The Theological Journal of Emanuel University

Perichoresis

PerichoresisONL

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>First Corinthians 1-4 discusses the concept of <italic>sophia</italic> or wisdom as a central theme. It seems to be both a worldly standard by which the Corinthians judged their teachers and a concept which Paul redefines in light of the cross. Over the last century, two major proposals have been put forth as an explanation for the background of <italic>sophia</italic>: Gnosticism and Hellenistic Jewish wisdom. Those who advance the hypothesis of Gnosticism behind the concept, correctly identify in these chapters words and terminology that are commonly associated with Gnosticism. However, the literary context of 1 Corinthians 1-4, as determinative of meaning for these words, suggests different meanings associated with the cross. Moreover, claiming Gnostic influence on the writing of 1 Corinthians is guilty of anachronism. The Hellenistic Jewish wisdom proposal is likewise based on alleged linguistic and conceptual parallelism with Philonic type wisdom. It is argued, among other things, that the Corinthians were taught such wisdom by Apollos. This argument, however cannot be sustained, when we look at Apollos’ ministry in light of the information we have in the New Testament. As a result, both Gnosticism and Hellenistic Jewish wisdom are not viable hypothesis for the background of <italic>sophia</italic>.</abstract>

Abstract

Keywords

<article-title>The Gnostic and Hellenistic Backgrounds of <italic>Sophia</italic> in 1 Corinthians 1-4</article-title>

The Gnostic and Hellenistic Backgrounds of  in 1 Corinthians 1-4

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>It seems that the Corinthians appreciated rhetorical eloquence and had therefore esteemed their teachers according to their rhetorical abilities. This could be the root problem behind dissensions as they are confronted by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-4. This hypothesis is one among other proposals for the background behind the concept of <italic>sophia</italic>, however, it is both the oldest and the most recent one at the same time. It is assumed by most recent commentators and seems to make the most sense in the context of these beginning chapters of 1 Corinthians. Nevertheless, the concept of <italic>sophia</italic> in 1 Corinthians 1-4 allows for at least two senses: the means by which one knows God and persuasive speech. It is against the second understanding of <italic>sophia</italic> that Paul presents his theology of preaching in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 and it is this second sense that constitutes the cause of the dissensions in Corinth.</abstract>

<article-title>The Greco-Roman Rhetoric Background of <italic>Sophia</italic> in 1 Corinthians 1-4</article-title>

The Greco-Roman Rhetoric Background of  in 1 Corinthians 1-4

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>The social structure of the Corinthian <italic>ecclesia</italic> is a reasonable cause for the dissensions that had occurred between her members. The people from the higher social strata of the church may have sought to advance their honor by desiring to extend their patronage over those teachers in the church that could help them in that regard. This situation was aided by the fact that the members of the Christian community have failed to allow the cross to redefine the new entity to which they now belonged. Rather, they perceived the Christian <italic>ecclesia</italic> according to different social models that were available at that time in the society at large: household model, <italic>collegia</italic> model, political <italic>ecclesia,</italic> and Jewish synagogue. As a result, the apostle Paul, in the first four chapter of 1 Corinthians, shows how the cross has overturned the social values inherent in these models. He argues that the Christian <italic>ecclesia</italic> is a new entity, with a unique identity, and distinct network of relations, which should separate those inside the Christian community from those outside.</abstract>

<article-title>The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4</article-title>

The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4

{"article-title":"The Social Background of 1 Corinthians 1-4"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>The Corinthian church had many issues, among which the dissensions, as can be seen from 1 Corinthians 1-4. There are several theories concerning these dissensions. Some say that there are clearly four parties in the church, according to the slogans in 1 Corinthians 1:12. Others, go to the other extreme and talk about just disagreements among the members of the church, but no real schisms. Between these two extremes are those who seek to make sense of the slogan of allegiance to Christ, the role of Apollos in the dissensions, and ultimately the issue that the Corinthians had with Paul. There is probably some truth in all these theories and most likely the reality was that the Corinthians had preferences among their teachers, of whom the centre of attention were Paul and Apollos, the distinction made between the two were most presumably based on who played better into Corinthians’ social expectations.</abstract>

<article-title>The Number and Nature of Parties In 1 Corinthians 1-4</article-title>

