AFTER AFTER PAUL LEFT CORINTH:PAUL & CICERO VS THE
SOPHISTICATED SUPER-APOSTLES
ABSTRACTIt is the thesis of this paper that Pauls refusal to
engage in status boosting activities, including sophistic
preaching, in his mission to Corinth created significant opposition
to his ministry. An opponent in the Corinthian church teamed with a
group of visiting super-apostles, who had no such qualms, to
criticise Paul and undermine his apostolic authority. We will argue
that rather than being untrained as a speaker, Paul is
demonstrating his rhetorical prowess, while rejecting the speaking
philosophy of the second sophistic, in favour of a more traditional
ethos driven form of oratory, advocated by Cicero in De Oratore.
Paul answers the charges made against him by his opponent and the
super-apostles and puts forward his own Christocentric, cruciform,
theory of public speaking.
I had also been taught that, before speaking on the issue, we
must first secure the goodwill of our audience; that next we must
state our case ; afterwards define the dispute ; then establish our
own allegations ; subsequently disprove those of the other side ;
and in our peroration expand and reinforce all that was in our
favour, while we weakened and demolished whatever went to support
our opponents. Cicero, De Oratore, 1.XXXI.143 The weapons we fight
with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have
divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and
every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God,
and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
Paul, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6
1 201017867
AFTER PAUL WROTE TO CORINTH
After Paul wrote to Corinth some influential members of the
church, and arguably the city, turned on Paul, criticising his
ministry and questioning his apostolic authority on the basis of
his poor preaching, physical presence and financial dealings. These
opponents joined voices with the super-apostles, who had arrived in
Corinth teaching a false gospel and engaging in the practices Paul
rejected. We will argue that Pauls rivals made specific accusations
about Pauls ministry, which he addresses at the end of a united
letter, in 2 Corinthians 10-13. Pauls careful demolition of these
so-called super-apostles forms the basis of the following
reconstruction of the period after Paul wrote to Corinth. We will
argue that Pauls rejection of Corinthian social conventions,
including those involved with the Second Sophistic movement,1
apparent in first Corinthians, is the root cause of attempts to
remove Paul from his apostolic office. Further, this deliberate
rejection of the second sophistic movement is not a rejection of
oratory per se, but rather oratory without integrity and substance,
and Pauls presentation in Corinth is in the style of an orator
educated in Tarsus, influenced by the ideal orator portrayed in
Ciceros De Oratore, with an emphasis on substance, character, and
the situation determining ones approach to persuasion. Paul uses
the principles in De Oratore as a critique of Corinths self-seeking
culture, and adapts Ciceros approach to oratory as a servant of the
state, in the hands of the powerful, to celebrate the cruciform
nature of the gospel of weakness, a life of humility following the
crucified Messiah. This reconstruction helps place Pauls apostolic
apologia (2 Cor 10-13) alongside the rest of the letter, and best
accounts for the perceived gap between the strength of Pauls
writing and his presentation, though we will further argue that
Pauls account of his physical cruciformity simultaneously explains
the weakness of his physical presence and speaks to his character
and apostolic calling, marking him as a true apostle of the
crucified king. ThisOn the first century prominence of the second
sophistic, especially in Corinth, see B.W Winter, Philo and Paul
Among the Sophists, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997), 2002 Edition,
144238.1
2 201017867
cruciformity, and the foolish message of the cross, means that
Paul can never truly present the gospel with the eloquence and
sophisticated flair his training allows, because the Corinthians
relationship with Jesus must rest on the cross, not the eloquence
of man (1 Cor 1:17).
