FOLLOWING PAUL’S ARGUMENT: GIVING VOICE TO THE TEXT IN OUR

PREACHING

Robert Stephen Reid, University of Dubuque (rreid@dbq.edu)

Presented at the Academy of Homiletics 2001 & Gathered in the Papers of the Academy

We should not be surprised that hard on the heels of a generation of form critical

scholarship a second generation, this time of homiletic scholars, focused attention on form and the

implications of genre for form in preaching.1 Since Grady Davis first drew attention to the

relationship of form to substance for preaching, homiletic theorists have done excellent work in

recognizing that generic forms are constituent to meaning for biblical texts.2 Prior to Davis,

preachers had generally ignored genre and tended to treat the form of a text as if it were merely a

façade erected to pass on timeless theology.3 Now, rather than merely asking, “What does the

text say?” we have learned to ask the performative question, “What does the text do?”4

Over the last two decades the dominant methods of textual inquiry have shifted from form

and redaction criticism to methods of inquiry derived from literary and rhetorical criticism. Where

foundationalist exegesis historically sought to interpret meaning behind the text, newer

methodologies look with interest to the narrative unity of text. They generally attend to the poetics

of arrangement, style and theme that are unique to an author’s vision for the whole of a treatise.

With this new emphasis in biblical studies, homileticians may want to begin asking how this kind

of inquiry may redirect the performative questions we ask about what a text is “doing?”

In published studies5 and several Academy papers

6 I have been attempting to explore this

question. I have suggested that the performative issue implicated by these new approaches shifts

from the recovery of genre as it relates to narrative movement to the recovery of voice. Instead of

1 Lowry has attempted to document this connection in Eugene Lowry, The Sermon, Dancing the Edge of Mystery

(Atlanta: Abingdon, 1997) 22-28. See Thomas G. Long, “Form,” Concise Encyclopedia of Preaching, William H.

Willimon and Richard Lischer, eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995) 144-151; Long, Preaching the

Literary Forms of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989); Mike Graves, The Sermon as Symphony: Preaching

the Literary Forms of the New Testament (Valley Forge: Judson, 1997). 2 H. Grady Davis, Design for Preaching (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958) 98-162.

3 Paul Ricoeur, “Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation,” Essays on Biblical Interpretation, ed. Lewis S.

Mudge (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 90-91. 4 On viewing the language of the Biblical text as performative Thomas G. Long argues, “So what are preachers

supposed to look for as they interpret biblical texts? They are not merely to look for theological ideas floating in a

historical soup, nor are they to look for timeless and universal aesthetic literary experiences. They are rather to look

for the action of the text, what the text was doing in a specific historical setting” (10). T. G. Long, “The Preacher and

the Beast: From Apocalyptic Text to Sermon,” Intersections: Post-critical Studies in Preaching, Richard L. Eslinger,

ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 1-22. Long assumes here the foundation insights of David James Randolph.

Randolph was the first to seriously argue that the genius of preaching is its eventfulness: “What is crucial for

homiletics is not so much what the sermon ‘is’ as what the sermon ‘does;’ Randolph, The Renewal of Preaching: A

New Homiletic Based on the New Hermeneutic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969) vii. 5 Robert Stephen Reid, Preaching Mark. Nashville: St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999; “On Preaching Fictive Argument:

A Reader-Response Look at a Lukan Parable and 3 Sayings on Discipleship,” Restoration Quarterly 43 (2001) 13-

31; “When Words Were a Power Loosed: Audience Expectation and Finished Narrative Technique in the Gospel of

Mark,” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (1994): 427-47. 6 Papers of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Homiletics: R. S. Reid, “On Preaching Fictive Argument” (1999);

“The Power of Preaching Fictive Argument” (1995); “The Polished Style and the Expectation of Parallelism in

Finished Narratives in Antiquity,” (1993).

asking how the generic form of a text structures persuasive effect, I have focused on the structures

of what I have termed a gospel writer’s fictive argument. In studies examining both Mark and

