(NOT TO BE CITED W/O PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR)

Revisiting 2 Corinthians: Rhetoric and the Case for Unity

J. D. H. Amador

Santa Rosa, CA

1.0 Composite or Coherence: 2 Corinthians Revisited

While the question of multiple, independent sources behind the canonical redaction of 2 Corinthians has not been settled, there exists within Pauline studies a growing chorus of assent to such a thesis. Currently, no consensus regarding the number and order of such sources exist. Some scholars find up to five or possibly six sources: For example, Koester, Duling and Davies divide the letter into six separate sources (letter A 2.14-6.13, 7.2-4; letter B, the so-called "painful letter" 10.1-13.14; letter C 1.1-2.13; 7.5-16; letter D 8.1-24; letter E 9.1-15; and, finally, a non-Pauline insertion found in 6.14-7.1). Barr concurs with most of these divisions, but he collapses letter E into letter D which now extends from 8.1- 9.15. Other scholars opt for as few as two sources: Freed identifies letter A as 10.1-13.14 and letter B as 1.1-9.15. Ehrman and Harris maintain the same division and identify letter A with the "tearful/painful letter", but hedge their bets by citing, but not refuting, the possibility of additional sources. Furnish also divides the letter into two sources, but reverses the order of composition: letter A is 1.1 9.15 and letter B, which is not the "painful letter" but a response to reports of problems Paul receives while on the way to Corinth for the final visit, is 10.1-13.14. Nevertheless, while no firm consensus exists regarding the number, identity or order of composition of the supposed fragments, these historical critics represent a broad consensus that there exists at least two, if not more, sources comprising the current redaction of 2 Corinthians.

While these critics have applied critical methods traditional to historical criticism of Paul (vocabulary studies, form and source criticisms, hypothetical historical reconstruction), with the release of Betz's volume on 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 in the Hermeneia series the recently "re-discovered" method of rhetorical criticism appears to confirm their results. According to Betz's work, the rhetorical dispositio of chapters 8 and 9 indicates their individual autonomy as argumentative units, hence their individual autonomy as documents. Rhetorical criticism simultaneously legitimates the conclusions of these historical-critical scholars while thereby becoming legitimated as a useful tool for historical criticism.

However, the difficulty with the historical critical approach, as well as Betz's rhetorical-critical support of it, is that it subsumes to its purposes a problematic notion of communicative dynamics. In particular, it is the referential and informational function of the letter(s) that drives historical-critical reconstruction, not an appreciation of the letter as an act of communication and persuasion. Dominated by a paradigm whose purpose is to provide a hypothetical reconstruction of events and their sequence, the scholars noted above identify sources behind 2 Corinthians on the basis of restricted coherence, focused consistency, and unitary intentionality. The fragmentation of 2 Corinthians into multiple documents is brought about by an approach that assumes a logical, progressive development of events and circumstances that becomes the foundation upon which, and the framework within which to set the various fragments in order.

Overlooked by both traditional historical critics and the rhetorical criticism of Betz, however, is the freedom with which argumentative and persuasive communication is conceptualized and arranged in the face of the dizzying array of circumstances that can confront an author/rhetor. A rhetorical approach which focuses not upon history, but upon inventio, takes seriously the complexity of argumentative and persuasive dynamics and situations before considering the developmental "logic" of causalist historical reconstruction. Complex situations (multiple exigences, mixed audiences, distance in time and space, questions concerning the ethos of rhetor, questions of shared values and their hierarchy, subtlety of anticipated counter-arguments) contribute to highly complex argumentative situations. These, in turn, impact upon the selection and order of the arguments. It is clear that rhetoric, in both practice and theory, ancient and modern, anticipates and prepares for complexity in intentionalities, audiences, topoi, pathos and argumentative arrangement in a way never considered by historical criticism.

In other words, unlike the impression that Betz may leave with respect to this question, it is not necessarily the case that rhetoric supports the presuppositions and methodological assumptions of historical criticism of the letters of Paul. Addressing 2 Corinthians as an illocutionary, persuasive act results in a series of questions that can be brought to bear upon the fragmentary hypothesis. Rhetoric, when not constrained by the assumptions of historical criticism, can act as a means by which to understand the compositional complexity and coherence of 2 Corinthians.

The current argument will be presented in three parts. The first seeks to address the question of the chronological and argumentative relationship of chapters 10-13 to chapters 1-9. The second addresses the question of the presence of so-called "interpolations" and "sources" in chapters 1-9. The third considers the issue directly addressed by Betz: the supposedly independent sources behind chapters 8 and 9. The uniqueness of this approach lies in its emphasis upon rhetorical reasons and warrants against the partition hypothesis. It will do so by demonstrating the complex integrity of the argumentative development and trajectories in 2 Corinthians. The argument will then conclude with a new, suggestive approach to the correspondence as a complex, but nevertheless coherent act of persuasion.