THE SITUATIONWhat we can reconstruct of the Corinthian Church
from the account in Acts, the two epistles, and a mention of Pauls
situation at the conclusion of Romans, is relevant to our
identifying the problem that emerged in Corinth. We know that the
church contained a mixture of people from different social strata,
including some powerful members of Corinthian society (1 Cor 1:26,
Romans 16:23).2 We deduce that the church met in various houses,
gathering in the house of Gaius on occasion (Romans 16:23) and that
there was factional division over leadership or identification (1
Cor 1:10-14), which took the form popular in the first century, of
division over ones affiliation to a sophistic school.3 We know that
the church contained the potentially volatile mix of gentile and
Jewish converts (Acts 18:8),4 and that certain cultural mores of
the first century may have created a situation whereby the wealthy
hosts of gatherings would have been perceived as patrons.5 It is
quite possible then, that the factions operating in 1 Corinthians
were geographically as well as socially separate, that people met
with others who identified with their chosen teacher, and the hosts
of these gatherings were essentially perceived as faction
leaders.6Contra Deissman, Meeks and others, Paul does not say not
any, in support of this view that there were influential members in
the church see A.D Clarke, Secular & Christian Leadership in
Corinth: A Socio-Historical & Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians
6, (Leiden, Brill, 1993), 45, for a more accurate reconstruction of
the demographics of the church, also J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology
of Second Letter to the Corinthians, (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1991), 5-11 3 B.W Winter, After Paul Left
Corinth, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), 38-41 4 J.
Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second Letter to the Corinthians, 5,
cites Philo who says there is a significant Jewish population in
Corinth, it is likely that those who follow Cephas, and Apollos
were either Jewish, or gentile god fearers. L. Welborn, An End to
Enmity: Paul and the Wrongdoer of Second Corinthians, (Berlin,
Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 364-366 5 J. Harrison, Pauls House
Churches and the Cultic Associations, The Reformed Theological
Review, 58.1, (April 1999), 31-47, 45-46 6 It would be culturally
unusual, if any in the gathering were identifying their host as a
patron, for the patrons preference not to become normative in the
group. E.A Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the
First Century, Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First
Century. Pivotal essays by E. A. Judge, ed. D.M. Scholer,
(Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2008), 27, E.A Judge, The social
pattern of the Christian groups in the first century:2
3 201017867
Certain powerful members of the church in Corinth remained
committed to the citys Graeco-Roman culture, predicated, as it was,
on questions of power and status.7 From the issues addressed in 1
Corinthians, we can assume that members of the church remained
active in civic life, taking part in the courts (1 Cor 6), sexual
immorality (1 Cor 6), cultic activities (1 Cor 8), and being hosted
at meals by unbelievers (1 Cor 10). There is no sense that their
conversion has led to ostracism or significant public pressure,8
and indeed, those of status in Corinth seem to be compromising in
order to continue advancing in society,9 while they, and the
upwardly mobile members of the church, are also trying to improve
their status through association with their chosen Christian
teachers (1 Cor 1),10 creating a power base from the poor.11 Both
the proletariat and the powerful are tempted to reject Paul because
he refuses to act in a way that would improve their status.12
Winter (1997) has argued convincingly that the oratory style du
jour for the upper class citizen in first century was that of the
second sophistic.13 It is likely that the high-class citizens of
Corinth had adopted this style,14 which was obsessed with
competition and the superficial persona,15 and as such it began to
influence all forms of rhetoric within the city, as the
rhetorical
some prolegomena to the study of New Testament ideas of social
obligation, (London, Tyndale Press, 1960), 35-36, so, for example,
if the patron of a household changed religious affiliation the
entire household would change, see, for example, Acts 10
(Cornelius), and Acts 16 (Lydia). 7 A.D Clarke, Secular &
Christian Leadership in Corinth, 39-45, participation in public
life was expensive, so it is likely that the few people who were
wealthy, wise, and of noble birth, were very wealthy. 8 B.J Tucker,
The role of civic identity on the Pauline mission in Corinth,
Didaskalia, Winter 2008, 71-91, 73-75 9 D. Starling, Not My People:
Gentiles as exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, (Berlin, Walter de