Luke, I have argued that these author’s voices are actually found in the reasons why their stories

are told in the order in which they were construed.7 My project thus far has been to discover how

gospel writers use the story of Jesus to preach to their own communities. By recovering the

performative dimension of voice in their fictive argument, I have sought to assist contemporary

preachers who see their own interpretive and homiletic task as attempting to perform intentions

aligned with these argument strategies. The focus remains on the relationship of form and

content, but the performative interest has shifted from a genre theory of form to an arrangement

theory of form. In my Preaching Mark, Judith McDaniel, Stephen Farris, James Mead, Paul

Wilson, Ronald Allen, and Lucy Hogan joined me in the effort to provide sample sermons that

attempt to perform an intention aligned with Mark’s voice.

In this study I want to open up the same possibilities of preaching the nuance of voice, but

this time the focus moves away from the fictive argument of gospel narrative to epistolary

argument as found in 1 Corinthians.8 I assume for this presentation that Paul made extensive and

conscious use of the Rhetorica ad Herennium’s fivefold “most perfect and complete argument”

(2.18.28-29.46) and the handbook’s sevenfold argument by “amplification of a theme” (4.43.56-

44.57).9 Both types of argument were strategies of reasoning with clearly prescribed argument

“legs” each of which served distinctly identifiable functions. My purpose in this study is to use

the Ad Her.’s strategy of reasoning, by way of the “Complete Argument” to examine the way in

which Paul’s voice “inflects” in the different “legs” of the argument offered in 1 Corinthians

11:2-34. The use of Ad Herennium argument theory to recover inflected differences in his voice

concerning female speech in this text has direct implications for the second reference to female

speech (1 Cor. 14:33b-36), a portion of text found in Paul’s development of an argument by

“Amplification of a Theme” (14:1-40). As with the recovery of the performative dimension of

fictive argument, the recovery of the performative dimensions of epistolary argument are tied to

the preacher’s ability to identify the inflections of the author’s voice.

Obviously, the relationship between these texts is provocative. By demonstrating the

utility of employing ancient argument theory as a means to follow the argument of a text, my

purpose is to assist preachers in learning how to listen for the inflection in the speaker’s voice.

For only when they can tell the difference in the rhetorical nuance of voice— only when they can

actually follow the argument— can a preacher then ask the homiletic question, “How can I give

voice to the text?”

7 For example, in the periodic sentence that serves as his preface (Lk. 1:1-4), Luke affirms this concern with

arrangement as a matter central to the voices of his predecessors, and by parallel periodic construction, central to his

own voice. He indicates that others have sought to compose (ta/cij) the narrative of Jesus in their way, now he

will offer his own construal of the “events” (Lk. 1:1-4). 8 For an excellent homiletic primer in epistolary rhetoric see James W. Thompson, Preaching Like Paul:

Homiletical Wisdom for Today (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox, 2001) 61-84. 9 The details of this argument are in development for publication elsewhere. The initial argument was presented in an

American Society for the History of Rhetoric panel presentation entitled “Paul’s Use of Ad Herennium Argument

Strategies in 1 Corinthians” at the National Communication Association meeting, Seattle, November 2000. Interested

individuals may contact me at rreid@dbq.edu for details of this argument.

GIVING VOICE TO THE TEXT

Narrowly defined, voice is a term literary theorists use that answers the question “Who

speaks?” as opposed to point-of-view which answers the question “What perspective is taken?”10

We can speak of the various points-of-view found among the characters of a narrative, but voice

refers to the textual traces of the one who offers the text to be read, of the strategy of persuasion

of a text’s implied author.11

The recovery of a speaker’s voice allows us to describe the identity

and the character of the person communicating without having to determine the relationship of

this speaker to the actual person who formed the speech.

