Return to Index
Note: You may wish to read Chiastic Structuring: An Introduction first.

Summary of Centres of Major Chiasms:

        In the following pages will be found the details of (1) the primary or overall chiasm of 1 Corinthians (1.1-8.6a x 8.6b-16.24) related to an outline of contents, (2) the series of four secondary chiasms (1.1-3.11a x 3.11b-6.12; 6.12-8.6b x 8.6c-11.1 [details of this second secondary are given in the centre of the primary chiasm]; 10.23-13.7 x 13.8-14.40; 14.41-15.45a x 15.45b-16.24), and three tertiary chiasms (1.1-24 x 1.24-3.22; 4.1-15b x 4.16-6.11; 11.2-12.13a x 12.13b-13.2). Their bearing on aspects of the letter's meaning and integrity, and the likelihood that it was written in two stages will be discussed. 
        But first, here is a double index of some thirty-nine chiasms in the letter.
        The First Index, in which the chiasms are numbered, is the order in which their centres occur (without regard to where they start, and the content of the centres is given.  (The left-hand column indicates primary and secondary chiasms).
        The Second Index simply gives the chiasms in the order in which their opening verses appear, and then gives the number assigned to the chiasm in the first index.

Back

The centre shows God the Father as the only source and goal, with Jesus Christ as the only agent, and with θέος reserved for the Father and κύριος given to Jesus as the Christ in the 're-write' of the first commandment of the Decalogue.

Note to 15.29-31:  This is the convincing interpretation of J. Massingberd Ford, "Rabbinic Humour Behind Baptism for the Dead" (I Cor xv.29)", Studia Evangelica IV (TU 102; Berlin: Akademie, 1968) 400-403.  She notes that the ancient taboo that required self-lustration after touching a corpse is explained in early Judaism on the basis of the belief that the nucleus of the body to be resurrected remains in the corpse and it is this dynamism that defiles the one who touches a corpse, so that if he lustrates himself, he presupposes belief in resurrection. Thus their actions belie their words. She argues that here οἱ νεκροί instead of simply νεκροί means corpses.  (Return to 15.29-31)

Back

SECOND SECONDARY CHIASM: For details see the Overall Chiasm

Back

Back

Back

The Writing of the Letter

       Our argument below uses the discerned chiastic structures to confirm and reinforce the work of J. C. Hurd, Jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (SPCK, London, 1965).
        Our thesis is:

1. 1 Corinthians was written in two stages.  When Paul began to write, he was calmly answering questions asked of him by the Corinthians in a letter.  Then, on the basis of the oral reports from Chloe's people (1.11) he re-cast the letter, adding  material written in a peremptory style and demanding that they stop their wrong doings. 

2. Hurd has clearly sorted out the materials belonging to these two aspects. 

3. Our chiastic structure matches his analysis.

        Hurd (p. 63) notes that passages indicating the Paul  is answering written questions are all introduced by the phrase περὶ δὲ, 'Now concerning ...

        Hurd (p. 74) characterises Paul's answers as follows:

On the basis of the oral reports referred to in 1.11; 5.5 and 11.18, Hurd (pp. 75-82) clearly determines that the sections based on them are 1.10-5.8; 5.13b- 6.1-11; 11.17-34.  Hurd (p. 82) notes the characteristics of how Paul treats this oral information as contrasted to the written questions:

Paul usually announces his subjects in his opening thanksgiving  (see P. Schubert, The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings [Beihefte zur ZNW, Beiheft XX; Berlin, 1939]), but Hurd notes (pp.87 f.) that 6.12-20 brings up subjects previously unmentioned and which pertain to the rest of the letter.  In effect, 6.12-20 is a second introduction or transition.  It probably comes from the original casting of the letter answering the Corinthians' questions.

Hurd sorts out the letter as follows:

It is obvious that our first secondary chiasm (1.1-3.11a x 3.11b-6.12) matches Hurd's analysis.

        When my students and I at Lichfield Theological College began working out the chiastic structure of the letter in 1970-71, one student, Derek Stiff, felt sure that 1 Cor. 13 would be the centre of the letter.  I believe that this would have been the case if Paul had not received the oral reports, which made him shift his central focus on the basis of who the trouble-makers were, those whom he calls the "puffed-up ones" with their claims to superiority as the 'know-it-alls'.  (I think Paul is using irony, for these claim to be "spiritual", while Paul implies they are full of hot air, not the Spirit.)
        When one sees how carefully balanced Galatians is, with a primary, three secondary, and nine tertiary chiasms (see John Bligh's work in Galatians), it makes it very likely, I would say almost certain,  that Paul had already basically written 6.12-16.24, with three secondary chiasms and an overall chiasm centring on chapter 13 as Derek Stiff suggested.  But with the troubles raised by the 'wise guys' with their unacceptable behaviour and their claims to superior 'knowledge', Paul re-cast the letter to centre on the essential and all-sufficient knowledge of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Notes
¹ 1Cor. 5.9-13a concerns the Corinthians' reaction to Paul's previous letter.
² Regarding 15.1-58, scholars are divided over whether this takes up written or oral information or questions.  But 15.12 is an explicit reference to a question raised by the Corinthians, and the subject concerns a belief held (or disputed) by them, not their behaviour.  From 11.30 we gather that Paul knew some Corinthians had died.  Since possibly he knew this by oral report, perhaps 1 Cor. 15 has a foot in both camps.  1 Cor. 15.12 seem to imply that the letter from the Corinthians had asked about resurrection, but 11.30 leaves open the possibility that in 1 Cor. 15 Paul takes up the subject solely on his own initiative, hence Hurd's use of brackets here, indicating probability rather than certainty.

Back