2.0 Chapters 10-13 are not a separate source from 1-9

Traditional approaches to and understanding of chapters 10-13 rightly identify and characterize the intonation and argumentative modality of this section as distinctive from that of 1-9. This has caused some commentators to suggest that chapters 10-13 comprise a letter independent of chapters 1-9. In fact, since at key points in the argument of chapters 1-9 one meets with reference to prior correspondence causing some disturbance within the community, chapters 10-13 have been identified with this so-called "tearful/painful letter". Nevertheless, an informed rhetorical approach to this issue will show important misrepresentations of the argumentative circumstances, as well as important rhetorical connections between 10-13 to the argumentation in 1-9. The result is a significant undermining of a major and widely adopted thesis of the partition theories.

2.1 Chapters 10-13 are not the "tearful/painful letter"

The identification of chapters 10-13 with the so-called "tearful/painful letter" does not stand up to rhetorical scrutiny. The argument of chapters 10-13 is best understood as an apostolic apologia. That is, employing the ancient rhetorical genre of a forensic speech of defense, under the stasis of definitio, Paul is defending his ethos before the Corinthian community. The issue being addressed in these chapters centers around the question of Paul's relationship to the Corinthian church, a question posed as a result of what Paul believes to be a threat to his authority and position arising from the so-called "super apostles". His argumentative strategy is to re-define the foundational values of his audience by means of an ironic, dissociative division of human vs. divine standards of judgment: "I will boast" as a fool according to human standards (11.16-18), since it is boasting about all the afflictions "I" have suffered (11.23-12.10). Turning the table on those who judge him "strong while absent/weak when present" (cf. 10.10), Paul goes on to accuse his accusers of a faulty standard judgment: "But they, classifying and comparing themselves to themselves, do not show good sense" (10.12). The strategy is made clear: Based on the proposition, "So I will boast all the more in my weakness that the power of Christ might dwell on me" (12.9), the argument drives toward the conclusion, "for whenever I am weak, then I am strong" (12.10). On this basis it is "clear" that "I ought to be commended by you, for I am not inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing" (12.11). The purpose of these argumentative moves is revealed when Paul reports that "I am ready to come" in 12.14-13.4, where he employs the hierarchical metaphor of "parent/child" in order to adopt a position of authority with respect to the community.

The argument of chapters 10-13, therefore, addresses the relationship between Paul and his standing with the community as its argumentative situation resulting from the "threat" of "outsider" agitation. It is concerned with addressing the ethos necessary for Paul to continue to carry out his relationship with the Corinthian church. It is an argument that sets out an apologia of Paul's ministry, focusing upon "I" (Paul) in relation to "them" (so-called "super-apostles") because "you (plural) forced me". It is essentially an argument regarding the relative status of outsider/insider with respect to Paul and the community.

In contrast, however, the discussion about a "previous" letter in 1.23-2.11 and 2.5-13 refers to an argumentative situation arrived at through Paul's previous deliberatory advice regarding an unnamed member of the community. This advice was delivered to the rest of the community, has caused distress within the community. While Paul's relationship to the community is a concern of his (2.2"For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained?"; 7.8"For even if I made you sorry with my letter…"), it is the impact of his previously offered advice upon the community that drives the argumentative trajectory. His authoritative ethos secured, he can offer further (now conciliatory) advice. Hence, his instruction in 2.6-7, "This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person; so now instead you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow." Hence also his praise in 7.11, "For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves guiltless in the matter."

Clearly, the argumentative situation of chapters 10-13 and that reported in 1.23-2.11, 2.5-13, are quite distinctive. In the former, Paul is defending (apologia) his ethos in the community as a result a perceived threat by "outsiders". In the latter, Paul's ethos is not under question. Instead, it is with respect to the ethos of someone in the community as a result of Paul's previous deliberative advice that he is concerned. These are two, radically different argumentative situations. Therefore, chapters 10-13 have simply been misidentified as "the tearful/painful letter".

2.2 Chapters 10-13 were written prior to 1-9

Secondly, chapters 10-13 cannot be a letter delivered prior to the supposed fragment sources of chapters 1-9. The narratio found in chapters 1, 2, 7, and 8-9 shows a specific development of events. All of these events have unfolded prior to the argumentative situation of 10-13. This can be demonstrated in two ways: a) traditional translations of 8.16-18 and 9.3 employ the English present tense:

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 12.8 must come later.

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 of chapters 10-13, and, according to traditional translation, has not been sent at the time of the composition of chapters 8-9.