Gruyter, 2011), 74 10 B.J Tucker, The role of civic identity on the
Pauline mission in Corinth, 77-78, C. Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos
Relationship And Pauls Stance Toward Graeco-Roman Rhetoric,
(London, T&T Clark, 2009), 89, 96-102 11 J. Murphy-O'connor,
Theology of Second Letter to the Corinthians, 9 12 C. Mihaila, The
Paul-Apollos Relationship, 86-88 13 B. Winter, Philo and Paul,
1-238, there now seems to be a sense of consensus, even outside
theologians, that this is the case, see for example, I. Henderson,
The Second Sophistic and Non Elite Speakers, Perceptions of the
Second Sophistic and its Times, ed. T. Schmidt and P. Fleury,
(Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2011). 14 B.W Winter, Philo
and Paul, 144-238 15 V.H.T Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth: A
Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, (Tubingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008),
47-48
4 201017867
culture of a city reflected the preferences of the elite.16 This
led to members of the Corinthian church forming socio-political
factions around their chosen teachers, declaring allegiance to
these figureheads (1 Cor 1:12, 3:4).17 Pauls deliberate rejection
of this style of oratory was perceived as an inadequacy.18 This
inadequacy, his pointed critique of conformity to culture in First
Corinthians,19 his failure to end the factions,20 and his ongoing
refusal to provide benefactions to the city through the financial
support of wealthy congregants,21 turned his opponent into an
enemy.22 What we can gather, from the reconstruction above, and the
assumption that Paul is obeying certain social conventions of
enmity,23 is that Pauls opponent is a member of the Corinthian
elite, of some influence in the church, possibly a member or leader
of the Apollos faction,24 who valued Hellenistic or
V.H.T Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth, 47. I. Henderson,
The Second Sophistic and Non Elite Speakers, 23-24, the citys
rhetorical culture was in turn influenced by the preferences of the
elites. 17 L.L Welborn, On the Discord in Corinth, 1 Corinthians
1-4 and Ancient Politics, Journal of Biblical Literature, 106.1,
(1987), 85-111, 92, 110, M.D Given, Pauls True Rhetoric: Ambiguity,
Cunning and Deception in Greece and Rome, (Harrisburg, Trinity
International, 2001), 91 18 J. Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A Critical
Life, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996), 51, Also M.D Given,
Pauls True Rhetoric, 97 19 J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second
Letter to the Corinthians, 15, suggests the powerful were alienated
by this critique and sought revenge. 20 F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric
and Pauls Apology, 181 21 B.W Winter, Philo and Paul, 2002 Edition,
164-165, J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second Letter to the
Corinthians, 97, It should be noted that Paul was not against civic
benefactions per se, and likely encouraged them, there is good
evidence to suggest that the extant inscription on a public
footpath in Corinth marks such a benefaction delivered to the city
by the Erastus whom Paul mentions as treasurer of the whole city of
Corinth (Rom 16:23), see A.D Clarke, Secular & Christian
Leadership in Corinth, 47-56, even if Erastus wasnt the man behind
the pavement, though he probably was, he was clearly important and
powerful because Paul does not mention the civic position of any
other supporter, contra S.J Friesen, The Wrong Erastus: Ideology,
Archaeology, and Exegesis, Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies
on Religion and Society, Ed. S.J Friesen, D.N. Schowalter, J.C.
Walters, (Leiden, Brill, 2010), 231256, who is presuppositionally
against there being wealthy members of the church, and a culture of
upwards mobility, operating in the church to argue that Erastus
isnt the Erastus of the pavement, and that the Erastus Paul
mentions is somehow on the fringe of the church. 22 P. Marshall,
Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the
Corinthians, (Tubingen, Mohrs Siebeck, 1987), 397, L. Welborn, An
End to Enmity: Paul and the Wrongdoer of Second Corinthians,
(Berlin, Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 368, A.D Clarke, Secular &
Christian Leadership in Corinth, 34, turning down a financial gift
was grounds for enmity. 23 Especially regarding the tone used where
reconciliation is sought, and where it is not, and avoiding naming
ones enemies, P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, 347 24 On the link
between the factions of 1 Corinthians and the opposition in 2
Corinthians see L.L Welborn, On the Discord in Corinth, 1
Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics, 110, P. Barnett, The Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New
Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997), 38, suggests they may
have been Jewish followers of Cephas.
