Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: II Corinthians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jerry Sumney <jsumney AT lextheo.edu>
  • To: 'Corpus-paul' <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: II Corinthians
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 02:00:52 -0400


David Amador wrote:

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?

As one who seeks the meanings of texts and thinks there is much to gain
from the use of rhetorical criticism, I do not see it as a competitor of
historical criticism -- especially if the basic problems with historical
criticism are that its results are "hypotheses" and that you must say "so
what" when you have answered a historical question. These same problems
face those who do rhetorical criticism. A brief look at the different and
contradictory rhetorical analyses of any NT text show that such work
produces hypotheses which are "unprovable" (whatever that may mean in the
former posting) in the same sense that historical hypotheses are
unprovable. Similarly, when one has traced an argument through a Pauline
letter (which I would hope critics do even if they do not employ the
language and tools of rhetorical criticism) the question is still So what?!

I think rhetorical criticism complements and is some ways is a
necessary
part of historical criticism. And since words, sentences, paragraphs,
(rhetorical strategies,) and entire pieces of correspondence have meaning
only in a context, some historical analyses are necessary if there is to be
a good use made of rhetorical criticism. This is why one needs historical
hypotheses! Sometimes it even works the other way: some historical
conclusions have been arrived at through the use of rhetorical analysis;
e.g. that 2 Corinthians is a unity (though I disagree with that analysis).

Jerry

Jerry L. Sumney
Lexington Theological Seminary
631 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40508
jsumney AT lextheo.edu
(606) 252-0361






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page