Furthermore: b) all verbal deictic indicators of motion looked at above are, in fact, Aorist tense in the Greek. The verb translated "is going" in 8.17 is ejxh`lqen , "went out" or "has gone". The verb sunepevmyamen in 8.18, translated "are sending with", is instead "sent with" or "have sent with". It is the same in 9.3, with the verb e[pemya, "sent" or "have sent". This suggests that the narratio describing the circumstances of Paul's travel intentions and experiences from Troas (in Asia; cf. 1.8) to Macedonia to Corinth is a coherent sequence, a complete story relating events that have taken place prior to the composition of 2 Corinthians as a whole. Aside from occasional presence of Perfect tense (1.8-9, 2.13, 7.5), one Imperfect (1.15) and one Present (8.1), every verb in the narratio references scattered throughout the letter in 1.15-16, 2.12-13, 7.5-7, 8.1-2, 6, 17-19, 9.3, 5, 11.8-9 and 12.18 is in the Aorist tense.

The sequence is rather straightforward Paul's travels from Troas, where he experienced the afflictions mentioned in 1.8, took him to Macedonia rather than Corinth. In Macedonia he met with Titus who reported to him on the reception of a previous letter. Paul then sent Titus and the famous brother, now someone who is a part of Paul's larger missionary collective, ahead to prepare the community for his pending arrival. He composes this letter and sends it ahead with Timothy and Silvanus in preparation for this, his third visit. This narratio is whole, straightforward and complete. Its implications only suggest an intervening period of time prior to the writing of this letter when Paul has paid a second visit when friends accompanied him from Macedonia. Its argumentative function, as we shall see below (Section 5.0), is to provide a narrative framework that ties together the various argumentative situations encountered throughout the greater argument. It provides a means by which to contextualize and anticipate key argumentative strategies and trajectories.

2.3 Chapters 10-13 presuppose the argumentation in 1-9

It is difficult not to admit an abrupt change in intonation and modality when chapters 10-13 are read after the volitional appeals of chapters 8-9. Tones of defensiveness, irony (sometimes playful, sometimes serious) and a shift in the position of authority (ethos) of Paul vis-à-vis his audience enter into the discourse in a way that seems abrupt, if not altogether risky in its potential to alienate the community.

However, while chapters 10-13 reflect a rhetorical strategy that is certainly risky, the argument as it develops in 10-13 is not at all unanticipated given the argumentation in chapters 1-9. Nor is such an argument without precedent with respect to the Corinthian corpus (1 Cor 1-4 addresses the same issue of ethos). Indeed, to understand the function of 10-13, it is necessary to read it as part of an argument that extends throughout 2 Corinthians. Only in that way does its success, as a risky venture, make any rhetorical sense.

Throughout the argument in chapters 10-13, frequent reference to the topoi of "confidence" (cf. 1.23-2.11, 3.1-4.6), "boasting" (cf. 1.12-14, 7.6-16), "obedience" with respect to "testing" (cf. 1.23-2.11, esp. 2.9; 6.11, 9.13), "building up" rather than "tearing you down" (cf. 4.7-6.10), the catalog of "afflictions" (cf. 1.3-11, 4.8-11, chapters 5-6, 7.5 and 8.2), being "beside" oneself/beyond the limits (5.13), the argumentative presence of Satan (2.11; cf. 6.15), and love (2.4, 6.11-12, etc.) are made. Additionally, the argument functions upon the basis of the dissociation human vs. divine standards of judging the ministry and the ethos of Paul (cf. 4.17-6.10, esp. 5.12). Finally, it works within the Macedonia-Titus- "brother" narratio.

Each of these aspects has deep argumentative roots in chapters 1-9, roots that are presupposed by and required for 10-13 to function. The argument beginning in 10.1-18 shifts from the "confidence" and "boasting" Paul has expressed about "you" in chapters 8-9, to one which must now address "boasting" in "me". It does so by drawing from the dissociative move found in chapters 4.7-6.10 that shifts the foundation upon which to judge boldness and weakness from a human standard to a divine one. The relational shift to authority which takes place here has already been anticipated in previous arguments that introduce "obedience" with respect to a prior letters reception in 2.9, 6.11 and 9.13. It is particularly with respect to "punishment" (10.6) that the stakes here have been raised above that of what has gone on before. This intensification is noted immediately, but is also defined in as positive a fashion as possible: Making use of the previous philosophical pair of "earthly tent/building from God" (cf. 5.1), it is an authority derived from the Lord "for building up and not for tearing you down" (cf. 2.4, 7.9-11, 8.8, 9.13).

