Corpus-Paul

["David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>]

Mark Matson wrote:

>  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.

I am still trying to get ahold of this article.  The problem I initially am
having with its conclusion as presented here is: what is the disjuncture
being addressed by Welborn?  Is it the disjuncture of distinctly different
rhetorical exigences and their different strategies (apologia vs.
deliberation)?

Richard Fellows wrote:

But the standard interpretation of 2 Cor 1:23-2:3 relies on the unwarranted
assumption that Titus took the sea route to Corinth.  It is always assumed
that the time when Paul's (cancelled) visit had been scheduled was before
the writing of the tearful letter, but we only require that it was before
the ARRIVAL of the tearful letter. It is also assumed that Titus was
delayed in Corinth (2 Cor 2:13).  But if Titus took the land route and was
delayed in Macedonia (or Troas) on his way to Corinth, then all is
explained.  Paul cancelled his visit because if it had gone ahead, it would
have been before rather than after the arrival of the tearful letter.  He
had written to make a happy visit possible, and if he had arrived before
the letter he would have needed to have been severe.

Here is an example of the difficulties that historians have in trying to
explain a thesis on the basis of historical reconstruction, a basis oddly
devoid of absolutely an evidence whatsoever to support it.  That is, this
very thoughtful reconstruction has all the benefits of creativity, and none
of the benefits of evidence.  To determine its truthfulness, one can only
appeal to its validity.  There is no other means of verification.

It is a little like a detective novel in which an ingenious explanation of
events bringing about the conclusions that Mr. X is the murderer falls apart
for lack of evidence.

To engender a discussion perhaps more in keeping with the historical
interest on this list: what would the reconstruction of events look like if
II Corinthians were proven (and consider the following: a rhetorical
explanation of integrity, an presentation of answers to objections against
integrity, and manuscript evidence that shows no evidence whatsoever of
anything other than integrity - that's quite a bit of proof offered,
including appeals to verifiable evidence) to be a single document?

-David Amador
Santa Rosa, CA