistolary structural unit. Contrast Wm. Doty, G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 27, 43Google Scholar; C. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul. Conversations in Context (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 35–6. For Jervis, it ‘is better described as a type of a material than as a letter structure section’ (Purpose, 44). White evidently agrees.

²⁷ For other brief parenetical passages, compare 1 Thess 5.25; 2 Cor 13.11; Phil 4.10–20; Gal 16.17; see also Col 4.18; 2 Thess 3.14–15. For other παρακαλῶ (or παρακαλοῦμευ) sentences, compare Rom 15.30; 16.17 (Rom 12.1); 1 Thess 5.14 (4.1,10); Phil 4.2; (2 Cor 2.8, 10); (Phlm 9); see also Heb 13.22; (Eph 4.1). On παρακαλῶ (I urge), see further the recent discussion of Lührmann (‘Freundschaftsbrief’, 300–4) who attempts to build on the work of C. J. Bjerkelund, Parakalô. Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen [Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica, 1; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967]). Lührmann argues that Paul's use of a παρακαλῶ sentence in 1.10 (as in 4.16 and 16.15) means two things: (1) that the whole of 1 Corinthians is a form of parenesis (303) and (2) that since Paul takes up a loosely connected string of very concrete issues beginning already at 1.10, ‘eine strenge Gliederung’ of the letter is not possible (305). I can agree with the first point but not wholly with the second. There are other factors to be considered, especially the double occasion.

²⁸ See (1 Cor 14.33?); Rom 15.33,16.20; 2 Cor 13.11; Gal 6.16; Phil 4.9; 1 Thess 5.23; see also 2 Thess 3.16; Eph 6.23; Heb 13.20. Absent also from Philemon (see also Colossians). We may note here that Jervis, following the work on Romans by Gamble, H. (The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977] 83)Google Scholar, places the parenetic section and the prayer of peace (items §4 and §5) in the Closing. According to her analysis, the Closing contains five possible units: peace-benediction (= §5), an exhortation or command (= §4), a word of rejoicing, greetings (which includes the holy kiss), and a peace-benediction (Purpose, 132–4; cf. 53). About 1 Corinthians, she writes: ‘a hortatory unit (16.13–16) … opens the conclusion of 1 Corinthians. The conclusion of 1 Corinthians then is 16.13–24’ (134; emphasis added). If this is correct, the presence of such a hortatory unit in 1 Cor 4.14–21 lends further support to the claim made below that Paul is moving toward epistolary closure in 4.14–21.

²⁹ Partial parallels are provided by Romans (15.15–33 contains §§1, 3, 4, 5, but 1.10–15 has only §3) and 1 Thessalonians (5.12–24, 27 contains §§1, 4, 5, but 2.17–3.13 has only §§2 and 3). 1 Cor 4.14–21, like 16.1–19, contains §§1–4. Otherwise Belleville, ‘Fresh Look’, 31. As noted above (n. 21), Funk regards 1 Cor 4.14–21 to be the ‘apostolic presence’ section proper of 1 Corinthians. 1 Cor 16.1–12 along with Rom 1.8ff.; 2 Cor 8.16–23, 9.1–5; and Phil 2.25–30, in his view, are ‘secondary but related passages’ (‘Presence’, 82, 92). Funk appraises the evidence in this way because he thinks that the ‘apostolic presence’ section belongs immediately prior to an extensive parenetical section, as in 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians. But he acknowledges that Philippians (presuming chapters 1–2 constitute an independent letter) and especially Romans do not follow this pattern (‘Presence'’, 97 n. 17). Furthermore, Gal 4.12–20 has only a single element (§3, Paul's visit) of the ‘apostolic presence’ (‘Presence’, 86; Jervis, Purpose, 119–20) and barely counts. That leaves 1 Thessalonians as the only real parallel to 1 Corinthians, but that letter must be judged on its own terms; e.g. item §1 (Paul's writing) is absent from 2.17–3.13 (see above) while §2 (the dispatch or recommendation of the messenger) is distinctive in that the messenger has already been sent and come back with news of the situation in Thessalonica (3.6). It is this return of the messenger that prompts Paul to speak of his own visit at this point (§3).

³⁰ See Lührmann who in arguing for the unity of the letter finds it difficult to explain why 5.1–6.11 follows 4.21 and can only wonder: ‘vielleicht stammen die Nachrichten darüber ebenfalls von den Leuten der Chloe (1,11) wie die für 1,10–4,21?’ (‘Freundschaftsbrief’, 312).