Once the ironic argumentation begins to build, making reference to a catalog of afflictions already noted in 1.3-11, 4.8-11, chapters 5-6, 7.5 and 8.2, Paul's "boasting" reaches a zenith that is reminiscent of being "beside ourselves for God" (5.13; note 11.23 "I am talking like a madman"). There is no inconsistency here with respect to the standards set in 10.15-17 ("We do not boast beyond the limits, that is in other peoples works… Let the one boasting boast in the Lord"), since the boasting is for Christ (cf. 12.10-11). This position of authority allows him the confidence, now that "I am ready to come" (12.14-13.4), that it may be done "for the sake of your building up" (12.19; cf. 13.10), precisely the same reason given for his previous correspondence (cf. 1.23-2.11; also 5.1). On this basis, Paul can place the responsibility for his response on the community (10.1-2; 12.20-21; 13.2, 5-7), once again making appeal to the notion of "testing" he has made reference to throughout the correspondence (2.9, 6.11, 9.13), this time testing "yourselves" (13.5).

It is clear, therefore, that the argument of chapters 10-13 draws extensively and frequently from the previous argumentative groundwork laid in chapters 1-9. Indeed, the success of the risky venture of asserting authority through a dissociative technique employing an ironic modality of argumentation depends upon the previous and multiple argumentative threads it employs from the earlier discourse. This venture has been carefully and thoughtfully anticipated, planned for in advance.

In contrast, if chapters 10-13 were extracted from the rest of the letter, their argumentative situation would be wholly unanticipated, an argumentative "bolt from the blue." Indeed, it is precisely this accusation which leads historical critics wrongly to extract them in the first place. As we have seen here, however, while the shift in intonation and the ironic modality appear abrupt after the previous chapters, they in fact represent an anticipated and carefully planned shift in the argumentative situation. While scholars have not noticed the careful argumentative planning in anticipation of this shift, Paul certainly has. It is indeed a risky shift, but not the foolhardy one which would result from the scholarly extraction.

To quickly summarize the results of this section before continuing: not only is it a misnomer to identify chapters 10-13 as the so-called "tearful/painful letter", but these chapters must narratively (i.e., with respect to the chronology of events outlined in the narratio of the letter) and argumentatively (i.e., with respect to the argumentative presumptions and their development) follow those of chapters 1-9 if they are to make any rhetorical sense at all. It appears, then, that a rhetorical approach to the first, major assertion regarding separate sources has found this thesis to be questionable.

3.0 Issue of interpolation(s)

In this section, I wish to address the suggestion that the argumentative section 6.14-7.1 represents an interpolation into 6.13-7.4, and the thesis that 2.14 represents the thanksgiving section of a new, incomplete letter. In both cases, the case against each assertion will proceed on two grounds: a) examples of similar argumentative structures in other Pauline texts, which would suggest a stylistic feature of Paul's argumentation, and b) discussion of the argumentative function of these so-called anomalies which would account for their presence without resorting to "interpolations".

3.1 Verses 6.14-7.1 are not an interpolation, but a peroration

Many have described this section as an interpolation, referring both to so-called "un-Pauline" vocabulary and counsel, as well as to the supposed interruption in the flow of thought represented in 6.13 and 7.2-4. Issues of vocabulary are notoriously difficult to settle given both the circularity of the argument (how does one determine what is authentic without first determining what is authentic?) and questions raised concerning the production of the letters (what role did the letter writers play in the composition of Paul's correspondence?). Additionally, it must be kept in mind that inventio addressed to the specifics of the rhetorical situation of composition necessarily allows for flexibility in the use and meaning of vocabulary and concepts.

With respect to counsel, it is easy to see a relationship between this and the advice given in 1 Cor 5.11-13. But, one should note as well the dominance of the insider-outsider motif as a Pauline argumentative commonplace, even within the so-called "authentic" corpus (1 Thess, Rom 1-3, Phil 3, Gal). This oppositional pair as an inventio technique is applied under a variety of circumstances according to the rhetorical exigences ascertained by Paul at the time. That Paul chose to apply this topos to the Corinthian community in this matter is more a reflection of his assessment of the rhetorical and communities specific circumstances than it is an inconsistency of counsel.

Most important, however, is the assumption that such an interruption can only be explained by means of assuming an interpolation. This is demonstrably untrue, both with respect to the existence of similar "framing" structures in Paul's letters, as well as with respect to the ability to explain the presence of this section within the rhetorical structure of the argument itself.

To begin, Paul makes use of framing structures as a means of organizing and developing his argumentation. One example of such a structure is found in 1 Cor 6.12-11.1, wherein the theme "all things are lawful but not all things are beneficial" found in 6.12 and 10.34 frames a series of discussions addressing issues of marriage and food sacrificed to idols. The repetition of this theme in 10.34 acts as a recapitulation of a key hierarchy of values introduced in 6.12, a hierarchy that serves as the basis of the intervening argumentation.

