Corpus-Paul

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

I can't thank Mark Matson enough for reading the paper and his excellent
responses and concerns he has raised.  It is a pleasure to discuss this
further, although I suspect that my responses will not be either convincing
or persuasive to you, since we seem to be arguing across a divide.  I am
hoping, however, that the continuing dialogue will prompt us to discover a
common, shared ground of values and presuppositions that will let us learn
from one another in this discussion.


Mark Matson wrote:

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.


David Amador responds:

Jim Hester has posted a Perelmanian response to this issue, which describes
very well the argument I wish to make. I only wish to make the following
points as a follow up.

The short response to your concern with 'ethos' is - changes in the
developing argumentative situation require shifting strategies in the
relationship between rhetor and audiences.

N.B. - you seem to be assuming a singular audience and a singular rhetor.
This is incorrect.  There are multiple audiences - multiple empirical
audiences (the church of god which is in Corinth, *together with the all the
saints who are in all Achaia*), and multiple rhetorical audiences (universal
and elite audiences).  There are also multiple author(itie)s - Timothy and
Paul, as well as the circle of workers who are frequently mentioned
throughout the letter.  These multiplicities create a complex texture of
'intentionalities' and strategies being worked out from a distance and
through channels of communication we would call rumors and reports.

This makes for an incredible complex series of argumentative situations that
need to be addressed.


Mark Matson writes:

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.


David Amador responds:

Richard Fellows has proposed one solution. My own response is something like
this: here is where history impacts upon rhetoric in a problematic way.  We
have before us certain evidence - a letter.  In this letter a narratio
functions argumentatively to give shape to a significant portion of the
developing argumentative situation.  This narratio, delivered entirely (with
two exceptions) in the aorist, reports a sequence of events in the ministry
of Paul and his co-workers.  He was in Troas, moved to Macedonia (and does
not visit the Corinthians), received a report from Titus on the reception of
a previous letter, sent Titus and a famous brother ahead to prepare for him
and the collection, and promises to come himself.  In chapter 12, he clearly
asks whether Titus and the brother have 'over-reached' them. It, too, is in
the aorist.  The narrative is coherent and suggests an orderly sequence of
events taking place prior to the letter's delivery.

That is the evidence we have, and it functions well within the argumentative
dynamics of the letter.  I ask, "is this a plausible sequence of event?"
Yes.  "What does it presuppose?" An interval of time between 1 Cor and 2 Cor
during which the events reported took place, and a second visit by Paul
(while not precluding the possibility of a letter sent with Titus, certainly
not assuming another letter). That's about it. Here is where Occam's razor,
combined with evidentiary limitations, combine to shift the burden of proof
upon those who want to develop more complicated scenarios without evidence.

N.B. - what is more interesting to me is the function of the narratio to
bring provide an argumentative context for each step of the developing
argument.  It is possible that the narratio was used by a later redactor is
just such a fashion to string together the various so-called fragments.  It
is also possible that Paul did so, and this would explain a great deal more
of the exigences and intentionalities of the letter as it stands than a
redaction theory.


Mark Matson wrote:

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.

Amador responds:

I will be glad to send you a very detailed rhetorical analysis of the letter
that will show how the groundwork has been laid.  Most significantly, the
dissociative argumentation of chapters 2-6 regarding human weakness vs.
divine strength is a highly significant feature of the argument of the
letter, and it is only upon this that the ironic argumentation in chapters
10-13 would make any rhetorical sense.  But the multitude of topoi that
weave throughout chapters 1-9 all find their presence in chapters 10-13 in a
way that anticipates and provides support for Paul's claims in the latter
chapters.

Mark Matson wrote:

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.


Amador answers:

It is certainly Pauline argumentation.  And abrupt shifts in the
argumentative situation are part of Paul's rhetorical vocabulary, certainly.
Galatians is certainly one example.  But the relationship between the
Galatians and Paul is different than between Corinthians and Paul.  And the
previous chapters have significant thematic and strategic connections.
While it is possible to reverse their appearance, it is rhetorically more
plausible not to.

Mark Matson wrote:

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?

To begin with an aside: Mitchell's methodology and its conclusions are not
very useful or interesting to me.  Anne Wire's is.  And the issues (plural)
can be said to focus around the question the ramifications of Paul's
(mis)understood gospel - the Corinthians' emphasis upon impact of
resurrection upon the life of the believer vs. Paul's reconfiguration of his
message to (over)emphasize the impact of Christ's death upon the life of the
believer.   Paul is certainly interested in "concord", but under what terms?

What is II Cor about?  Simple: Paul's continuing ministry with the Achaian
communities.  This effort forces him to address a series of issues,
including the volatile relationship he has with the communities as a result
of threats he sees posed from "outsiders".  Can there be a single message to
this text?  Well, it would be metonymic reduction, but it seems to me the
case could be made that a central proposition to the letter is found in 1:12

For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved
in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity,
not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.

The rest of the letter flows from this.

-David