³¹ This fact has occasionally been noted by scholars proposing that 1 Corinthians is a composite of several letters, most recently, I am pleased to note, Sellin, ‘1 Korinther 5–6’, 553–4; cf. Bruce, Corinthians, 52–3. See also (references from Merklein, ‘Einheitlichkeit’, 159 n. 17) Schenk, W., ‘Der l.Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung’, ZNW 60 (1969) 235–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmithals, W., ‘Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung’, ZNW 64 (1973) 265–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ch. Senft, La première épître de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT[N]; 2e ser. 7; Neuchâtel-Paris, 1979) 18. Also Couchoud, P. L., ‘Reconstruction et classement des Lettres de Saint Paul’, Revue de I'Histoire des Religions 37 (1923) 8–31Google Scholar (discussed by Hurd, Origins, 43). For Schenk, Schmithals, and Senft, however, 1.1–4.21 constitutes Paul's fourth letter to Corinth. For Couchoud, as for Sellin, 1.1–4.21 is Paul's third to Corinth. I am arguing that 1.1–4.21 was (meant to be) Paul's second letter to Corinth (following the one mentioned in 1 Cor 5.9), and that this second letter eventually comprised all sixteen chapters of canonical 1 Corinthians. So also Bruce, Corinthians, 24.

³² For various reasons, numerous proponents of partition theories have suggested that chapters 1–4 were written subsequent to all or most of chapters 5–16 (see, e.g., the scholars listed in the previous note). The linchpin of this argument is often the seeming discrepancy between Paul's attitude towards αχίσματα in 1.10–12 and 11.18–19. See the discussion of Merklein, ‘Einheitlichkeit’, 174–5. Sellin (‘1 Korinther 5–6’, 554–5) appeals to the discrepancy between Paul's travel plans in 4.18 and 16.5–9. But formal epistolary considerations, in conjunction with the given sequence of the two units of 1 Corinthians, make it plausible to surmise that chapters 1–4 were written prior to 5–16 and thus that Chloe's people arrived prior to the Stephanas delegation with the letter from Corinth. This surmise finds support in Paul's use of the verb πυσιοῦυ (to be arrogant, puffed up) in 5.2, which picks up on the instances in 4.6,18,19. In any event, the divisions are of different kinds (apostolic factions or cliques in 1.10–12; conflict between richer and poorer members in 11.18–19) and the Greek term σχίσα is broad enough to cover both. See further below on Paul's travel plans.

³³ ‘Einheitlichkeit’, 159–60.

³⁴ ‘1 Korinther 5–6’, 554.

³⁵ Seemingly relevant is the study of Bünker, M., Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korintherbrief, (GTA 28; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)Google Scholar. But Bunker adopts an existing partition theory without critical examination, assumes that 1.1–4.21 is part of a longer letter in which Paul responds to both the correspondence from Corinth and oral reports from Chloe's people, and pays no real attention to formal epistolary features (52). (See also Lührmann, ‘Freundschaftbrief’, 304 n. 31).

³⁶ So also Smith, St Paul, 260; cf. NRSV. The ἐάυ in 16.10 is often translated ‘when’ (e.g., RSV), but Paul knows how to use ὅταυ when he means ‘when’ (16.3, 5; cf. 15.24–8) and ἐάυ when he means ‘if’ (16.4).

³⁷ So also Evans, Corinthians, 70; Bruce, Corinthians, 16.

³⁸ I am in effect surmising that Paul glossed his own letter and that this gloss was incorporated into all subsequent copies of 1 Corinthians. On manuscript glosses, see Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1968) 194Google Scholar: ‘Words and notes standing in the margin of the older copy were occasionally incorporated into the text of the new manuscript.’ (Metzger refers to John 5.3b-4 and Rom 8.1 as examples.) Glosses are usually found written in the margins, but sometimes between the lines (27).

³⁹ While Paul also refers to Jesus' death elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (cf. 5.7; 6.20; 7.23; 8.11; 10.16; 11.26), he only uses the language of cross and crucifixion in chapters 1–2.

⁴⁰ J. C. Beker exaggerates only slightly when he writes: ‘The basic core of the argument appears to center on the death of Christ in chapter 1 and 2 and on the resurrection of Christ in chapter 15. Paul seems, as it were, to divorce the death and resurrection of Christ in 1 Corinthians, because the absence of the resurrection in chapters 1 and 2 is as striking as the absence of the death of Christ in chapter 15’ (Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980] 164).Google Scholar

