Rhetoric and philosophy in the first century
Does the divisive "wisdom" of the Corinthians pertain to form, content, or both? Several important studies of late have argued that Paul opposed, not philosophy ("content"), or philosophy and rhetoric more generally, but simply Greco-Roman rhetoric ("form"). Questioning...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
NTWSA
2010
|
| In: |
Neotestamentica
Year: 2010, Volume: 44, Issue: 2, Pages: 233-252 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Does the divisive "wisdom" of the Corinthians pertain to form, content, or both? Several important studies of late have argued that Paul opposed, not philosophy ("content"), or philosophy and rhetoric more generally, but simply Greco-Roman rhetoric ("form"). Questioning the assumptions of these studies, the present paper looks anew at the primary sources, seeking to provide a more nuanced "philosophical-rhetorical" framework for interpreting these chapters. From a fresh look at the primary sources, a certain tension arises. It is shown that, on the one hand, rhetoricians and philosophers tended to disassociate from each other, but that, on the other hand, the separation was far from absolute. Accordingly, regarding 1 Cor 1-4 it is demonstrated that the tendency of certain studies to polarize rhetoric and philosophy, and an inclination towards the rhetorical side, has resulted in a questionable preference for a rhetorical explanation even in places where the evidence may suggest otherwise. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2518-4628 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Neotestamentica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.10520/EJC83395 |