16
5 201017867
Alexandrian styled oratory,25 whose rejection of Paul caused the
apostle personal anguish.26 Paul refers to his opponent as within
the church, though not by name, in the first half of the letter (2
Cor 2:5-10, 7:12).27 He writes as though reconciliation has already
taken place,28 which leads some to identify multiple letters in 2
Corinthians.29 Such reference to internal opposition has resulted
in various attempts to identify the opponent. Welborn (2011), for
instance, points the finger at Gaius, the host of the church.30
While Gaius is as good a candidate as anybody,31 any identification
of Pauls opponent, given his apparent determination to avoid naming
his enemies (following social convention),32 is purely
speculative.33 It is for example, equally plausible that the
unnamed, but presumably influential,34 incestuous man (1
Corinthians 5) continues to function as the unnamed opponent.35 As
interesting as an identikit process of stitching together a profile
of Pauls opponent might
L. Welborn, An End to Enmity, 372-375 suggests there are really
only two factions the Paul faction and the Apollos faction. While
it has been popular, since Baur, to post two factions, a Cephas
following circumcision party, and the Paul-Apollos faction, it
seems the Corinthians are more interested in playing Pauls
rhetorical ability off against that of Apollos, especially because
of what we know of Apollos from Acts 18, B.W. Winter, Philo and
Paul, 178, suggests the language used of Apollos in Acts are
rhetorically charged, J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A critical life,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 275, suggests Apollos was likely
influenced by Philo, and thus emphasised spiritual experience, and
other Hellenic traits that would have been popular with Corinthian
movers and shakers, in J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second
Letter to the Corinthians, 13-14, he argues that Pauls opponents
are the wisdom lovers of 1 Cor 2:6-12, who had preferences for a
Philo styled spirituality, and saw Apollos as a Christian Philo,
this conclusion was supported by C. Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos
Relationship, 76-78, M.D Given, Pauls True Rhetoric, 93 26 L.
Welborn, An End to Enmity, 23-24, 39-40, 46-59, 228, these criteria
for Pauls opponent, established by Welborn, seem a more legitimate
reconstruction than his conclusion, and the assumption at 228 that
Pauls enemy must have been named as one of his friends, why Paul
must have named all his friends in Corinth in his correspondence is
never truly established. 27 L. Welborn, An End to Enmity, 23-24 28
D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a complex rhetorical
situation: Pauls strategy in 2 Corinthians 1 through 7,Andrews
University Seminary Studies, Spring 1996, Vol. 34, No. 1, 522,
21-22 29 The legitimacy of this position will be discussed below.
30 L. Welborn, An End to Enmity, 357-366 31 L. Welborn, An End to
Enmity, 239-244, Gaius is evidently wealthy and thus an influential
member of the church and city, is identified as friend of Paul (1
Cor 1:14, Romans 16:23) 32 P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social
Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians, (Tubingen,
Mohrs Siebeck, 1987), 347, L. Welborn, An End to Enmity, 211-213 33
B. Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 1995), 343 34 B.W Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 57 35
If this man were not a man of status it is unlikely that he would
be enjoying the support of the church family, given our
reconstruction, while if his status is significant this provides a
motive for the Corinthian Churchs lax attitude regarding his
behaviour. On the possibility of this reconstruction see C.G Kruse,
The Relationship between the Opposition to Paul Reflected in 2
Corinthians 1-7 and 10-13, Evangelical Quarterly, 61.3, (1989),
195-202, 196-198
25
6 201017867
prove to be, such activities are speculative at best, and often
reliant on convenient critical assumptions about the unity of the
letter.36 Pauls opponent then invited, or endorsed, a group of
Jewish, possibly Hellenised, super-apostles,37 whose abilities were
commended by themselves,38 and others.39 These super-apostles
entered the patronage relationship Paul had avoided, by taking
money from members of the church,40 and thus, according to
convention, became joint enemies of Paul.41 They taught a
hyper-spiritualised message, employing the eloquence of the second
sophistic. Their conformity to this form of oratory is demonstrated
by their willingness to denigrate Pauls teaching for their own
gain.42 In the process, the super-apostles help the opponent
undermine Pauls apostolic legitimacy. To add insult to injury,
questions are raised about Pauls fiscal integrity.43
B. Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 343, who
suggests all identification of Pauls opponents will be driven by
assumptions about the construction of the letter, It is quite
possible that the church at this stage was quite small, J. Murphy
OConnor, St Pauls Corinth: Text and Archaeology, (Wilmington, M.
