Corpus-Paul

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

Mark Matson wrote -

But what I don't see is the occasion for a dramatic shift based on
Paul's argumentation.  Paul begins 2 Corinthians being conciliatory,
gentle, encouraging -- all from a presumption of strong ethos.  He is
in a position of authority, of fatherly concern, for the Corinthian
church.

David Amador responds:

I'm not so sure about the 'fatherly concern'.  While I understand what you
mean (and Paul himself loves using this metaphor) , it seems to me it is
from a position of an ethos of weakness that he needs to repair.

Mark Matson writes:

Any past disagreements are to be put behind them, to focus
on ways that they can deal constructively with the Paul and the other
churches.  Notice how chapters 8 and 9 assume a strong degree of
trust and confidence in Paul.  Paul argues from the confidence that
the Corinthian church will hear him and perhaps respond.

Amador responds:

One often wonders why Paul needs to mention his confidence so much, if he is
really so confident?

Matson continues:

But chapter 10 moves to a new argument (a new argumentative situation
as you put it).  But where is the foundation for this rather dramatic
shift?  What has occasioned it?  I find nothing in the text leading
up to this that would prepare us for this shift in ethos.  Does he
now all of a sudden realize (based on what evidence?) that the
audience harbored ill feelings toward him, and that he needed to
defend himself?

Amador responds -

what makes you think that the it was sudden? why do you suppose some new
rhetorical situation has happened (a new Bitzerian 'exigence'), when what we
have is a new argumentative situation well prepared for?  what makes you
think the whole letter was not carefully directed with this particular
argumentative situation in mind?  I would call most of his earlier
conciliatory tone a reasonable strategy of winning their hearing before
taking on the issue of the so-call 'super-apostles'. I would (and have) also
called the ironic modality (while playful in its hyperbole) kinda risky.
So, as a rhetorician, I ask - what would help mitigate its success?  Yelling
first and being conciliatory later (which is possible, but, and here's a big
caveat - 10-13 aren't the letter of tears, so that would mean two major
issues of contention following one upon the other resulting in a big risk of
alienation), or working closely to bring the audience to a point where they
can hear and understand the importance of the issue of *divine* strength and
why Paul is not guilty of weakness?  I believe the latter is reasonable, and
given all the other rhetorical strategies I have identified, can be
justified.

Now, what precludes the latter as a possibility?  What makes it necessary
that the former be the case?  Nothing that I can see.  Until there is
something, I choose the former and am thereby intrigued at the creativity of
the strategies involved.

Mark Matson wrote:

If Paul thought the audience harbored ill feelings toward
him, then would have been ineffective in arguing from a perspective
of positive ethos (chapters 1-9) until he has first neutralized or
overcome the negative feelings.  He does this in chapters 10-13.
How could he be effective in the former arguments until the
establishment of positive ethos?

Amador responds:

The interesting thing about rhetorical criticism and analysis is that there
are no set rules for how to win over an audience.  There are a number of
available option to win over a hostile or alienated crowd.  One way, and a
reasonable way, is to reconcile with them.  Another way might be to
neutralize the negative feelings.  However, chapter 10-13, without chapters
1-9, would be quite an unprepared for volley into a volatile situation, with
absolutely no preparation for the dissociation of human weakness vs. divine
strength argument and a threat from authority that would have no previous
appeal thereby only further alienating the audience (are we to assume that
the Corinthians accept Paul's authority by the end of chapter 13? are we to
assume they simply kowtow to his threats in the end? that they are pawns and
powerless to react?).

Here is the crux of the issue for us, and I will simply describe it:

You (and many historical scholars within our discipline) have suggested that
the shift in tone in chapters 10-13 is so abrupt as distinguish it from the
prior material.  That means chapters 10-13 can be lifted from that material,
once done, can be analyzed apart from that material.  This allows certain
conclusions to follow which reinforce the original impression - this
"letter" is very abrupt, very, very abrupt ("severe discontinuity" I think
you put it).  Therefore, very, very likely a distinct source.

I (and very few people in our discipline, with even fewer rhetorical
critics) suggest that while there is a shift in tone, it is not so abrupt,
*especially in light of its rhetorical relationship to the prior material*
(I do not see any discontinuity, much less "severe"; indeed, I see quite a
*lot* of continuity).  This allows me to discount the partition theory as
being founded upon either 1) a desire to find sources (which German
scholarship, and we as inheritors of their methods, simply loved to do) or
2) a faulty reading of the rhetorical nature of this text. Or, to put it
more accurately, it forces the partition theorists to offer additional
evidence than so far presented before I am convinced that we have here
distinct letter.

Finally, and I had better quit dominating this conversation --

"1-9 seems deliberative, while 10-13 seems forensic."  I understand what you
mean, and have a couple of responses: yes, and not exactly.  I appreciate
the dynamics you are highlighting by appealing to the Aristotelian genres,
but  also have found them a little restrictive.  You see, I see throughout
it all a dominating epideictic appeal.  Paul is, after all, a minister, not
a senator, nor a lawyer (to be metonymical). While deliberatory and forensic
appeals are peppered throughout his correspondence (epideitic educational ef
forts, deliberatory appeals, *and* forensic defense throughout 1
Corinthians, for example), the educational emphasis is pervasive and
dominant.  And it is what brings this letter, and the Corinthian
correspondence as a whole, together.

My conclusion: we are simply approaching this from differing premises, and
thereby coming to different conclusions.  I have before me a letter, and
find intriguing dynamics that weave it together (notice: I reject the
"chain" metaphor of logical reasoning in favor of the "weaving" metaphor of
Perelman; this allows me not to presuppose a certain trajectory of
rhetorical direction for the letter, a trajectory at the heart of historical
reconstruction via partition theories).  I read partition theories that make
a great deal about these same dynamics as evidence for new sources.  I have
a way of explaining just the opposite. Two things prevent me from being
pursuaded by them: manuscript evidence (that is, we have only evidence of a
whole letter), and ability to describe the letter's coherence as it stands.
Partition theorists have two things working against them: their theory
depends only upon the integrity of their hypothesis (and can point to no
validating evidence for it), and they have not yet described why the letter
was put together in the way it was in any way that makes sense from the
viewpoint of their theory.

Thank you for the stimulating discussion.  It has been a great pleasure.

-David Amador
Santa Rosa, CA