Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - 2 Corinthians: Rhetoric and the Case for Unity

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark Matson" <mmatson AT aswest.aas.duke.edu>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: 2 Corinthians: Rhetoric and the Case for Unity
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 20:12:04 +0000


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page