For example, when Luke has Paul give a speech in the book of Acts, ancient principles for

writing a “true history” required that the writer attempt to create a “speech-in-character,”

appropriate for the individual to have said in the narrative context. That represents a sense of

“point-of-view” created for the character depicted. Luke’s voice is present only obliquely in such

texts. He would likely develop themes consonant with his treatise in the speech, but we should

not expect to hear his voice here. But in the historia surrounding speeches we rightly can look for

evidence of Luke’s voice through analysis of his narrative arrangement (oikonomia), style (lexus),

and theme (subject matter pragmata).12

Obviously, literary theorists speak of voice more with regard to fictive argument than

epistolary argument, but argument, whether direct or by way of indirection, still has its

inflections. Absence of the awareness of voice inflections could inhibit preachers looking at

epistolary argument from recognizing such argument strategies as sarcasm, coyness,

embellishment, formulation of maxims, topical reasoning, resorting to ‘truisms’ or the authority

of quoted hymnic material. Uncovering the inflections of voice requires attention to the text and a

preacher’s acumen in reflecting on the strategy of reasoning implicit in the letter writer’s

structure, style, and strategy of persuasion. With the recovery of voice the preacher is provided

with a window on the author’s intention or persuasive purpose. So, rather than beginning by

10

The difference between these two concepts may help us to understand the significance of the former. Point-of-view

is a perspective presented as an aspect of composition, while voice represents the traces of the implied author’s

argument addressed to the reader. Wallace Martin: Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca, Cornell UP, 1986) 124;

131. On voice as part of the rhetoric of fictive argument, see Wayne Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2nd ed.

(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1983), 170-266. Cf. Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 3 vols. Kathleen

McLaughlin-Blamey and David Pellauer, trans. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984-88) Vol. II:88-99; III:

160-64. 11

For a literary effort to identify voice see James M. Dawsey, The Lukan Voice: Confusion and Irony in the Gospel

of Luke (Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1987). 12

As late as 1980 the majority of classicists tended to believe that writing “true history” among educated historians

in antiquity meant much what it means today. C. S. Kraus and A. J. Woodman’s recount the shift that has occurred in

understanding historiography in antiquity during the past 20 years in the “Introduction” to their 1997 book Latin

Historians. Stated succinctly, when Roman historians, whether Livy or Dionysius, profess to be telling the truth they

are denying bias and not rhetorical fabrication which was deemed to be an appropriate means of devising a plausible

historia. In light of this, Kraus and Woodman state that the new approach to ancient historiography, “in which one

reads for structure, style, and theme (among other things), can offer new insights into the way these historians saw

their past and their present. . . [a]nd indeed the use which we today can make of their work” C. S. Kraus and A. J.

Woodman, Latin Historians, New Studies in the Classics, No. 27 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 6.

Generations of foundationalist redaction-critical efforts to reconstruct the ‘true’ history “behind” the text have

obscured efforts to see the possibilities of recovering voice as a function of texts. For an excellent overview of the

issues, see Todd C. Penner, “In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic

Historiography,” Unpublished dissertation, Emory University, 2000.

asking “What does the text say?” and stopping with “What does the text do?” the preacher can go

on to ask “How can I give voice to the text?”

THE AD HERENNIUM STRATEGIES OF ARGUMENT

The Rhetorica ad Herennium is the oldest complete Latin textbook on rhetoric still extant

and, by its own account (Ad Her. 1.1.1; cf. 4.1.1), it purports to be a cumulative distillation of the

Greek rhetorical handbook tradition of the author’s day. J. J. Murphy summarizes the

significance of its status thus, “The Rhetorica ad Herennium is, in short, a highly technical

document reflecting the crystallized state of Hellenistic rhetorical doctrine at the beginning of the

first century before Christ.”13

In other words, it is the handbook most likely to provide guidance

as to what counted as the way to make a good argument in the first centuries BCE and CE.14

For a strategy of argument appropriate to forensic contexts, the writer states,

The most complete and perfect argument is that which is comprised of five parts: The

proposition, the Reason, the Proof of the Reason, the Embellishment, and the

Résumé. Through the Proposition we set forth summarily what we intend to prove.

The Reason, by means of a brief explanation, sets forth the causal basis for the

proposition, establishing the truth of what we are urging. The Proof of the Reason

corroborates, by means of additional arguments, the briefly presented Reason.