Another example of framing can be found in the shift in the argumentative trajectory of Rom 5-8, where the digressio regarding "sin" in chapters 6 and 7 is bracketed by.

Here, Paul has interrupted the argumentative flow of chapter 5 to develop a series of arguments spanning chapters 6 and 7 that serve to anticipate potential misunderstandings of his argument concerning grace and sin. Once these issues have been addressed, he can return to his key thesis and pick up where he left off.

Other examples can be found within 2 Corinthians itself, particularly with respect to the narratio devices that serve to provide an important structure of events anticipating, generating and tying together the argumentation. We have mentioned this earlier (section 2.2), and will touch upon it again in section 5.0, below.

Finally, no more apt example as a parallel to our own can be found than that of Gal 5.2-12 which interrupts the argumentation in Gal 5.1-15. Close inspection reveals a framing technique in this argument that would allow the interpreter to extricate verses 2-12, leaving a direct through-line of thought from 5.1 to 5.13.

I know of no thesis that 5.2-12 represents a later interpolation by a redactor of Galatians. I would suggest, instead, that this and the other examples we have identified represent a compositional habit in Paul's argumentation, a communicative commonplace that does not signal the presence of interpolations. Instead, it represents an act of inventio.

Similarly, 2 Cor 6.14-7.1, when extricated, would indicate a continuing line of thought from 6.11-13, 7.2. This is one more example of a framing device. To consider it an interpolation would result in two rhetorical difficulties: a) it leaves references in 7.2-3 without an address, and b) it overlooks the rhetorical integrity and purpose of 6.12-7.1 in the greater argumentative unit.

With respect to the former point, if one were to extract 6.14-7.1, there would be no argumentative preparation for or referent to the statement in 7.3 regarding "condemning". At no point in the argument preceding this statement does the rhetoric provide any implicit or explicit suggestion that would be considered a "condemnation" of the audience. Indeed, the whole of the argument is concerned with "our" ministry of reconciliation, with "our" experiences of affliction, so that "we" might urge "you" to accept the grace of God. "We wronged no one, corrupted no one, we took no advantage of anyone," is a personal testimony of integrity in light of the instruction of 6.14-7.1 which also hearkens back to the affliction catalog of 6.3-10 ("we are putting no obstacle in anyone's way" 6.3). The assurance that "I did not say this to condemn you" is an assurance that this instruction and Paul's integrity are not meant as a condemnation set against the audience. Instead, it is a rhetorical transitio that simultaneous draws from the mutuality of consolation and boasting elaborated in 1.3-14, while looking forward to narratio immediately pending which speaks of the affliction experienced in Macedonia. Without 6.14-7.1, the assurance that no condemnation is intended simply has no rhetorical referent.

The question is, however, how to understand the rhetorical presence of the instruction based on insider-outsider group boundaries with respect to the previous argumentation. Fortunately, while it is the habit of scholars to see in this an unexpected move, its presence is easily described as the final, persuasive peroration of the previous, convincing argumentation. This move is the culminating instruction for action that is premised upon a fundamental dissociation of certain values regarding the nature of "affliction" and the metaphor of a fragrance "from life to life/from death to death" explored in 2.14-7.4. In order to appreciate how 6.14-7.1 functions as persuasive appeal, it is necessary to consider the whole argumentative unit of 2.14-7.4 of which it is a part.

The argumentative section begins by describing the ministry in terms of "odor" (2.14) and "fragrance" (2.15), terms of ritual and sacrifice. It presages the topos of "affliction" and is delivered from "us" as persons "of sincerity". This definitional argument serves two functions: first, it allows "us" not to need "a letter from you or for you" (3.1), but rather definitionally to make "you" be "our" letter. Second, it allows a claim of confidence and boldness in the ministry as stemming from the Spirit.

This sets up a series of disassociations of new covenant/old covenant, letter-death/Spirit-life, veiled/unveiled (3.4-4.6) premised on the metaphorical argument, "For we are the aroma of Christ to God among the ones being saved and among the ones perishing, to the ones from death to death, but to the others a fragrance from life to life" (2.15). It is a ministry premised upon the refusal "to practice cunning or to falsify the word of God, but rather commending ourselves to the conscience of everyone before God by the open statement of truth" (4.2).