Glazier Liturgical Press, 1983), 2002 reprint, 182, also D.G
Horrell, and E. Adams, Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the
Pauline Church, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2004),
10-11, speculates that it was probably no more than 50 members at
the time of 1 Corinthians. If this is the case then the odds that
Gaius is the adversary improve sharply, but again this is
speculation based on some questionable reconstructions. D.G
Horrell, and E. Adams, Christianity at Corinth, 11, and L. Welborn,
End to Emnity, 93, Gaius is able to host the whole church in his
house on occasions (1 Cor 11:20, Romans 16:23), which speaks both
to his relative wealth, and the size of the church. But the church
also gathers in other houses in the region, including Phoebes at
Cenchreae (Romans 16:1), and presumably the house of Titius Justus,
where Paul based his preaching while in the city (Acts 18:7),
though at 299, Welborn suggests that Titius Justus is an
alternative name for Gaius. 37 L.L Welborn, The Identification of 2
Corinthians 10-13 with the Letter of Tears, Novum testamentum, 37.2
April (1995), 138-153, 143, demonstrates that the issue at the
heart of 2 Cor 10-13 (though he treats it as a separate letter) is
the questioning of Pauls apostolic legitimacy, spurred on by these
apostolic intruders. Also, P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, 397 38
P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, 399, C.G Kruse, The Relationship
between the Opposition to Paul Reflected in 2 Corinthians 1-7 and
10-13, 199, suggests the opponent may have latched on to the
teachings of the super-apostles. 39 B. Witherington III, Conflict
and Community in Corinth, 345-346 40 B. Witherington III, Conflict
and Community in Corinth, 418, accepting a financial gift
established such a relationship, L.L Welborn, Pauls Caricature of
His Chief Rival as a Pompous Parasite in 2 Corinthians 11.20,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 32.1 (2009), 39-56, 52,
suggests the super-apostles were invited by one of Pauls rivals,
and that they entered the conventional type of relationship between
an intellectual and the social elite. 41 P. Marshall, Enmity in
Corinth, 397 42 P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, 348, V.H.T Nguyen,
Christian Identity in Corinth, 149, also F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric
and Pauls Apology, 181, M.D Given, Pauls True Rhetoric, 94 43 B.
Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 345, posits a
similar set of identifiers for Pauls opponents from the text, D.L
Akin, Triumphalism, Suffering, and Spiritual Maturity: An
exposition of 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 in its Literal, Theological,
and Historical Context, Criswell Theological Review, 4.1, (1989),
119-144, 125-126
36
7 201017867
THE CHARGES AND PAULS RESPONSEPaul writes Second Corinthians,
and the apologia contained in 2 Corinthians 10-13, in response to
this situation. His rhetorically powerful rebuttal involves a
response to specific claims made by his critics, specifically that
he is timid when present but bold when absent (2 Cor 10:1), that
his letters are weighty but his presence and speech unimpressive (2
Cor 10:10), that he is inferior to the super-apostles (2 Cor 11:5),
and a charge that he has been financially duplicitous (2 Cor
12:16-17).44 A further complaint seems to be that Paul does not
come with any letters of commendation, or even commend himself as
visiting orators would upon entering a new city (2 Cor 10:12). Paul
argues that this exercise of self-commendation is short-sighted. It
is God who commends, and he only commends on the basis of the tasks
he appoints (2 Cor 10:12-18). It becomes clear that Pauls financial
relationship, or lack thereof, with the Corinthians is a source of
the tension (2 Cor 11:9, 12:13), especially because he admits to
receiving money from other churches (2 Cor 11:9).45 The
superapostles, however, have apparently taken the Corinthians'
money (2 Cor 11:20). Paul is duly hurt by this rejection of his
ministry. He essentially describes the super-apostles as parasites
(2 Cor 11:20),46 in contrast to his selfportrayal as one determined
not to be such (2 Cor 11:7-9).47 Paul responds to the complaints
about his unimpressive preaching forcefully, with a military
description of his approach to argument and the punishment he will
visit on them, promising to deliver the impressive presence they
believe they want (2 Cor 10:2-5, 11), highlighting the deliberate
nature of his preaching methodology.48
B.W Winter, Paul and Philo, 204, F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric and
Pauls Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians,
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004), 123, 134 suggests
Paul is being examined on his poor oratorical abilities, his lowly
status, his refusal to accept patronage, his absence, and financial
mismanagement. 45 J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second Letter to
the Corinthians, 98 46 L.L Welborn, Pauls Caricature of His Chief
Rival as a Pompous Parasite in 2 Corinthians 11.20, Journal for the
Study of the New Testament, 32.1 (2009), 39-56, 42-48, 49 47 J.
