* Main paper presented at the 41st General Meeting of SNTS in Atlanta, Georgia on 13 August, 1986.

[1] Petersen, N., Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Spencer, R. A. (ed.), Orientation by Disorientation. Studies in Literary Criticism and Biblical Literary Criticism (Pittsburgh Theol. Mon. Ser. 35; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980)Google Scholar; White, L. J., ‘His torical and Literary Criticism: A Theological Response’, BTB 13 (1983) 28–31.Google Scholar

[2] For discussion of the literature see Sanders, J. A., ‘Hermeneutics’, IDBSuppl (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 402–7Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Thiselton, A. C., The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980)Google Scholar; Grant, R. M. and Tracy, D., A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, Bread not Stone. The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Keegan, T. J., Interpreting the Bible. A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (New York: Paulist Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Russell, L. (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Poland, L., Literary Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985).Google Scholar

[3] Cf. Barr, J., ‘Biblical Theology’, IDBSuppl, 104–11Google Scholar; Stendahl, K., ‘Method in the Study of Biblical Theology’, in Hyatt, J. P. (ed.), The Bible In Modern Scholarship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965) 196–209Google Scholar; Hasel, G. F., ‘Methodology as a Major Problem in the Current Crisis of Old Testament Theology’, BTB 2 (1972) 177–98Google Scholar; Boers, H., What is New Testament Theology? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).Google Scholar

[4] For a general review of the literature cf. Osiek, C., What Are They Saying About the Social Setting of the New Testament? (New York: Paulist Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Meeks, Wayne A., The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Id., The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Stambaugh, J. E. and Balch, D. L., The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Gallagher, E. V., ‘The Social world of Saint Paul’, Religion 14 (1984) 91–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klauck, H. J., ‘Gemeindestrukturen im ersten Korintherbrief’, Bibel und Kirche 40 (1985) 9–15Google Scholar; Elliott, J. H., Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World (Semeia 35; Decatur: Scholars Press, 1986).Google Scholar

[5] For the discussion of paradigm shifts in biblical interpretation see Bread Not Stone, 117–49.

[6] For the discussion of the Corinthian correspondence cf. Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians (Anchor Bible 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 26–55.Google Scholar

[7] Cf. Kennedy, G. A., Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Black, E., Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Brandt, W. J., The Rhetoric of Argumentation (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970)Google Scholar; Eagleton, T., Walter Benjamin or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism (London: Verso, 1981) 101–13.Google Scholar

[8] Betz, H. D., ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 (1975) 353–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Id., Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).Google Scholar

[9] See especially the work of White, Hayden: ‘The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality’, Critical Inquiry 7 (1980) 5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Historicism, History, and the Figurative Imagination’, History and Theory 14 (1975) 43–67Google Scholar; ‘The Politics of Historical Interpretation: Discipline and De-Sublimation’, in Mitchell, W. J. T. (ed.), The Politics of Interpretation (Chicago: Univ. Press, 1983) 119–43Google Scholar; Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1978)Google Scholar; See, however, the critical discussion of Iggers, G. G., New Directions in European Historiography (rev. ed.; Middletown: Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1984) 202–5.Google Scholar

[10] Tompkins, J. P., Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1980) xxv.Google Scholar See also her historical overview (201–32) and her annotated bibliography. Cf. also Johnson, B., The Critical Difference. Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1980).Google Scholar

[11] Lyons, G., Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 64 points out:Google Scholar ‘The freedom ancient writers exercised in the mixing of genres and in the organization of a discourse complicates rhetorical analysis making a measure of subjectivity unavoidable.’ He insists over against Betz that the ‘introduction and conclusion are particularly important for any determination of the genre and species of an oration, for here, if anywhere, the speaker makes his causa explicit’ (26 f.).

[12] Jackson, J. J. and Kessler, M., Rhetorical Criticism. Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburgh Theol. Mon. Ser. 1; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Trible, P., God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).Google ScholarTexts of Terror (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).Google Scholar

[13] Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, The Book of Revelation – Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).Google Scholar

[14] Bitzer, L. F., ‘The Rhetorical Situation’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14.Google Scholar

[15] Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Univ. Press, 1984) 34–6.Google Scholar Cf. also Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1969) 19–62.Google Scholar

[16] For a discussion of this problem cf. Lategan, B. C. and Vorster, W. S., Text and Reality Aspects of Reference in Biblical Texts (Semeia Studies; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Petersen, N. R., Rediscovering Paul. Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985)Google Scholar and Meeks, W. A., ‘Understanding Early Christian Ethics’, JBL 105 (1986) 3–11.Google Scholar

[17] Jameson, F. R., ‘The Symbolic Inference’, in White, Hayden and Brose, M. (eds.), Representing Kenneth Burke (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1982) 68–91.Google Scholar