The idea that such boldness is a self-commendation, however, is rejected. Instead, what is being proclaimed is not "ourselves", but "Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves through Jesus." (4.5). In a dissociative move, the "power (which) belongs to God" is made to shine in the ministry through "weakness" and "affliction". Rather than marks of shame (which is behind the defensive argument of Chapters 10-13), the issues of "weakness" and "affliction" become addressed to the universal audience (from 4.16 to 5.10 the address "we" becomes a universal address, as explicitly emphasized in the phrase "all of us"). Through them, the universal audience is defined not only in terms of the power of God and boasting ("you" in "us", "so that you might have [an answer] for those boasting in appearance and not in the heart"- 5.12, cf. 10.12-18), but in terms of a reconstitution of reality - "the old things have passed away, see, they have become new" from God through Christ (5.17f). In other words, a certain redistribution of authority and power has taken place by dissociating worldly "appearance" of weakness from the "reality" that afflictions represent a "true" measure of power. On this basis "confidence" is expressed in "we do not lose heart" (cf. 4.16) in spite of afflictions. It also informs the division of "our earthly tent" (appearance of weakness) from "the building (same cognate as "building up") from God" (5.1). It explains how "we are beside ourselves" for God (appearance of foolishness) but "in our right mind" for "you" (5.13). It also explains how we "in all things understand ourselves as ministers of God" by reference to a catalog of afflictions, hardships, calamities, etc. (6.4-10).

It is precisely this dissociative move that anticipates and provides the basis for the peroration in 6.11-7.4. The entreaty, to be reconciled to God (5.20), the urgent ("now" in 6.2) request, not to accept the grace of God in vain (6.1), the frankness and openness of "our" affections, set as they are within convincing argumentation (meant to secure fundamental and shared values and generate the disposition to action) are now given practical and persuasive application to enact these principles. That is, a certain ethos has been presumed to be argumentatively achieved, a certain relationship in which Paul has shown himself not to be "self-commending" in human standards, nor cunning or shameful, nor could be blamed for putting obstacles in anyone's way, nor restricted in his affection: "We wronged no one, corrupted no one, taken advantage of no one" (7.2). From this, and on the basis of a shared status in Christ (e.g., "reconciliation" in 5.18-20; but also note back at 2.16 the notion of the ministry being for some "from death to death" but for others "from life to life"), a demand is made of the audiences: "do not be mismatched with unbelievers" (6.14). Culminating a long and complex argument concerning the nature, function and characteristics of the ministry of Paul to address, instruct and reinforce certain fundamental values, this pathos appeal calls for the audiences to enact these values, not with an implication that they are somehow being condemned (7.3, esp. given the reception of the previous letter), but to "make room for us" (7.2).

The argument of 6.14-7.1, therefore, is not only not an interpolation, but represents an important "call to action" both culminating the previous argument, as well as anticipating the additional calls to action which will follow in the collection appeals.

3.2 Verse 2.14 is not the thanksgiving section of an incomplete letter

It has been suggested that the declaration of thanksgiving found in 2.14 represents the thanksgiving period of another letter whose introductory salutation has been lost. Unfortunately, this argument is founded upon a misidentification: of the seven undisputed letters of Paul, five contain what has been called a "standard" introductory epistolary thanksgiving period. However, in every case (Rom 1.8, 1 Cor 1.4, Phil 4.3, I Thess 1.2 and Phlm 1.4) these are First Person, Present Active Indicative of eujcaristei`n. The so-called declaration of thanksgiving in 2 Cor 2.14 does not follow this formula at all, but is, instead, an adjectival phrase in the Nominative. It is similar to those found in Rom 6.17, 7.25, 1 Cor 15.57 (as well as 2 Cor 8.16 and 9.15). Such a construct is not found in any other letter, undisputed or disputed, as a thanksgiving period. It therefore is not likely to be the introduction to another letter.

In the case of 2 Corinthians, therefore, the "standard" epistolary thanksgiving has been replaced by a blessing (eujlogato"; oJ qeov"), coupled with a later proclamation of grace (cavri" to; qeo"). That this is "exceptional" among the undisputed letters is mitigated by the fact that it is nevertheless a legitimate epistolary variation as found, for example, also in Eph 1.3, 16.

Indeed, when the declaration of praise is offered, it is with a specific definitional strategy. First, it draws from the quasi-logical argumentation of 1.3-7 which equates the experience of the ministry with the divine origins of "affliction" that ensue from it. This topos of "affliction" figures prominently throughout the entire letter. Its argumentative implications are developed extensively both in the introduction leading up to the letters propositio in 1.12-15 and in the argument which follows upon the declaration of praise in 2.14. Indeed, in both sections the experience of "affliction" becomes the cause for "boasting" (1.12, 5.12): The cause of "affliction" described in the disclosure formula of 1.8-11 is described in terms of "frankness and godly sincerity, not in earthly wisdom but in the grace of God" (1.12), which is precisely the argument of 3.1-18 and its implications ("therefore...") in 4.1-7.4. Through both argumentative sections "affliction", "consolation", "suffering", "frankness" and "sincerity", and "boasting" are all argumentatively intertwined and become important topoi that resonate throughout the rest of the correspondence.