Murphy-O'connor, Theology of Second Letter to the Corinthians, 7,
suggests parasites were particularly loathed in Corinth. 48 B.
Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 433, Paul
seems confident in his ability to be strong in presence if
required, which suggests not doing so initially was a
44
8 201017867
He favourably compares himself to the super-apostles, and
declares himself not inferior on two occasions (2 Cor 11:5, 12:11),
on the basis of their rhetorical capability, then on the
completeness of his apostolic ministry (2 Cor 12:11-13). While he
admits to being an "#%&' when it comes to his speaking (2 Cor
11:6) in response to an apparent criticism,49 this is best
understood as relating to his non-professional status,50 rather
than simply an admission of incompetence.51 Paul happily portrays
himself as an amateur because he refuses to participate in their
self-aggrandising form of oratory,52 which will ultimately lead to
a false gospel.53 We will argue below that Paul was indeed educated
as a rhetor, and a more than capable speaker. He claims that he
possesses something more important than eloquence, knowledge (2 Cor
11:6), which he has made plain to them, which puts his approach to
rhetoric firmly in Ciceros camp.54 Pauls ironic self-commendation
(2 Cor 11-12) confirms that his weak approach was a deliberate
decision. He presents as an orator of the second sophistic,
commending himself,55 but choosing to counter the superficial,
persona focused,56 sophistry of super-apostles, by parodying his
opponents
deliberate decision, supporting Winters reconstruction of 1 Cor
1-4 in B.W Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 42 49 P. Barnett, The
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 508-509, or perhaps a self
characterization, C. Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship, 86 50
F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Pauls Apology, 181, B.W Winter, Paul
and Philo, 224, shows that this term can be applied to speakers who
are trained but not professional orators. 51 B. Witherington III,
Conflict and Community in Corinth, 435, suggests Paul is simply
admitting he isnt a great speaker. We will argue below that this is
not consistent with the accounts of his ministry in Acts, his
pre-conversion career trajectory, or the likely training he
received in Tarsus. 52 C. Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos Relationship,
127, V.H.T Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth, 149, he also
refuses to be judged by their criteria, F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric
and Pauls Apology, 181 53 P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, 510 54 Cicero emphasised the need to make plain, see
W. Englert, The Philosophy of Cicero, The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Ancient Greece and Rome, Ed. M. Gagarin, E. Fantham, (Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2010), 139, so the best orator has a
command of the plain, the middle and the grand, he also saw
eloquence without wisdom as dangerous, Cicero, De Inventione, The
Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, 1.I, (London, George Bell and
Sons, 1888), Trans. C.D Yonge, retrieved online 7 May 2012,
http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/dnvindex.htm 55 J.