[18] Booth, W. C., ‘Freedom of Interpretation: Baktin and the Challenge of Feminist Criticism’, Critical Inquiry 9 (1982) 45–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar has called for a revived ethical and political criticism in literary criticism. Cf. also Greene, G. and Kahn, C. (eds.), Making a Difference. Feminist Literary Criticism (New York: Methuen, 1985)Google Scholar; Newton, J. and Rosenfelt, D. (eds.), Feminist Criticism and Social Change (New York: Methuen, 1985)Google Scholar and especially Meese, E. A., Crossing the Double-Cross. The Practice of Feminist Criticism (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1986) 133–50.Google Scholar

[19] For an overview see Holub, R. C., Reception Theory. A Critical Introduction (London: Methuen, 1984).Google Scholar

[20] McKnight, E. V., The Bible and the Reader. An Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 102Google Scholar; see, however, the incisive critique of the de-politicising tendencies in reader-response criticism which do not take power-relationships into account: Pratt, M. L., ‘Interpretative Strategies/Strategic Interpretations; On Anglo-American Reader Response Criticism’, in Arac, J. (ed.), Postmodernism and Politics (Theory and History of Literature 28; Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1986) 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[21] For a discussion of the problem cf. Ellis, E. E., ‘Paul and His Opponents. Trends in Research’, in Neusner, J. (ed.), Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Vol 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 264–98Google Scholar and especially Berger, K., ‘Die impliziten Gegner. Zur Methode der Erschliessung von Gegnern in neutestamentlichen Texten’, in Lührmann, D. and Strecker, G. (eds.), Kirche (T7uuml; bingen: Mohr, 1980) 373–400.Google Scholar

[22] Hasler, V., ‘Das Evangelium des Paulus in Korinth. Erwägungen zur Hermeneutik’, NTS 30 (1984) 109–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar points out that exegetes often succumb to the temptation to identify with Paul and to take over uncritically his theological interpretation.

[23] For discussion and literature see Lüdemann, G., Paulus Vol. II: Antipaulinismus im frühen Christentum (FRLANT 130; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).Google Scholar

[24] Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric, 21.Google Scholar

[25] In Schoedel, W. R. and Wilken, R. (eds.), Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition. In Honorem Robert Grant (Théologie Historique 53; Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979) 177–88.Google Scholar

[26] Lausberg, H., Handbuch der Literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2nd rev. ed.; München: Max Huber Verl., 1973) 55.Google Scholar

[27] Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 48 f.

[28] Op. cit., 51.

[29] Wuellner, W., ‘Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation’, 184.Google Scholar

[30] Dahl, N. A., Studies in Paul. Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977) 329Google Scholar; cf. also Chance, J. Bradley, ‘Paul's Apology to the Corinthians’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 9 (1982) 144–55.Google Scholar

[31] Bünker, M., Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korintherbrief (Göttinger the ologische Arbeiten 28; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 48–76.Google Scholar

[32] Bünker, M., Briefformular, 17 and 52 f. cf.Google Scholar also Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 56 f.Google Scholar

[33] Kennedy, G., New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, 87.Google Scholar

[34] See the literature cited by Church, F. Forrester, ‘Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul's Letter to Philemon’, HTR 71 (1978) 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[35] Conzelmann's, H. classification of this passage as ‘paraenetic’ is too general cf. 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress Press, 1975) 31.Google Scholar

[36] The emphatic expression παρακαλῶ ὑμᾱς serves as rhetorical marker in 1. 10;4. 16 and 16. 15. For 4. 16 see Sanders, B., ‘Imitating Paul: 1 Cor 4:167’, HTR 74 (1981) 353–63 but with a different emphasis in interpretation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[37] It is debated where the first part of 1 Corinthians ends and the second section begins. The traditional outline is chapters 1–6 (subjects raised with Paul orally) and 7–16 (subjects about which the Corinthians have written) cf. Orr, W. F./Walter, J. A., I Corinthians (Anchor Bible 32; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 120–2Google Scholar; Bailey, K. E., ‘The Structure of 1 Corinthians and Paul's Theological Method With Special Reference to 4:17’, NovT 25 (1983) 152–81 argues that 4. 17–21 are an introduction to chapters 5–7Google Scholar; the semiotic analysis of Claudel, G., ‘1 Kor 6, 12–7, 40 neu gelesen’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 94 (1985) 20–36 argues for the unity of this section.Google Scholar

[38] For bibliography cf. Willis, W. L., Idol Meat in Corinth. The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLD 68; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Id., ‘An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9’, JSNT 24 (1985) 33–48 argues that here Paul is not defending his conduct but that he argues on the basis of it.Google Scholar

[39] Cf. Wendland, H., Die Briefe und die Korinther (NTD 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 80Google Scholar; cf. also Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, ‘Women in the Pre-Pauline and Pauline Churches’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 33 (1978) 153–66.Google Scholar

[40] Cf. the careful structural analysis of Stenger, W., ‘Beobachtungen zur Argumentationsstruktur von 1 Cor 15’, Linguistica Biblica 45 (1979) 71–128.Google Scholar

[41] Lausberg, H., Handbuch der Literarischen Rhetorik, 128 f.Google Scholar

[42] Lausberg, H., Handbuch der Literarischen Rhetorik, 128 f.Google Scholar

[43] Dahl, N. A., Studies in Paul, 50.Google Scholar

[44] Ibid., 93.

