corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: II Corinthians
- Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:22:21 -0700
I wish to apologize in advance for the long posting, but I have been holding
back until now any comments regarding the partition theory of II
Corinthians.
However "orthodox" the idea that II Corinthians is a composite letter, the
arguments in favor of this thesis are 1) based upon a terribly faulty
concept of communicative dynamics that can be dismissed in favor of an
approach informed by rhetoric and 2) result in, as Martin Eldred has pointed
out, a result that cannot explain why the letter, if a compliation, was
brought together in the way it was.
I have recently done much research on this issue, and will be presenting
some of my findings to the International Symposium on Rhetorical Criticism
of the Bible to be held in Lund next Summer. I will only summarize my
findings here, and will be glad to address them in detail later:
1) chapters 10-13 are not the "tearful letter" that many scholars (excepting
VP Furnish) assume. These chapters are an apostolic apologia, whereas all
references to the previous "tearful letter" in 1.23-2.11 and 2.5-13 show it
to have been a deliberatory (and condemnatory) appeal to the community to
render a decision with respect to the behavior of a certain member of the
community. The argumentative situations are radically different.
2) chapters 10-13 were written after chapters 1-9, as is clearly evidenced
by the reference in 12:8 which presupposes that Titus and the brother had
been present in the community, whereas narratio portions of chapters 8 and
9 (in which aorist is typically translated into English as present) where it
is clear that Titus and his companions were not yet present to the community
(or were being sent with the letter).
3) the argumentation in 10-13 presupposes the groundwork of chapters 1-9,
and would make no argumentative sense without it. The topoi of
"confidence", "boasting", "obedience", "testing", "building up" rather than
"tearing down", the catalogue of "afflictions", being "beside" oneself, the
argumentative use of Satan, the dissociation of human vs. divine strength -
all of these have been carefully developed and employed throughout chapters
1-9. The clear shift of ironic tone and modality, in order for it to have
any impact at all, presupposes all the argumentative developments of
chapters 1-9. The opposite is not the case.
4) verses 6:14-7:1 are a peroration, a persuasive appeal culminating a long
convincing argument - an appeal to move from a place where the audience
might be *disposed* to action, to actually *move* to act by appeal to the
limited values of the audience.
5) verse 2:14 does not represent an awkward "second" thanksgiving in the
letter (hence "actually" representing the thanksgiving to an independent
source), Instead, like Ephesians (1:3, 16), it was acceptable to couple a
blessing (1:3) with proclamation of grace (2:14).
6) chapters 8 and 9 (contra Betz) are not independent administrative
letters. They are an argumentative whole. Two specific strategies (an
appeal to consistency, to "living up to your promises"; and an appeal to
promise for future abundance) are brought together by nothing other than a
simple paralepsis figure in 9:1. A paralepsis is a popular rhetorical
figure of speech that purports not to have to mention something that it
mentions. It serves an important ethos-building function.
Finally, and more importantly, as a rhetorician the argumentative dynamics
of the letter are easily understood, and their coherence easily seen.
Without going into detail here (though I will be glad to share the
presentation I will be making at Lund with anyone), I can outline the
argument of the letter as follows:
1:1-14 Introduction
1:15-2:13 Unit 1 (plans for Corinth and Achaia as they relate to the past)
2:14-7:4 Unit 2 (purpose of the ministry as related to the present)
7:5 - 9:15 Unit 3 (plans for Corinth and Achaia as they relate to the
future)
10:1 - 13:4 Unit 4 (apostolic apologia)
13:5 - 13 Conclusion
The purpose of the letter is to build upon and develop a connection between
Paul and the Corinthians along the lines Paul sees as necessary for
continuing his task as apostle of Christ Jesus. It is summed up in the
letter's propositio statement of 1.12.
Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved
in the world with frankness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but
by the grace of God and all the more toward you.
It is this "frankness" and "sincerity" that propels the variety of
relationships argumentatively developed throughout the letter, culminating
in the position of authority Paul has struggled to achieve since 1
Corinthians.
The question for historical critics to ponder therefore becomes, "Who else
but Paul would find it necessary to bring together the variety of Pauline
and so-called non-Pauline fragments with this argumentative purpose, and
what was the exigence that would have motivated any other redactor than Paul
to do so?"
David Amador, Ph.D.
Santa Rosa, CA
-
II Corinthians,
Martin Eldred, 05/12/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: II Corinthians, Mike Thompson, 05/13/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, David Barr, 05/13/1999
- II Corinthians, David Garland, 05/13/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Richard Fellows, 05/14/1999
- II Corinthians, David Amador, 05/14/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Brian Peterson, 05/14/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Stephen C. Carlson, 05/14/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Michael Thompson, 05/15/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Stephen C. Carlson, 05/15/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Michael Thompson, 05/15/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Frank W. Hughes, 05/15/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Richard Fellows, 05/16/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Carlton Winbery, 05/17/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, Mike Thompson, 05/18/1999
- Re: II Corinthians, David Amador, 05/18/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.