Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: II Corinthians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark Matson" <mmatson AT aswest.aas.duke.edu>
  • To: "David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>, corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: II Corinthians
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:03:08 +0000


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.
>

As a student of George Kennedy, I too am particularly interested in
rhetorical approaches to texts. The perspective that texts "do"
things in terms of engaging an audience is important.

But I don't think this means simply assuming the integrity of a text.
Moreover, in the case of 2 Corinthians there are some good
rhetorical studies that conclude that the text is a composite. In
particular, let me note one that is in a book I just reviewed. L.L.
Welborn's recent "Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles"
is a collection of essays, some a few years old, dealing with
rhetorical issues in both I and II Corinthians. Of particular
interest might be his essay "A Conciliatory Convention and Paul's
References to the 'Letter of Tears'" (a revised form of an article in
Novum Testamentum "The Identification of 2 Corinthians 10-13 with the
Letter of Tears"). A major argument against 10-13 as the painful
letter is that the references to it in the rest of 2 Cor. are not
exact correlations. The thrust of Welborn's article is to show that
in conciliatory literature, the details of a previous breach are
rarely specfically revisited. In other words, the disjuncture between
chapter 10-13 and the references to the painful letter elsewhere is
precisely what one would expect from ancient rhetorical patterns.

Other articles of note in the book deal with partition theories in
which 1:1-2:13, 7:5-16 are two halves of an original whole, again
argued from ancient rhetorical and literary theory.

I found the articles generally convincing. It would seem, then, that
rhetorica and partition theories are not inherently in opposition to
one another.

Mark Matson
Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
Asst. Director, Sanford Institute of Public Policy
Adjunct Professor of New Testament
Duke University
Durham, NC 27713
(919) 613-7310




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page