75. Aristotle distinguishes between the “statement of the case” (πρόθεσις) and the proof for it (Rhet. 3.13.1–2). The Latin propositio is the equivalent (Witherington 1995:94).
76. See Inkelaar 2011:77–80, 143; Mitchell 1991:198–99; cf. 20–64, 68–111.
77. On narratio/diēgēsis, see e.g., Quintilian Inst. 4.2.1–3, 31; Cicero Inv. 1.19.27–30; Kennedy 1984:24.
78. The appeal, παρακαλῶ, commonly appears in deliberative rhetoric, whether in oratory or epistolary form (e.g., Isocrates Or. 5.13.114; Ep. 1.5; Demosthenes Ep. 1.10; Mitchell 1991:44).
79. See Trebilco 2012:26.
80. Cf. Plutarch Frat. amor. 2.1[478D–479B]; Collins 1999:71.
81. Likewise, παρακαλῶ is found both in official (Schnabel 2006:85) and private letters (Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006:58).
82. Cf. Steyn 1996:484.
83. To be restored (κατηρτισμένοι; see LSJ 910) is variously rendered “be made complete” (NASB), “be perfectly joined together” (AV), “be refurbished” (Garland 2003:40). The idea of restoration, of fixing what is broken, dislocated, or torn (σχίσμα can refer to a rift or tear) best fits the idea of a fragmented corporate body.
84. e.g., Polybius Hist. 5.104.1; Josephus A.J. 12.283; further, Malcolm 2013b:8–9; Welborn 1987b:85–107.
85. See Winter 2001:32, 38; Thiselton 2000:117.
86. See Introduction; Excursus at 2:1–5.
87. Other options include that they are business agents of Chloe (possibly a non-Christian from Ephesus: Fee 1987:54) or a woman’s group opposed to hierarchical structures of the factional groups (Schottroff 2012:720–21).
88. On slaves as couriers, see Richards 2004:181. On Stephanas as the courier back to Corinth, see 16:17.
89. See ἐδηλώθη and examples in Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006:59–64.
90. See further, Winter 2001:38–39.
91. Stasinus Cypria; Lucian Dial.d. 20; Mulroy 2012:80–82.
92. On ἔρις in vice lists, see 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Rom 1:29; 13:13; 1 Clem. 35.5; 3 Bar. 8.5.
93. The genitive of relationship in Greek is used in 1:12: “I [am] of,” or more freely, “I belong to” (3:22–23).
94. See surveys in Adams/Horrell 2004:13–26; Sumney 1999:34–78; Merklein 1992:1.134-52; Hurd 1965:75–142.
95. If the four slogans are caricatures of Corinthian allegiances (so Mitchell 1991:83–86), the first three seem real regardless of the precise words congregants might have used.
96. Rightly, Strüder 2003:431–55. Similarly, Clarke 1993:92–93.
97. On Apollos’s eloquence, see Pogoloff 1992:181–83; Winter 2002:178. More speculatively, Welborn 2011:403–10, suggests that Apollos accepted financial support in Corinth, and Gaius was his patron.
98. “Peter” (Greek Petros), the name Jesus gave Simon (Matt 16:17–18), is equivalent to the Aramaic Kepha’ according to Fitzmyer 2008:143.
99. Revived recently by Goulder 2002. Against this view of the opponents in 2 Cor 3, see Oropeza 2016:232–38.
100. See Barrett 1982:28–39.
101. Prothro 2014:250–65, argues from the grammatical sequence “μέν . . . δὲ . . . δὲ . . .” in 1:12 that a break in the fourth claim, “I am of Christ” cannot be ruled out.
102. Conversely, see 12:14–17. The passive μερίζω in 1:13 suggests being “split up”: see LSJ 1103.
103. Nash 2009:18, provides a convenient list of Corinthian members.
104. Cf. Acts 18:8; Pascuzzi 2009:823–24.
105. Another option is that the perpetrators of this division gave “special authority” to baptize only to certain leaders but not others: cf. Schottroff 2012:720–21.
106. See Chester 2003:290, 303.
107. “For” in 1:17 refers to 1:16b and explains “that is not my calling—nor my point” (Fee 1987:63).
108. Hays 1997:24.
109. In 1 Cor 1–3 the nuance of σοφία (“wisdom”) varies depending on verse: cf. Mihaila 2009:92–93; Barrett 1968:67–68. Here the shade of cleverness/eloquence is apparent; at times philosophy may be more evident as Keener 2016:176, suggests. See options in Kammler 2003:28.
110.