The Number and Nature of Parties In 1 Corinthians 1-4

{"article-title":"The Number and Nature of Parties In 1 Corinthians 1-4"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>The dissensions in the Corinthian church bring up the question of the mention of Apollos’ name in Paul’s argument against the partisan spirit. Over time, there have been different proposals as to the role that Apollos had in the dissensions as well as his function in the argument of 1 Corinthians 1-4. Some say that Paul and Apollos were rivals and thus Paul formulates his argument against dissensions as a subtle attach on Apollos and his party. Others say that Apollos’ role in the dissensions is a more indirect one, give his <italic>modus operandi</italic>. Apollos is seen as a preacher characterized by rhetorical skill (cf. Acts 18:24-28), who has made a great impression on the Corinthian congregation especially on those of a certain high social status, who have used Apollos against the less skillful Paul in order to advance their honor. Thus, in this view, Apollos is seen as having an unintentional and indirect role in the dissensions, being played by some in the congregation. Others, however, see Apollos as having no role in the dissensions, the mention of his name by Paul being only as a way of example and with direct application to others. This view is based on a certain interpretation of <italic>meteschēmatisa</italic> in 1 Corinthians 4:6. An analysis of these views and their supporting arguments leads us to believe that the fault for the dissensions falls not on Apollos, but on the Corinthians. Paul and Apollos share a close collaboration in the mission work; it is the Corinthians who have pitched one against the other.</abstract>

<article-title>Apollos’ Function in 1 Corinthians 1-4</article-title>

{"article-title":"Apollos\u2019 Function in 1 Corinthians 1-4"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>In Paul’s argument against dissensions, Paul is said to have tried to regain his authority before the Corinthians. The first rhetorical unit is thus seen as an apologia. In his argument, he seemingly uses the concept of <italic>paterfamilias</italic> known to have evoked power and control. However, such a proposal neglects the fact that Paul’s argument is against exactly such type of discourse in which one seeks to elevate one teacher against another. Rather, in the use of the concept of <italic>paterfamilias</italic> we should see Paul redefining the concept and filling it with affection.</abstract>

<article-title>Paul’s <italic>Apologia</italic> in 1 Corinthians 1-4 and the Concept of <italic>Paterfamilias</italic></article-title>

Paul’s  in 1 Corinthians 1-4 and the Concept of 

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta content="mshtml 6.00.6000.17104" name=generator></head> <body> Perichoresis is covered by the following services: <UL><LI>ATLA Religion Database</LI><LI>Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)</LI><LI>CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)</LI><LI>CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)</LI><LI>CNPIEC - cnpLINKer</LI><LI>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)</LI><LI>EBSCO (relevant databases)</LI><LI>EBSCO Discovery Service</LI><LI>ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)</LI><LI>Google Scholar</LI><LI>Index Theologicus</LI><LI>J-Gate</LI><LI>JournalGuide</LI><LI>Microsoft Academic</LI><LI>Naviga (Softweco)</LI><LI>PhilPapers</LI><LI>Primo Central (ExLibris)</LI><LI>SCImago (SJR)</LI><LI>SCOPUS</LI><LI>Summon (ProQuest)</LI><LI>Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb</LI><LI>Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index</LI><LI>WorldCat (OCLC)</LI></UL></body></html>

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta content="mshtml 6.00.6000.17104" name=generator></head> <body> Perichoresis ist in den folgenden Services indiziert: <UL><LI>ATLA Religion Database</LI><LI>Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)</LI><LI>CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)</LI><LI>CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)</LI><LI>CNPIEC - cnpLINKer</LI><LI>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)</LI><LI>EBSCO (relevant databases)</LI><LI>EBSCO Discovery Service</LI><LI>ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)</LI><LI>Google Scholar</LI><LI>Index Theologicus</LI><LI>J-Gate</LI><LI>JournalGuide</LI><LI>Microsoft Academic</LI><LI>Naviga (Softweco)</LI><LI>PhilPapers</LI><LI>Primo Central (ExLibris)</LI><LI>SCImago (SJR)</LI><LI>SCOPUS</LI><LI>Summon (ProQuest)</LI><LI>Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb</LI><LI>Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index</LI><LI>WorldCat (OCLC)</LI></UL></body></html>