Embellishment we use in order to adorn and enrich the argument, after the proof has

been established. The Résumé is a brief conclusion, drawing together the parts of the

argument (2.18.28).

A Complete Argument has five basic legs: statement of the Proposition, Reasoning, Proof of the

Reasoning, Embellishment, and Résumé (summary). Unlike logical argument, where “legs” and

conclusion posit a tautology, the goal of this kind of argument is to posit “plausible argument.”

Paul seems to say this was not his purpose when he was with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2:4), but

when it comes to making plausible argument, his adversaries complained he was a master of

epistolary argument (2 Cor. 10:9-10).

The Ad Herennium offers a second form of deliberative argumentatio described as

“Amplification of a Theme.” It provided a structured means for a speaker or writer to dwell

persuasively on a subject using various figures of diction:

[W]hen we descant upon the same theme we shall use a great many variations.

Indeed, after having expressed the Theme simply we can subjoin the Reason[s], and

then express the Theme in another form, with or without the Reasons; next we can

present the Contrary…; then a Comparison and an Example; and finally the

Conclusion (4.43.56).

Arrangement of argument differs in developing an Amplification of a Theme because other

functions are added; e.g., argument from example, analogy, testimony, comparison, etc. Each

“leg” in one of these components of an argument represents a different inflection of voice in the

13

J. J. Murphy, “The Codification of Roman Rhetoric: With a Synopsis of the Rhetorica Ad Herennium,” A Synoptic

History of Classical Rhetoric, eds. J. J. Murphy and R. Katula, 2nd

Edition (Davis, CA: Hermagoras, 1995) 116; cf.

H. Caplan, trans. and ed., Ad C. Herennium de Ratione Dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium), LCL (Cambridge, MA:

Harvard, 1954) xv. 14

I do not posit that Paul read the Latin handbook. Rather, I argue that the handbook embodies, in Latin, the

tradition of Greek rhetoric Paul assumes to be formative for his readers-audiences.

sense that one would not be expected to respond to Embellishment in the same way one would be

expected to respond to Proof; Summary comes to us in a different voice than Comparison.

However, each “leg” invites a different response depending on its role in the arrangement or

design of the argument. The ability to visualize the rhetoric of these changes in voice suggests

that a preacher can answer the homiletic question “What response does the text invite?” just as

readily for epistolary argument as fictive argument.

I have identified eleven instances of the use of the forensic model of a Complete

argument design in 1 Corinthians (1:10-31; 2:1-4:21; 5:1-13; 6:1-11; 6:12-20; 8:1-13; 11:2-16;

11:17-34; 12:1-30; 12:31-13:13; 15:1-11) and four uses of the deliberative model of an

Amplification of a Theme argument (9:1-27; 10:1-15-11:1; 14:1-40; 15:12-58). They represent

specific strategies of reasoning in which different argument “legs” perform different,

predetermined functions. I have made two claims. First, that Paul consciously structured each of

these arguments with Ad Her. strategies of reasoning familiar to Greek readers. Second, that he

also develops the arguments within each “leg” according to the more traditional Jewish forms of

symmetrical reasoning, with the symmetrical reasoning always subordinated to Ad. Her.

argument structure.15

I CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

In the appended schematization (see Appendix A), I have left the Greek word

katakalypto and its negation untranslated because I think the tide has turned against the NRSV’s

decision to retain the RSV’s translation of “veiling.”16

I find the arguments that it refers to hair

worn bound up in a modest bun convincing. The negation, akatakalypto, would be the practice of

women wearing their hair down in an immodest, free-flowing style (apparently as a symbol of

their new status in Christ).17

For example, it is unlikely that Paul is condemning the practice of

Jewish men wearing a prayer shawl as a head covering in vs. 4, while males wearing hair “down

about” the head was viewed as effeminate in the first century (11:14). By turning to a different

word for “covering” in 11:15 (peribolaion), Paul makes it clear that hair has been the subject

15

On previous efforts to identify symmetrical patterns of argument in 1 Corinthians see K. E. Bailey, “The Structure

of 1 Corinthians and Paul’s Theological Method With Reference to 4:17,” Novum Testamentum, 25 (1983): 152-81.