Murphy-OConnor, Theology of Second Letter to the Corinthians,
107-115 56 V.H.T Nguyen, Christian Identity in Corinth, 145-146
9 201017867
super-spirituality,57 and presenting as a composite of
theatrical fool characters,58 boasting in weakness.59 The substance
of his message is Christ crucified (2 Cor 13:4). He is not making
an apologia for himself, but presenting Christ (2 Cor 12:19),60 so
that they might be reconciled to him (2 Cor 13:9,11). Weakness
Christology is at the heart of Pauls authority and message.61 Any
other gospel is false (2 Cor 11:4). Spiritual experiences are no
basis for authority.62 Winter (1997) questions whether Paul could
be consistent in employing such rhetoric in a polemic against
overemphasising rhetorical prowess.63 We will argue below that
rather than simply eschewing rhetoric, Paul is critiquing the
second sophistic not simply as incompatible with gospel ministry,
but as a shallow form of oratory inconsistent with the history of
rhetoric.64 We will argue that Paul is drawing on Ciceros De
Oratore, and Ciceros criticism and prediction of the devolution of
the stately and substantial art, painting his own picture of the
ideal Christian orator. According to Paul, a Christian speaker will
live their message.65
J.W Barrier, Visions of weakness: apocalyptic genre and the
identification of Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6,
Restoration Quarterly, 47.1, 2005, 33-42, especially 34, where he
argues that Paul mocks his opponents spiritual claims in 12:1-6,
rather than referring to his own experience, employing parody,
rather than irony, this is a Graeco-Roman rhetorical convention,
though J.B Hood, The temple and the thorn: 2 Corinthians 12 and
Paul's heavenly ecclesiology, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 21 no
3 2011, 357-370, argues that Paul describes his own spiritual
experience in a way that may, at least, be theologically coherent.
58 L.L Welborn, The Runaway Paul, Harvard Theological Review, 92.2,
(1999), 115-163, 137 59 C.J Roetzel, The language of war (2 Cor.
10:1-6) and the language of weakness (2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10),
Biblical Interpretation, 17 no 1-2 2009, 77-99, 92-95, suggests
Pauls use of military terminology in a combative rhetorical sense
is coupled with his image of strength in weakness, parodied as it
is with his basket driven escape down the walls, which, following
EA Judge and others is possibly a contrast with the celebration of
the first centurion over the wall, B.W Winter, Paul and Philo, 235,
suggests it is a reference to the acclaim and welcome a sophist
would receive when arriving at a city, though it is more likely a
particular, and popular, in keeping with the fool motif, see L.L
Welborn, The Runaway Paul, 156-158 60 J. Murphy-OConnor, Theology
of Second Letter to the Corinthians, 134 61 B.W Winter, Paul and
Philo, 237, D.L Akin, Triumphalism, Suffering, and Spiritual
Maturity, 127, J. Murphy-OConnor, Theology of Second Letter to the
Corinthians, 122-123 62 D.L Akin, Triumphalism, Suffering, and
Spiritual Maturity, 136 63 B.W Winter, Paul and Philo,204-212,
also, F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Pauls Apology, 216 64 I.
Henderson, The Second Sophistic and Non Elite Speakers, Perceptions
of the Second Sophistic and its Times, ed. T. Schmidt and P.
Fleury, (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2011), 30-34,
follows Winters argument regarding the first century dating of the
second sophistic, and suggests that the preservation of a Christian
critique of the movement is valuable because it is preserved in
writing. 65 B.W Winter, Paul and Philo, 211
57
10 201017867
Interestingly, Pauls presentation of the litany of physical
suffering he has experienced for the gospel (2 Cor 11:23-27) goes
someway to addressing the criticism that he is weak in the flesh.66
Bodily presence was essential in the second sophistic,67 and even
highly prized by Cicero.68 One could hardly maintain an impressive
physique in the midst of these hardships, and Pauls broken body is
part of his cruciform testimony (2 Cor 11:30).69
PAUL THE UNTRAINED IDIOT OF TARSUS, AND CICEROWe have suggested
above that Paul was likely trained in rhetoric, and influenced by
Cicero, a suggestion that has found some support in the
literature,70 but with little rationale. There is however, a
plausible reconstruction that would account for this relationship
and go some way to explaining Pauls reception in Corinth, his
response, and his understanding of his presentation of the gospel.