Second, it picks up from the narratio in 2.12-13 (which continues the story begun in 1.8-10 and developed in 1.15-16) and introduces the next argumentative strategy looking forward to the narratio in 7.5. That is, while the audiences have been told about afflictions in Asia (1.8), they have only been told of Paul's move from Troas to Macedonia (1.15-16). They have not yet been told about the experiences of affliction there. These are argumentatively anticipated and prepared for throughout this next argumentative section as introduced by 2.14: The "triumphal procession" in 2.14 becomes by the end of the argument clearly understood through its ironic dissociative technique in terms of the experiences of "affliction" which meet with the missionaries wherever they go, including Macedonia by 7.5. This, in turn, provides important groundwork by the time the collection appeal is made, as it lends greater poignancy to the generous gift of the churches in Macedonia made in spite of the "great trial of affliction" confronting them.

In other words, while it is clear that 2.14 introduces a new argumentative situation and strategic move on Paul's part, it does not introduce a new, separate letter. Instead, the argument that follows both draws upon the previous argumentation of 1.3-2.13, and anticipates the argument of 7.5-9.15.

4.0 So-called administrative letters of chapters 8 and 9

It is a mistake to suggest that 9.1 represents a new letter. What for scholars seems like an odd redundancy is simply a widely used rhetorical figure of speech known as the paralepsis figure. A paralepsis figure purports to decline mention of a topic, but in doing so, mentions the topic. Its argumentative function is to remind while ironically claiming it is unnecessary to do so. Its purpose is to build a certain ethos by mentioning important connections of shared knowledge between the audience and the rhetor. In this case, it is a means by which Paul can build good will between himself and the Corinthians, surreptitiously tying together two argumentative trajectories.

Chapters 8 and 9 represent a two-part, but nevertheless combined strategy directed at creating a disposition on the part of the Achaian communities to complete the task of collection. They are closely integrated into the previous argumentation by various means, beginning with the thread of the narratio in 7.5, 8.1-2 and 9.2. This through-line returns the audience to the letter reception mentioned in 1.23-2.12, but now introduces the argumentative topoi of "affliction" (experienced by both the missionaries in Macedonia in 7.5 and by the church in Macedonia in 8.1-2), "boasting" (in "you"), "confidence" (in "you"), and "consolation". Each of these topoi have been elaborated and prepared for in the previous argumentation.

It is in particular with respect to "consolation" that the transition is made (7.5-16) from the previous argumentative section through the narratio to the collection appeal. It is significant that the connection made is one which suggests that the basis of the consolation is the justification of Paul's boasting about and confidence in the communities, justification on account of the obedience they have shown to Titus. It is on this foundation that the following two strategic moves are based. In other words, the confidence Paul has in the communities because of their "obedience" becomes the standard against which the churches of Achaia are being tested.

The first move is an appeal to consistency: "Just as you excel in everything, in faith and word and knowledge and all eagerness and in your love of us, so also you should excel in this gift" (8.7). The collection appeal is not offered as a command, but as a test of their own reputation, in justice to "the grace of our lord Jesus Christ" (8.9), of finishing what they started (8.11), and of fairness in the distribution of abundance to those in need (8.14-15).

The second move is an argument from a promise for future abundance, tied to the previous strategy by means of the paralepsis figure drawing, once again, from the narratio of 8.1-2 in 9.1-2. The paralepsis ("now its unnecessary for me to write to you about the ministry of the saints...) functions to downplay the rhetor's concerns (it is "unnecessary") by playing up the confidence he feels ("for I know your eagerness") and drawing from the topoi of "boasting" and "zeal" mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, in preparation of his pending visit, Paul returns to the topos of "testing" (cf. 9.13), this time in order to avoid a potentially "shameful" circumstance (of lack of preparation or willingness) being explicitly mentioned as the purpose of the brothers sent ahead to prepare for Paul and the Macedonian's arrival. The intention of the visit (and the argument), once again explicitly stated, is to encourage the offering as a voluntary gift, not an extortion. It is a volitional, direct appeal outlining the benefits of giving cheerfully, not reluctantly, with the knowledge of the promise of a return (cf. 9.6).

Modality of volition and intonation of praise function throughout these two strategies to secure a commitment to action. As opposed to Betz's concentration upon the dispositio of the two chapters, a focus upon inventio yields the result that chapters 8 and 9 are a rhetorically unified structure. The two-step strategy has been drawn together not by an apparently redundant reference to the collection in 9.1, but by a paralepsis which allows Paul to shift strategies in an effort of argumentative accumulation. Such accumulation is certainly not foreign to Pauline argumentation, particularly driven by the distance (both spatial and temporal) that Paul must overcome through his correspondence. The specific issue of the collection motivates, in this case, a complementary two-pronged approached aimed at drawing the various communities in Achaia into a commitment to support this particular effort.