For the place of chiastic analysis in a general introduction to biblical narrative see J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical

Narrative: An Introductory Guide, Ineke Smit, trans. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1999); J. Breck, The

Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s, 1994; R.

Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric, JSOTSS 256 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1998). A more cautious analysis of Paul’s use of the phenomenon as argument can be found in T. H. Ian’s

Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, JSNT Supplement Series, 111 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 16

Noel Weeks argues that modern practice of translating the word as “veiling” dates from William Ramsey’s

“misinterpretation” of Dion Chrysostom on the matter; Noel Weeks, “Of Silence and Head Covering,” Westminister

Theological Journal 35 (1972) 21. Oepke would have Paul attempting to foist a fading Semitic custom on all female,

gentile converts; A. Oepke, “Katakalypto,” TDNT vol. 3 (Eerdmans, 1965) 561-63. 17

See Jean Hering, Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) 103, 106; W. J. Martin, “I

Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation” Apostolic History and the Gospel: A Festschrift for F. F. Bruce, W. Gasque

and W. Martin, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 231-41. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (Nasville: Abingdon, 1998)

153-56; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1997) 182-90; More cautious,

but still opposed to “veiling,” see Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2000) 823-28.

throughout the argument. At issue is a concern for modesty; i.e., if a woman’s hair is her “glory”

she should only let it down in the privacy of her bedchamber with her husband.

Notice how the combined construal of both the Ad Herennium divisions of the Complete

Argument and the visualization of symmetrical reasoning subordinated to its partitions assist the

interpreter in following the argument. For example, Paul’s argument from “nature itself” (I Cor.

11:14) occurs in the Embellishment of the argument where one expects argument by way of

similes, examples, and amplifications (Ad Her. 2.29.46). This kind of argumentation should be

viewed as qualitatively distinct from that found in the Reason and the Proof of the Reason. There

are even differences of inflection between the latter. The Reason is viewed defective if it is weak,

uncompelling, or too broad (2.23.35-2.24.37), while the Proof of the Reason is supposed to

supply “the most cogent support for the whole argument” (2.24.38-2.28.45). As the introductory

and concluding partitions of the argument, the Proposition and its Résumé reinforce the thesis of

the argument. Viewing the nuance of the argument in light of the function of each division keeps

a preacher from being misled by atomistic textual discussions that often treat all statements as if

they have the same argument value.

Gundry-Volf and others have persuaded Thiselton that the argument at issue here is one

of gender difference rather than gender hierarchy.18

However, visualizing the Ad Her. argument

structure also reveals that what seems to be the most obscure argument in the entire passage is

actually the most important argument. At the point-of-turning (B’) of the Proof of the Reason,

Paul hinges his argument, that prophesying woman need to take charge of their hair and keep it

under control for modesty’s sake, on the following compelling reason: “because of the angels”

(10b). Visualizing Paul’s epistolary argument design forces a preacher to recognize that dealing

with this argument cannot be avoided.

My own preference is to note Paul’s pre-occupation with references to angels in I

Corinthians at 4:9, 6:3, and 13:1 and the problem of pneumatics committed to an over-realized

eschatology who saw themselves like the angels, no longer bound by prior human commitments

such as sexual relations within marriage (1 Cor. 7), because they were already reigning with

Christ through their baptism (1 Cor. 4:8). Since, angels, whom it appears they desired to emulate

(13:1), “are ministering spirits” who exercise self-control in their choice to do the heavenly

bidding of God (cf. Heb. 1:14), Paul could argue for this same exercise of self-control on the part

of prophesying women with little need to elaborate its imperative. Like the practice of Aikido, the

argument “because of the angels” works in all of its simplicity because its force lies in a

momentum supplied by its recipients. An enthymematic argument such as this is experienced as

persuasive precisely to the degree its audience finds the missing “leg” they must supply

compelling.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:1-40 AND THE SILENCING OF PROPHETESSES

