Philo and Paul Among the Sophists

Trinity Journal, Fall 1998 by Schreiner, Thomas R

Bruce W. Winter. Philo and Paul Among the Sophists. SNTSMS 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 289 pp. $59.95.

This work represents a revision of Bruce Winter's 1988 dissertation completed under E. A. Judge. The author indicates that the revisions are substantial. He excised material on Gnosticism and included recent work on rhetoric. Winter contends that the theory that the Second Sophistic movement bloomed only late in the first century AD is mistaken, for evidence from both Alexandria and Corinth indicate that the sophists flourished throughout the first century AD. The presence of sophists in Alexandria is attested by P. Oxy. 2190 (a first-century papyrus), Dio of Prusa's oration in the city of Alexandria, and Philo's own writings. Evidence for sophists in Corinth is gleaned from Epictetus, Dio of Prusa, Plutarch, and Paul's writings. I am hardly an expert on the sophistic movement in the ancient world, but Winter's evidence for the presence of the sophists throughout the first century appears convincing, for he documents in some detail from the sources listed above the presence of sophists in both Alexandria and Corinth.

What is even more interesting to readers of this journal is Winter's assessment of the interaction between sophists and both Philo and Paul. He maintains that the sophists were an identifiable and discrete group in Philo's Alexandria, and that they should be distinguished from philosophers, dialecticians, grammarians, musicians, and geometricians. Sophists are identified as extraordinary orators who had a significant public following. Philo, influenced by his hero Plato, did not reject rhetoric entirely. Rhetoric could sharpen one's thinking and promote clarity of expression. What Philo rejected was the excesses of the sophists and their lack of virtue. What particularly appalled him was their greed, indicating that their public declamations did not stem from a love of truth. He saw the magicians whom Moses opposed in Egypt as precursors of the sophists which inhabited Alexandria. Philo still believed, however, that rhetoric was useful, arguing that only those who were trained in rhetoric were prepared to encounter and triumph over sophists in debate. Nonetheless, Philo could never really embrace the sophistic movement, for it contradicted the virtue which he believed was mandated in the Scriptures.

Winter also contends that Paul's opponents in Corinth were sophists, and that Paul counters the sophistic movement in both 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Cor 2:1-5 Paul presents his initial arrival and preaching in Corinth as a rejection of the niodis operandi of sophists. He did present himself forcefully but reminded the readers of his weakness, inability, and timidity. The terms are;0CU, aCt(,6CL(Ls, and bwa,xis have rhetorical associations, and when used together would suggest to the readers the virtuosity of the rhetors. Paul renounces root and branch any dependence upon rhetorical techniques, insisting that they undermine the centrality of the Cross. Even though rendering the word vTT(TLa-is in this passage as "proof" would fly against the usual Pauline meaning of the term, Winter suggests that such a reading is at least possible in this context. In any case, Paul rejected the rhetorical methods of the sophists so that he would not be aligned with them.

Winter spies another contrast between Paul and the sophists. Sophists promised to lavish public benefactions upon a city, but Paul instead endures the indignity of working with his own hands to support himself. Winter follows many in seeing 1 Corinthians 9 as an apologetic for Paul's ministry, but he stakes out his own path in detecting a contrast to the sophists. The sophists, after all, charged fees for their services, while Paul offered the gospel freely and engaged in manual labor so as not to burden the gospel. Winter believes that the polemic against sophists continues in 1 Cor 9:23-27, for sophists lived luxuriously and softly. Paul, on the other hand, lived a disciplined and spare life, the kind of life the sophists detested and mocked. Winter suggests, then, that an anti-sophistic instead of an anti-Cynic stance informs 1 Corinthians 9. He also sees the charge of envy and strife (1 Cor 1:10-12; 3:3-4) as evidence of sophist opponents since their debates were marked by quarreling and a love for supremacy. That the debate was between Apollos and Paul also signals a sophistic dimension to the problem. Indeed, Winter maintains that the majority in the church invited Apollos (1 Cor 3:18; 16:12) to return to the city. This invitation demonstrated that Paul was unwelcome and demonstrated the presence of divisions in Corinth. Even in the introduction to the letter, the use of the words oyog and rvc(Jts together alludes to the Corinthian feeling that they are inadequate rhetorically. The attachment and devotion to teachers in Corinth (1 Cor 1:1017) reflects the kind of devotion to teachers characteristic of sophists. Paul identifies this spirit as idolatrous. Following Duane Litfin (St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric [SNTSMS 79; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994]), Winter argues that preaching ouK Qo(un XOyou (1 Cor 1:17) focuses on the rhetorical skill of the speaker. In 1 Corinthians 1-4 Paul does not dispute with the Corinthians theologically, nor is there any evidence of a theological breach between him and Apollos. Paul protests against rhetorical artistry that obscures the message of the crucified Christ. The terms Uod)boi, SuvaT-oi, and 0 yev[cL in 1 Cor 1:26-31 refer to those instructed by sophists, and the sophists themselves would have hailed from the ruling class.