Corpus-Paul

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

David:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I, too, suspect we won't agree.  
But it might be helpful to push this just a bit further:

David Amador wrote:
  
> 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.

So the answer is that there are multiple implied audiences?  My first 
reaction is that generally an argumentative piece assumes a 
constructed (implied) audience that is fairly consistent, regardless 
of the actual audiences that might read or hear the piece.    So one 
can usually imagine a composite fictional audience implied in a 
speech or letter, even one that incorporates some diversity.  And I 
don't see that consistency in 2 Corinthians.

My second reaction, though, is that there are times when multiple 
audiences are addressed, but in almost every case a specific 
partition of the argument is made, a deliberate shift.  But I don't 
find that here either.  The  letter simply veers in tone and 
substance, and seems to be a new argument with a new audience.


Amador contines re: the narratio:

  The narrative is coherent and suggests an orderly sequence of
> events taking place prior to the letter's delivery.
 
I guess here we disagree.  I find it less than coherent.  
 
> 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.
> 
This actually presents an interesting thought, that a collector 
actually pasted these together in this fashion in an attempt to work 
with the narrated visits.  Hadn't thought of that before, but it 
might just work.  Seems more plausible that Paul writing it this way.
 
Amador: 

> 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. 

I would like your analysis. It might help me see where you see the 
ties.  I can see some thematic connection.  But I disagree that 10-13 
needs 2-6 to make any rhetorical strength.  I think it works fine all 
by itself.   

Amador:

> 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.

Again, I see less connection, rather a severe discontinuity.  So for 
me the paradigm of Galatians demonstrates at least a good argument 
for the reversal.

Amador:
> 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

Seems broad to me.  Which is the point -- 2 Corinthians seems to 
address too many rhetorical situations.  How is the main part of the 
letter (1-9) addressed to threats posed from outsiders?  In that 
section, the emphasis seems to be on restoring a relationship which 
has been tested, but is being rebuilt.  To put it another way, 1-9 
seems deliberative, while 10-13 seems forensic.

Thanks for the continued discussion.

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