Since space does not permit construing each of the portions of the Amplified Theme

argument in 1 Corinthians 14:1-40,19

I have indicated the function of each section as follows:

THEME: Strive for the Gift of Prophecy 14:1

REASON: The Priority of Building up the Church 14:2-4

THEME RESTATED: Benefit comes from Prophecy 14:5-6

18

Thiselton 831. 19

I would be happy to supply this by e-mail to anyone requesting it.

COMPARISON With Unskilled vs. Skilled Musical Sound 14:7-12

REASON RESTATED: The Need to Pray with One’s Mind 14:13-15

EXAMPLE: A Commonplace of the “Outsider”20

14:16-25

CONCLUSION: What Should be Done, therefore… 14:26-40

Returning to the theme of “What should be done, therefore…” in his Conclusion, Paul offers the

tightly reasoned summary schematized in Appendix B. A cursory examination of the

schematized symmetry of the argument of 14:26-33, 37-40 reveals the difficulty involved with

accepting the material of vss. 33b-36 as original to Paul’s argument. Though not original to the

argument, the brief argument, as structured in Appendix C, suggests that its author was aware of

Paul’s tendency to employ symmetry in formulating argument. However, its sudden inclusion in

the midst of the properly composed Conclusion of an otherwise well-composed Amplification of

a Theme argument demonstrates that the author was either less aware or less concerned with

observing the rhetorical constraints of this means of argumentation. No known manuscripts lack

the verses, but some Western texts displace two of the three verses until after verse 40 as if

copyists were aware of the way in which these verses interrupt the structure of the argument and

the shape of its symmetrical reasoning.21

Horrell has recently surveyed the arguments concerning this portion of the letter and

observes that critical consensus in favor of viewing the text as an interpolation is growing.22

He

admits that there still must be substantial grounds to accept this argument beyond the fact that

contemporary critics find the position unpalatable. The verses appear to be part of the tradition at

such an early stage, that most critics who argue against their inclusion make the case for

interpolation on internal rather than external evidence. What remains unclear at the end of his

review is whether Horrell has met his own burden of arriving at “substantial” grounds for

excluding the text.23

To all of these opinions, however, we can now add the rhetorical critical argument that

the text in its current placement interrupts the Amplified Theme’s “Conclusion” by inserting a

new argument something wholly unacceptable in Ad Herennium argument strategy

(“Conclusions, among the Greeks called epilogoi, are tripartite, consisting of the Summing up,

Amplification, and Appeal to Pity;” Ad Her. 2.30.47). Given the rigor with which Paul

systematically made use of the handbook’s two strategies of organizing argument and given the

manner in which the remaining argument can be chiastically construed in a manner consistent

with the other argument structures of this epistle, we can conclude that it is unlikely Paul would

have disrupted his own Conclusion with the addition of an argument that seems to be lifted from

20

On the commonplace of outsiders coming among us and thinking we are insane see Dionysius of Halicarnassus On

Demosthenes 17. 21

For a thorough and cautious evaluation of the evidence for interpolation, see Thiselton, 1146-62. 22

Horrell finds that the literary evidence suggests that this is a rough insertion and Paul’s practice of relating to

female co-workers, especially when compared to his way of relating indicated in 1 Cor. 11:2ff and his description of

female co-workers in Romans 16:1, 3, and 7. 23

The preponderance of these problems and the likelihood that an argument added to a margin was incorporated into

the text at an early stage must, in Horrell’s opinion, cast doubt upon the authenticity of these verses (195); David G.

Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1

Clement (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996) 188-95.

the kind of congregational practice depicted in 1 Tim. 2:11-13.24

If the Ad Herennium evidence is

considered, then the Conclusion is a masterfully controlled argument balancing the need to build

one another up with prophecy and to exercise self-control and appropriate order in fulfillment of

the originally stated theme to “Strive for the Gift of Prophecy.”