[45] Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 57.Google Scholar

[46] Cf. Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, ‘Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Rm 16 and the Reconstruction of Women's Early Christian History’, Word and World 6 (1986) 420–33.Google Scholar

[47] It is debated whether Chloe's followers live in Corinth or have returned from Corinth to their residence in Ephesus. Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians, 59 argues that Chloe lived in Corinth because Paul expects that her name is recognized. However, he considers the people of Chloe to be her slaves or freedmen.Google Scholar

[48] See my book In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad Press, 1983) 41–67.Google Scholar

[49] See In Memory of Her, 220–6.Google Scholar

[50] 1 Cor 11. 2–16 and 14. 33b–36 are both considered to be post-Pauline ‘pastoral’ insertions by Munro, W., Authority in Paul and Peter. The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (SNTSM 45; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1983) 67–82Google Scholar; 1 consider not only 1 Cor 11. 2–16 but also 1 Cor 14. 33b–36 as authentically Pauline since these verses cohere with the overall argument in chapter 14; cf. also the structural analysis of Grudem, W. A., The Gift of Prophecy in I Corinthians (Lanham: Univ. Press of America, 1982) 231–55, however with a different interpretational emphasis.Google Scholar

[51] For discussion of the literature and interpretation see In Memory of Her, 226–30.

[52] Odell-Scott, D. W., ‘Let the Women Speak in Church: An Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:33b–36’, (BTB 13 (1983) 90–3) has argued that 1 Cor 14. 33b–36 represent a slogan of the Corinthian males against whom Paul argues.Google Scholar Cf. also Talbert, C. H., ‘Paul's Understanding of the Holy Spirit’, in Talbert, C. H. (ed.), Perspectives on the New Testament. Festschrift Stagg (Macon: Univ. of Mercer Press, 1985) 95–108.Google Scholar However, in light of Paul's argument in 1 Cor 11. 3 f. such an interpretation is not convincing.

[53] Cf. Vielhauer, Ph., ‘Paulus und die Kephaspartei in Korinth’, NTS 21 (1975) 341–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lang, F., ‘Die Gruppen in Korinth nach 1. Korinther 1–4’, Theologische Beiträge 14 (1983) 68–79Google Scholar; and especially the overview by Hurd, J. C., The Origins of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seabury Press, 1965) 95–107Google Scholar; Conzehnann, H., 1 Corinthians, 33–4 (Excursus: The Parties)Google Scholar; and Klauck, H.-J., 1. Korintherbrief (Würzburg: EchterVerlag, 1984) 21–3.Google Scholar

[54] Hurd, J. C., The Origin of I Corinthians, 111.Google Scholar

[55] Dahl, N. A., Studies in Paul, 49 ff.Google Scholar

[56] Stenger, W., ‘Beobachtungen zur Argumentationsstruktur’, 85 f.Google Scholar

[57] Hurd, JC., The Origins of 1 Corinthians, 113.Google Scholar

[58] Troeltsch, E., The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches 1 (New York, 1931) 78Google Scholar; cf. Theissen, G., The Social Setting, 107.Google Scholar

[59] Schütz, J. H., Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975) 285.Google Scholar

[60] Cf. Forbes, C., ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986) 14 who suggests two alternative models: ‘those of a parent with children whose position is guaranteed by his paternity and of an ambassador, whose position is guaranteed by his sender’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a different understanding cf., however, Holmberg, B., Paul and Power. The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 188 f.Google Scholar; for the function of the father-title in Paul's symbolic universe cf. Peterson, N. R., Rediscovering Paul, 104–50.Google Scholar

[61] Cf. also Barton, S., ‘Paul and the Cross: A Sociological Approach’, Theology 85 (1982) 13–19. 18:CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Paul augments his authority by focusing attention on how he himself interprets “Christ crucified”, thereby increasing dependence on himself as leader’.

[62] For different understandings of authority in antiquity and today cf. Eschenburg, Th., Über Autorität (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976)Google Scholar; Sennett, R., Authority (New York: Vintage Books, 1980)Google Scholar; Wrong, D. H., Power. Its Forms, Bases, and Abuses (New York: Harper & Row, 1979).Google Scholar

[63] Cf. Schottroff, L., ‘Nicht viele Mächtige. Annäherungen an eine Soziologie des Urchristen tums’, Bibel und Kirche 40 (1985) 2–8.Google Scholar

[64] Hock, R., ‘Paul's Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class’, JBL 97 (1978) 555–64Google Scholar; Bünker, M., Briefformular, 75Google Scholar; Forbes, C., ‘Comparison, Self-Praise, and Irony’, 24.Google Scholar