Corpus-Paul

["Mark Matson" <mmatson AT aswest.aas.duke.edu>]

In regards the ongoing discussion about David Amador's critique of 
partition theories of 2 Corinthians, I was glad to see that his paper 
was added to the Corpus-Paul website by Jeffrey.   This is a 
stimulating paper, and the availability of such papers furthers the 
dialogue on this list.  What I want to do below is begin an 
engagement of David's paper, which I think will push this whole line 
of argumentation a bit further. 

I. A central thesis of the paper (section 2.1 and elsewhere) is that 
chapters 10-13 are not a separate "painful letter", but part of the 
argumentative strategy of the letter.   Part of this argument is 
based on the perception that early references to a previous letter 
(1:23-2:4 (?? the article says 2:11, but this overlaps with the next 
reference), and 2:5-13) are dealing with "Paul's previous 
deliberatory advice regarding an unnamed member of the community", 
and therefore cannot be referring to chapters 10-13.    Paul writes a 
conciliatory segment in chapters 1 & 2 based on his authority:  "his 
authoritative ethos secured, he can offer further (now conciliatory) 
advice."   
        But later in the article, Amador notes that in chapters 10-13, Paul 
is defending his ethos as a result of a threat by "outsiders."  
        And here is one of the rubs that I see.  How can one see a unity of 
argumentation when a central basis for the argument -- the ethos of 
the speaker -- is displayed in such radically different ways?  It 
hardly seems, at least to me, to bespeak of a single audience.  In 
the one, Paul is confident and authoritative; in the other he needs 
to argue for his right to speak.  
        If, indeed, Paul thinks he is perceived in a negative light in the 
Corinthian church, it is not likely he will begin from a point of 
authority, and only later in the letter choose to argue for his 
authority.  Paul's awareness, and the perception by the audience, of 
a weak ethos would have to be dealt with first -- or else the 
arguments posited in the beginning would be undercut.  It is 
precisely the difficult argumentative strategy which, in my opinion, 
argues for a displacement of chapters 10-13.

II.  In a continuation of this thought, Amador argues in section 2.2 
that the narratio in chapters 1,2 7, 8-9 is only logically prior to 
12:18 (not 12:8), which talks about Titus being sent.  But, despite 
the historical critical focus of this argument, this seems 
unnecessary. 
 Let me dwell on this a bit:

Amador argues taht 8:16-18 and 9:3, being in the present tense and 
speaking of sending Titus, must precede 12:18.  He says: "The 
implication is that Titus and the brother are being sent with the 
presumed letter(s) of chapters 8 and/or 9.  If this sequence is true, 
then the circumstances referred to in chapter 12:18 must come later." 
 He goes on to say, "Any reconstruction of the sequence of the 
various letter fragments runs head on into this simple narrative fact 
Titus was sent by the time of writing chapters 10-13, and, according 
to traditional translation, has not been sent at the time of the 
composition of chapters 8-9."  

But if, as Amador argues, the letter is a unity, then chapters 8 and 
9 are not yet sent when chapter 12 is written.  They are all still 
future or anticipated, still tentative.    Unless the letter were, in 
fact, written in 2 parts -- which I don't think Amador wants to say 
-- then there is no logical narrative that works.  Amador relates 
the narrative that after meeting Titus, he sends Titus and the famous 
brother on ahead, then composes this letter and sends it with 
Timothy.  But in that case, the letter delivered by Titus is written 
simultaneously as the first part of 2 Corinthians, but then 2 
Corinthians is completed after Titus left.  This seems hardly likely. 
 The narrative order is a problem, resolvable more probably by more 
than one trip by Titus.

III.  Amador also argues that features developed in chapters 1-9 lay 
essential groundword for chapters 10-13 to function.  But can that 
really be claimed?  The existence of many similar themes (i.e. 
obedience in 2:9, 6:11, and 9:13) need not be foreshadowing, but just 
as likely are a historical follow through -- if 10-13 is the painful 
letter.  But in my reading, it is difficult to see how the themes 
really work as foreshadowing or groundwork building for chapters 
10-13.   Instead, it appears to me that the tone of chapters 10-13 is 
so significantly different that it is hard to see a connectivity.  So 
I guess I would like to see more of this idea developed to show the 
rhetorical function of chapters 1-9 as laying a groundword for 10-13.

        But just as important here, Amador argues that 10-13 can't be 
independent, because it would be a "bolt from the blue."  But, 
leaving the salutation aside, which in the partition theory has 
clearly been lost, doesn't chapter 10 sound remarkably like Galatians 
in the way it starts?  Kind of like a "bolt from the blue."  Or 
rather Pauline argumentation.

IV.  Finally, and I'll stop, I never did get a sense from Amador's 
paper how 2 Corinthians as it currently stands, has a sense of 
argumentative integrity.  What kind of letter is it?  What is its 
central thesis and point?  Even 1 Corinthians, with its diversity of 
topics,  has been effectively shown to have a central topic : 
concord. (see Mitchell).  But what kind of animal is 2 Corinthians?

Well enough for now.  I hope this is not seen as overly negative, but 
a significant engagement with David.  Thanks for the provocative 
article.

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