CONCLUSION

For preachers to ask, “How can I give voice to the text?” they must have useful homiletic

tools that permit discovery of the performative dimensions of the speaker’s voice. By recovering

the performative dimension of voice whether in fictive argument or epistolary argument my

interest is to provide preachers with the critical means of “revealing [a text’s] structures,

uncovering its strategies, and placing in relief its enriching internal and external

interconnections”— the necessary steps that help the preacher move from a first naïveté to the

second naïveté of understanding.25

My commentary has been brief, but pointed. In the Proof of the Reason in 1 Cor. 11, the

argument hangs on a phrase so abbreviated and seemingly obscure that many preachers might

otherwise choose to ignore it. But to do so, is to misunderstand how to follow the argument in

both its design and its force as experienced by the letter’s first recipients. We do much better to

ponder what kind of situation would call forth this kind of persuasive rhetoric. Otherwise, the

entire argument becomes little more than fuel for contemporary debates about what counts as an

inclusive theology. Only after we have been able to follow the logic of epistolary argument

according to its strategy of composition, its stylistic elements, and its development of a theme

throughout the epistle can we actually give voice anew to the text. The task then is to find

relevant ways to give voice to these words fitted to new cultural contexts.

In a brief examination of 1 Cor. 4:1-40, I used these same tools to discover how Paul’s

voice was suddenly interrupted by someone else’s voice. The result was an interesting

conversation that quite literally has become inscribed in the text and points to the irreducible

plurivocity of all biblical texts.26

Whether the issue is gender difference, gender role, or the

nature of culturally bound argument in biblical text, the recovery of voice lets us hear the

inflections of the one speaking, or even the ones speaking. Presented in this way, the multiple

voices already embedded in this text invite our voices to join the conversation. For all homiletic

efforts to give voice to the text are invariably joined by the voice of the preacher and potentially

joined by those other voices a preacher invites into the homiletic conversation.

24

For the argument of the “Victory of the Pastoral Epistles” in the collection and formation of the Pauline canon see

Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1983) 85-89. 25

This is Sandra Schneider’s summary of Ricoeurian hermeneutics. Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text:

Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991) 169. 26

See LaCocque and Ricoeur who examine what they find to be the irreducible plurivocity of the biblical texts. The

alternative is to accept the standard univocal effort to get at authorial intention that, in their words, cuts off the text

"from its ties to a living community [such that] the text gets reduced to a cadaver handed over for autopsy;" André

LaCocque and Paul Ricoeur, Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, David Pellauer, trans.

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998) xii.

APPENDIX 1: THE “COMPLETE ARGUMENT” STRUCTURE OF 1 COR. 11:2-16

PROPOSITION:

{11:2} I commend you because you remember me

in everything and maintain the traditions TRADITIONS

just as I handed them on to you.

{3} But I want you to understand that

Christ is the head of every man, HEAD/SOURCE

and the husband is the head of his wife, HEAD/SOURCE

and God is the head of Christ. HEAD/SOURCE

REASON

{4} A 1 Any man who prays or prophesies

with anything up [on] his head

2 disgraces his head, DISGRACES HEAD

{5} 1’ but any woman who prays or prophesies

akatakalypto her head HAIR DOWN ABOUT

2’ disgraces her head— DISGRACES HEAD

B it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.

{6} B’ a For if a woman will not katakalyptetai, BIND HER HAIR UP

b then she should cut off her hair; ARG. FROM SHAME

b’ but if it is disgraceful for a woman ARG. FROM SHAME

to have her hair cut off or to be shaved,

a’ let her katakalyptestho. BIND HER HAIR UP

{7} A’ 1 For a man ought not to katakalypto his head, HAVE EFFEMINATE HAIR

2 since he is the image and reflection of God; REFLECTION OF GOD

1’ but woman FEMALE COVERING

2’ is the reflection of man. REFLECTION OF MAN

PROOF OF THE REASON:27

{8} A Indeed, man was not made from woman,

but woman from man. WOMAN/MAN

{9} Neither was man created for the sake of woman, MAN/WOMAN

but woman for the sake of man. GENDER DIFFERENCE

{10} B For this reason a woman ought to have

a symbol of authority on her head AUTHORITY ARG

B’ because of the angels. AUTHORITY ARG.