⁴¹ A key question here is the relation of the thanksgiving section (1.4–9) to the remainder, since this section presumably functions like a table of contents for the letter as a whole. See Schubert, P., Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: Töpel-mann, 1939) 27Google Scholar. Thus, one could point out, as Beker (Paul, 164) does, that while λάγοξ (1.5) is the primary theme of chapters 1–4, γυῶσιξ (1.5) is that of chapters 8–10, χάρισμα (1.7) that of chapters 12–14, and ‘the revelation/the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1.7–8) that of chapter 15. But the matter is hardly so clearcut (contra Schrage, Korinther, 70). The last three items are also taken up in chapters 1–4: the specific term χάρισμα (1.7; cf. 7.7; 12.4, 9, 28–31), it is true, does not recur in chapters 1–4, but Paul does speak of τὰ χαρισθέντα in 2.12 and refers to the πνεῦμα in 2.4,10–14; 3.16; 4.21 and to ‘speaking’ (λαλεῖυ) by the spirit in 2.6, 7,13 (cf. 12.3, 30; 13.1,11; 14.1–39). He mentions πνευμάτικα in 2.13 as well as in 12.1; 14.1 (cf. 9.11). Similarly, though the noun γνῶσιξ does not recur prior to chapter 8 (cf. 12.8; 13.2, 8; 14.6), the cognate verb γινώσκειυ is central to the argument of chapters 1–4 (1.21; 2.8,11,14, 16; 3.20; 4.19). Finally, there are references to a future consummation or the parousia in chapters 1–4 and these are scarcely to be deemed incidental or merely proleptic (cf. 3.13, 15; 4.5, 8). Paul also mentions the parousia/day of the Lord in the thanksgiving sections of Philippians (1.11) and 1 Thessalonians (1.10), letters about the same length as 1 Corinthians 1–4 (cf. 2 Cor 1.14).

⁴² Hurd, Origins, 46.

⁴³ See Manson, T. W., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 190–209Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K, ‘Christianity at Corinth’, BJRL 46 (1964) 269–87Google Scholar; also in Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) 1–27Google Scholar. See also idem, ‘Cephas in Corinth’, Essays, 28–39. Barrett sees the divisions as primarily theological. Aside from partisans of Paul and Apollos (attracted to him by his rhetorical prowess and wisdom), there are the Cephas party (exhibiting a ‘Jewish-Christian “nomistic” attitude’) and the Christ party, to whom Paul wrote what was not directed to the other three. Barrett thus sees the letter as a unity, but the various sections are addressed to the different parties in chapters 5–15. See on the other side, Munck, J., ‘The Church without Factions’, in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond: John Rnox, 1959) 69–86Google Scholar. See also the critique of Baird, ‘Intra-Church Conflict’, 123–30. Baird shows how the possible factions lying behind the matters addressed in chapters 5–16 can only with difficulty be correlated with the apostolic factions addressed in chapters 1–4.

⁴⁴ ‘Paul and the Church at Corinth according to I Corinthians 1–4’, Christian History and Interpretation. Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Fanner et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 313–36.Google Scholar Also in Studies in Paul. Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977) 40–61.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. sociological approaches and explanations: Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982)Google Scholar; Welborn, L. L., ‘On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Ancient Polities’, JBL 106 (1987) 85–111Google Scholar; Marshall, P., Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 2.23; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987)Google Scholar. See further Baird, ‘Intra-Church Conflict’, 130–1.

⁴⁶ Beker has recognized this (see n. 38 above): ‘It seems that the diverse polemical situations of the letter compel Paul to such a diversity and contingency of argumentation that the death and resurrection of Christ are torn apart and the “whole” gospel of Paul [found, says Beker, in Romans 6] … is thwarted … Paul's firm resolution “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2.2), which constitutes the heart of his gospel, is virtually ignored in chapter 15’, where ‘the gospel’ is Christ's resurrection. Beker also turns the question around: ‘why is the resurrection as part of “the things of first importance” … not the theme or a theme of chapters 1 and 2 as well …?’ He concludes: ‘a comparison of chapters 1 and 2 with chapter 15 shows a contingent argumentation throughout the letter which seems to disregard the “whole” of Paul's gospel, that is, the death (chapters 1 and 2) and resurrection of Christ (chapter 15)’ (Paul, 174–5). Beker makes these comments partially in critique of Karl Barth's claim that chapter 15, or the theme of resurrection of the dead, represents the climax and key to the whole letter (The Resurrection of the Dead [New York: Revell, 1933])Google Scholar, but, when all is said and done, Beker seems himself to adopt Barth's proposal, leaving the pressing questions he poses fundamentally unanswered. See the instructive article by Lindemann, A., ‘Paulus und die korinthische Eschatologie. Zur These von einer “Entwicklung” im paulinischen Denken’, NTS 37 (1991) 373–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ This point applies also to the several discrete units comprising chapters 5–16 where Paul addresses diverse problems probably propounded by different groups, or factions (as Baird calls them), within the community. Thus, while chapters 5–16 have a single occasion (the coming of the Stephanas delegation to Paul with the letter from Corinth), these chapters still, as Baird argues (‘Intra-Church Conflict’, 131), reflect the diversity of opinions, religious backgrounds, and social situations existing among the Christians in Corinth.