Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: II Corinthians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: II Corinthians
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:58:56 -0700


Allow me to post a more thorough explanation of why chapters 10-13 cannot be
read apart from 1-9. My approach is rhetorical, which addresses the
dynamics of the text itself. It is radically different that the
hypothetical reconstructions of chronology and events dominate the question
of the partition theory. Interestingly, such reconstructions don't seem to
care about the text at all, and certainly don't make use of it when making
their arguments.

It is time, I believe, esp. after reading David Luckensmeyer's posting, to
reassess the issue of methodology in the study of Paul. My response to
David would be - don't defend historical criticism. Find something more
pertinent and more relevant to Pauline studies. Otherwise, your work will
simply be left behind.

It is a message I am also sending to the Paul Seminar, and even to this
post. Historical critics must face one overriding question posed to them
with every thesis they present: so what? Why does any historical
hypothesis (much less unprovable hypotheses, which all of them are) matter
to helping us understand any given letter?

To the more specific issue of II Cor 10-13 - here is why it must follow
chapters 1-9, and hence why any partition theory must come up with a better
reason then have been presented for the separation of these chapters.

*****

It is difficult not to admit an abrupt change in intonation and modality
when chapters 10-13 are read after the volitional appeals of chapters 8-9.
Tones of defensiveness, irony (sometimes playful, sometimes serious) and a
shift in the position of authority (ethos) of Paul vis-à-vis his audience
enter into the discourse in a way that seems abrupt, if not altogether risky
in its potential to alienate the community.

However, while chapters 10-13 reflect a rhetorical strategy that is
certainly risky, the argument as it develops in 10-13 is not at all
unanticipated given the argumentation in chapters 1-9. Nor is such an
argument without precedent with respect to the Corinthian corpus (1 Cor 1-4
addresses the same issue of ethos). Indeed, to understand the function of
10-13, it is necessary to read it as part of an argument that extends
throughout 2 Corinthians. Only in that way does its success, as a risky
venture, make any rhetorical sense.

Throughout the argument in chapters 10-13, frequent reference to the topoi
of "confidence" (cf. 1.23-2.11, 3.1-4.6), "boasting" (cf. 1.12-14, 7.6-16),
"obedience" with respect to "testing" (cf. 1.23-2.11, esp. 2.9; 6.11, 9.13),
"building up" rather than "tearing you down" (cf. 4.7-6.10), the catalogue
of "afflictions" (cf. 1.3-11, 4.8-11, chapters 5-6, 7.5 and 8.2), being
"beside" oneself/beyond the limits (5.13), the argumentative presence of
Satan (2.11; cf. 6.15), and love (2.4, 6.11-12, etc.) are made.
Additionally, the argument functions upon the basis of the dissociation
human vs. divine standards of judging the ministry and the ethos of Paul
(cf. 4.17-6.10, esp. 5.12). Finally, it works within the Macedonia-Titus-
"brother" narratio.

Each of these aspects has deep argumentative roots in chapters 1-9, roots
that are presupposed by and required for 10-13 to function.

The argument beginning in 10.1-18 shifts from the "confidence" and
"boasting" Paul has expressed about "you" in chapters 8-9, to one which must
now address "boasting" in "me". It does so by drawing from the dissociative
move found in chapters 4.7-6.10 that shifts the foundation upon which to
judge boldness and weakness from a human standard to a divine one. The
relational shift to authority which takes place here has already been
anticipated in previous arguments that introduce "obedience" with respect to
a prior letter's reception in 2.9, 6.11 and 9.13. It is particularly with
respect to "punishment" (10.6) that the stakes here have been raised above
that of what has gone on before. This intensification is noted immediately,
but is also defined in as positive a fashion as possible: Making use of the
previous philosophical pair of "earthly tent/building from God" (cf. 5.1),
it is an authority derived from the Lord "for building up and not for
tearing you down" (cf. 2.4, 7.9-11, 8.8, 9.13).

Once the ironic argumentation begins to build, making reference to a
catalogue of afflictions already noted in 1.3-11, 4.8-11, chapters 5-6, 7.5
and 8.2, Paul's "boasting" reaches a zenith that is reminiscent of being
"beside ourselves for God" (5.13; note 11.23 – "I am talking like a
madman"). There is no inconsistency here with respect to the standards set
in 10.15-17 ("We do not boast beyond the limits, that is in other people's
works… 'Let the one boasting boast in the Lord'"), since the boasting is for
Christ (cf. 12.10-11). This position of authority allows him the
confidence, now that "I am ready to come" (12.14-13.4), that it may be done
"for the sake of your building up" (12.19; cf. 13.10), precisely the same
reason given for his previous correspondence (cf. 1.23-2.11; also 5.1). On
this basis, Paul can place the responsibility for his response on the
community (10.1-2; 12.20-21; 13.2, 5-7), once again making appeal to the
notion of "testing" he has made reference to throughout the correspondence
(2.9, 6.11, 9.13), this time testing "yourselves" (13.5).

It is clear, therefore, that the argument of chapters 10-13 draws
extensively and frequently from the previous argumentative groundwork laid
in chapters 1-9. Indeed, the success of the risky venture of asserting
authority through a dissociative technique employing an ironic modality of
argumentation depends upon the previous and multiple argumentative threads
it employs from the earlier discourse. This venture has been carefully and
thoughtfully anticipated, planned for in advance.

In contrast, if chapters 10-13 were extracted from the rest of the letter,
their argumentative situation would be wholly unanticipated, an
argumentative "bolt from the blue." Indeed, it is precisely this accusation
which leads historical critics wrongly to extract them in the first place -
a self-fulfilling prophecy of a methodology bent on finding sources behind
sources. As we have seen here, however, while the shift in intonation and
the ironic modality may appear to be abrupt after the previous chapters,
they in fact represent an anticipated and carefully planned shift in the
argumentative situation. While scholars have not noticed the careful
argumentative planning in anticipation of this shift, Paul certainly has. It
is indeed a risky shift, but not the foolhardy one which would result from
the scholarly extraction.

-David Amador
Santa Rosa





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page