{11} A’ 1 Nevertheless, woman is not independent of man

2 nor man independent of woman.

3 in the Lord GROUNDED IN THE LORD

{12} 1’ For just as woman came from man, WOMAN/MAN GENDER

2’ so man comes through woman; MAN/WOMAN DIFFERENCE

3’ but all things come from God. GROUNDED IN GOD

27

See Fee’s efforts to identify “the perfect double chiasm” that structures segments A and A’ (vss. 8-9 and 11-12)

Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 523. He argues that the chiasmic

structure implicates an argument predicated on an axis of mutuality.

APPENDIX 1: Continued

EMBELLISHMENT: Argument from Nature

{13} Judge for yourselves:

A is it proper for a woman CULTURALLY PROPER?

to pray to God akatakalypton? WITH HAIR UNBOUND?

{14} B Does not nature itself teach you

that if a man wears long hair,

it is degrading to him, ARG. FROM NATURE

{15} B’ but if a woman has long hair,

it is her glory? ARG. FROM NATURE

A’ For her hair is given to her

for a covering. CULTURALLY PROPER!

RÉSUMÉ

{16} But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—

we have no such custom,

nor do the churches of God. CUSTOM

APPENDIX 2: A CHIASTIC SCHEMATIZATION OF THE AMPLIFIED

ARGUEMNT CONCLUSION IN 1 COR. 14:26-33, 37-40.

CONCLUSION: What Should be Done 14:26-40

{26} A 1 What should be done then, my friends? MY FRIENDS

When you come together, each one has a hymn,

a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, PROPER PRACTICE

or an interpretation.

2 Let all things be done for building up. ALL THINGS DONE

{27} B 1 If anyone speaks in a tongue, IF ANYONE

2 let there be only two or at most three,

and each in turn; LET (POSITIVE

and let one interpret.

{28} 1’ But if there is no one to interpret,

2’ let them be silent in church LET BE SILENT

and speak to themselves and to God.

{29} C 1 Let two or three prophets speak,

2 and let the others weigh what is said.

{30} 1’ If a revelation is made

to someone else sitting nearby,

2’ let the first person be silent. LET BE SILENT

{31} C’ 1 For you can all prophesy one by one,

2 so that all may learn

and all be encouraged.

{32} 1’ And the spirits of prophets

are subject to the prophets, BE IN CONTROL

{33a} 2’ for God is a God

not of disorder but of peace.

{37} B’ 1 Anyone who claims to be a prophet,

or to have spiritual powers, IF ANYONE

2 [let that one] acknowledge

that what I am writing to you LET (POSITIVE)

is a command of the Lord.

{38} 1’ Anyone who does not recognize this NOT RECOGNIZE

2’ is not to be recognized.

{39} A’ 1’ So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, MY FRIENDS

and do not forbid speaking in tongues; PROPER PRACTICE

{40} 2’ but all things should be done

decently and in order. ALL THINGS DONE

APPENDIX 3: A CHIASTIC SCHEMATIZATION OF THE INSERTED ARGUMENT

OF 1 COR. 14:33b-36

{33b} A (As in all the churches of the saints, UNIVERSALITY OF PRACTICE

{34} women should be silent in the churches.

B For they are not permitted to speak, NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK

C but should be subordinate,

as the law also says. SELF-CONTROL RE THE LAW

{35} C’ If there is anything

they desire to know, CORRECT PRACTICE RE

let them ask their husbands at home. SYNAGOGUE PRACTICE

B’ For it is shameful

for a woman to speak in church. DISGRACEFUL TO SPEAK

{36} A’ Or did the word of God originate with you? UNIVERSALITY OF PRACTICE

Or are you the only ones it has reached?)