<DIV align=left> Perichoresis is the theological journal of Emanuel University, the only government-accredited Baptist university in Europe. As an institution of higher learning, Emanuel University promotes a traditionally conservative and trinitarian theology, protestant and evangelical, which is reflected in the articles of the contributors who are part of its academic staff. Articles written by people who share different religious views are also welcome provided that they are scientifically argued and focused on academic issues. Perichoresis is published in conjunction with the "Ethics and Society" Research Centre, also part of Emanuel University, which allows for the dialogue between a specifically Protestant-Evangelical morality and the philosophy of contemporary society to take the shape of well-argued contributions for the journal. Perichoresis does not collect article processing charges (APCs) or submission charges. The journal has an editorial review policy for invited papers, as well as double blind peer review for non-invited articles. Why subscribe and read Perichoresis, the Theological Journal of Emanuel University, is the only Romanian Baptist academic review in the field of theology (and cognate subjects, such as philosophy, religious philosophy, ethics, and church history) published exclusively in English throughout Romania. As a scientific journal, Perichoresis has a double purpose: on the one hand, to introduce valuable academic contributions from the English-speaking world to the Romanian academy and, on the other hand, to promote Romanian theological research on the global academic market. Why submit Perichoresis focuses on academic papers in all fields of theology (biblical-exegetical, dogmatic-historical, and pastoral-practical) and is fully recognized by the Romanian National Council for Scientific Research as a B Category academic journal. Archiving Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in <A href="https://www.portico.org/">Portico</A> - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections. Plagiarism Policy The editorial board is participating in a growing community of <A href="https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/">Similarity Check System's</A> users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. </DIV>

Editor-in-Chief Corneliu C. Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania Deputy/ Managing Editor Ciprian Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania International Advisory Board Torrance Kirby, McGill University, Canada Frank A. James III, Biblical Theological Seminary, United States of America Hamilton Moore, Irish Baptist College, United Kingdom André A. Gazal, North Greenville University, United States of America Ábráhám Kovács, Debrecen Reformed Theological University, Hungary Joshua R. Farris, University of St. Mary of the Lake, United States of America Frank G. Bosman, Tilburg University, the Netherlands †James McMahon, Albert Ellis Institute, United States of America Editors Systematic Theology Paul Negruţ, Emanuel University, Romania Patristics and Classical Languages Marius D. Cruceru, Emanuel University, Romania Applied Theology Adrian Giorgiov, Emanuel University, Romania Old and New Testament Studies Aurelian Botica, Emanuel University, Romania Language Editors Eunicia Ile, Emanuel University, Romania Technical Editors Ciprian Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania Contact <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A> Publisher De Gruyter Poland Bogumiła Zuga 32A Str. 01-811 Warsaw, Poland T: +48 22 701 50 15

<DIV align=left> Please submit your manuscripts to Perichoresis via email to: <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A> Open Access Statement The journal is an Open Access journal that allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions upon publication to all users. <A href="https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/PERC/Open_Access_License.pdf">Open Access License</A> </DIV>

Cite Score

European Reference Index for the Humanities

SCImago Journal Rank

Source Normalized Impact per Paper

Volume 17 (2019): Issue s2 (July 2019) Single Author Supplement 2: The Background and Nature of the Dissensions in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Apollos' Role and Paul's Response. Author: Corin Mihăilă

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 3 (July 2019) Contemporary Evangelicals on Carl F. H. Henry’s Theology. From Philosophy, Evangelism, and Apologetics to Education, History, and Practice. Editor: Robert W. Talley

Issues

Journal & Issues

Perichoresis

Search

Volume 17 (2019): Issue s2 (July 2019)
Single Author Supplement 2: The Background and Nature of the Dissensions in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Apollos' Role and Paul's Response. Author: Corin Mihăilă

Journal & Issue Details

Search

Articles

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Issues

Journal & Issues

Perichoresis

Search

Volume 17 (2019): Issue s2 (July 2019)Single Author Supplement 2: The Background and Nature of the Dissensions in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Apollos' Role and Paul's Response. Author: Corin Mihăilă

Journal & Issue Details

Search

Articles

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Volume 17 (2019): Issue s2 (July 2019)
Single Author Supplement 2: The Background and Nature of the Dissensions in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Apollos' Role and Paul's Response. Author: Corin Mihăilă