5.0 The letter as a rhetorical whole

The result of the foregoing three-part analysis suggests that the partition theory of 2 Corinthians can be radically undermined by means of an appreciation of the complexity of rhetorical strategies exhibited in the letter. An emphasis upon the persuasive dynamics and developing argumentative situations of the letter, that is, upon the impact of inventio on the composition of the letter, yields a result different from that of the historical critics. 2 Cor 10-13 is now shown to be rhetorically integrated into the strategies of 2 Cor 1-9. The so-called interpolation of 6.14-7.1 is not only reasonable, but rhetorically important to the letter. The collection appeal of chapters 8 and 9 is not only integrated, but draws from important themes and strategies found throughout the correspondence.

Indeed, it can be argued that the selection of the very genre of "letter" as a communicative medium itself constitutes a particular argumentative decision premised upon inventio: It was possible for Paul not to choose to write a letter, but, for example, to compose a speech to be delivered by Timothy to the Corinthians. Instead, the communicative medium of "letter" was chosen, indicating a specific argumentative purpose a letter as such carries with it certain important implications of "presence", of space and time relations, of "autoreferentiality" which other genres simply don't carry. If, therefore, the very selection of the genre is itself an argumentative decision, then the issue of inventio must be at the forefront of any effort at analysis.

If this is the case, then to argue for a loose, and apparently disparate collection of letter fragments is to overlook the question of situation(s) and audience(s), and therefore the issue of inventio, behind the composition as it stands altogether. Indeed, it is incumbent on the advocates of the fragmentary hypothesis to answer the question, "Why would a redactor make these particular argumentative choices? Why does this letter come together as it stands?" Most scholars simply ignore the issue, adopting instead a historical criticism that overlooks inventio in favor of a communicatively unfounded reconstruction of events.

Instead, if the argumentative trajectories can be described in such a way that accounts for the relationship of the various strategies and arguments, then the burden of proof shifts to those who cannot describe these relationships. That is, if, through a rhetorical (vs. historical) approach to the text one can show the integrity of the correspondence, it becomes incumbent upon those espousing the fragmentary hypothesis to revisit the working assumptions that lead them to conclude multiple, independent sources. All the "seams", non-sequiturs and formalist deviations have been, in every case, easily explained by reference to common rhetorical practices and the strategic needs of Paul to address the argumentative situations arising from his relationship to the Corinthian community.

Therefore, we are confronted with two alternative hypotheses, one I wish to call the "weak" hypothesis of unitary rhetorical composition, and the other the "strong". Both are premised upon the unified, rhetorical coherence of 2 Corinthians. The "weak" argument would assert that, at the very least, the rhetorical coherence of the current form of the letter shows careful redaction of multiple sources that results in a carefully constructed composition whose elements make rhetorical "sense". The "strong" argument states that this is what was intended from the beginning, and that Paul was the original author of the text as it stands.

To decide between them is beyond the current task. However, to push this issue to the fore, I wish to propose the following summary rhetorical structural outline of 2 Corinthians in order to illustrate one possible model of understanding the rhetorical integrity of this letter.

2 Cor 1.1-14 - Introductory Unit

2 Cor 2.14-7.4 - Unit 2 (purpose of the ministry as related to the present)

2 Cor 7.5-9.15 - Unit 3 (plans for Corinth and Achaia for the future)

2 Cor 10.1-13.4 - Unit 4 (apostolic apologia)

2 Cor 13.5-13 - Concluding Remarks

This outline highlights important rhetorical divisions, strategic shifts and argumentative dynamics of the letter, while at the same time elucidating the integrity of the argumentation as a whole. Key topoi, themes and strategies appear in every part of the letter, elaborated through a variety of modal shifts wrought by the developing argumentative situation. Nevertheless, this complexity displays a tightly woven strategy directed carefully at securing a particular relationship between Paul and the Corinthian community. It is this relationship which drives the argumentation from the beginning. The purpose of the letter is to build upon and develop a relationship between Paul and the Corinthians along the lines Paul sees as necessary for continuing his task as apostle of Christ Jesus. It is summed up in the letters propositio statement of 1.12.

It is this "frankness" and "sincerity" that propels the variety of relationships argumentatively developed throughout the letter, culminating in the position of authority Paul has struggled to achieve since 1 Corinthians.

The question for historical critics to ponder therefore becomes, "Who else but Paul would find it necessary to bring together the variety of Pauline and so-called non-Pauline fragments with this argumentative purpose, and what was the exigence that would have motivated any other redactor than Paul to do so?"