Paul was a Roman citizen from the city of Tarsus, the capital of
the province of Cilicia (Acts 21:39), which was, according to
Strabos Geography, an educational centre famed for its schools of
rhetoric.71 Citizenship in Tarsus did not come cheaply, and though
Paul was born a citizen, and did notV.H.T Nguyen, Christian
Identity in Corinth, 148 B.W Winter, Paul and Philo, 222, suggests
Pauls unimpressive bodily presence all but guaranteed his failure
as an orator 68 Cicero, De Oratore, I.LXXXIV.342-344, though for
Cicero, such a quality is desirable but not praiseworthy, it was
only in wise management of such gifts of fortune that one could be
considered virtuous, also I.XXV.115, Clear speech, and a
cultivated, non-rustic appearance were also important. 69 Or, as J.
Murphy-OConnor, Theology of Second Letter to the Corinthians, 100,
suggests, Paul embodies his ministry. 70 so, for example, J.
Patrick, Insights from Cicero on Pauls Reasoning in 1 Corinthians
12-14: Love sandwich or five course meal? Tyndale Bulletin, 55.1,
(2004), 43-64, 63-64, suggests that Pauls argumentation in 1
Corinthians can be loosely conformed to Ciceros guidelines for
correct rhetorical speech, L.L Welborn, Pauls Appeal to the
Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1.12.13,7.5-16, Journal for the Study of
the New Testament, 82, 2001, 21-60, 33-34, 40-45, 57-59 suggests
Pauls use of emotive language and mentions of his own emotional
state as a rhetorical tool is influenced by Cicero, L.L Welborn,
The Identification of 2 Corinthians 10-13 with the Letter of Tears,
148-149, treats 2 Cor 1-7 as a conciliatory letter based on
comparisons with extant letters of Ciceros.B.J Tucker, The role of
civic identity on the Pauline mission in Corinth, 86-87, cites
Cicero, De Finibus, 3.35, as a similar example where vice lists are
included in attempts to change behaviour through shame ala 1 Cor
6:5-11, D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a complex rhetorical
situation: Pauls strategy in 2 Corinthians 1 through 7,Andrews
University Seminary Studies, Spring 1996, Vol. 34, No. 1, 522, 6,
14, suggests Paul writes to secure the goodwill of his audience in
the style put forward by Cicero. 71 Strabo, Geography, Further, the
city of Tarsus has all kinds of schools of rhetoric; and in general
it not only has a flourishing population but also is most powerful,
thus keeping up the reputation of the mother-city.67 66
11 201017867
purchase citizenship (Acts 22:28), it is plausible, on the basis
of the picture Dio Chrysostom paints of residents of Tarsus
purchasing their citizenship for five hundred drachmas,72 that Paul
is either the son of wealthy new citizens, or the an established
family in a wealthy city, so it is likely he had access to the best
education the city could offer,73 which included the study of
rhetoric in one of Tarsus famous schools,74 and, as was the custom
of learners from Tarsus, he left the city to pursue public life as
a Jew, and to further his education under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).75
Cicero published De Oratore in 55 BC.76 Four years later he was
appointed as promagister of Cilicia, where he lived for a year,
probably in Tarsus.77 De Oratore featured another former proconsul
of Cilicia, Marcus Antonius, as an interlocutor, and it is easy to
imagine that the schools of rhetoric in Tarsus were heavily
influenced by the thoughts of the citys famously influential
governor.78 It is our contention that Ciceros works on rhetoric
became popular in the citys schools thanks to this relationship
with the city and his reputation as an orator, and that Paul was
trained with Ciceros work as his rhetorical handbook.79 Ciceros
emphasis on combining rhetorical training with a broad knowledge,80
may account for Pauls ready ability to quote ancient poets during
his Areopagus address (Acts 17:28). Pauls apparent ease before an
audience before conversion (Acts 7-8), immediately afterwards (Acts
9:29), and before councils (Acts 23:1-9), governors (Acts 24,
25:1-12), and
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 34.23, Loeb Classic Library, 1940,
retrieved online 9 May 2012,
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/34*.
html 73 J. Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A Critical Life, (Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1996), 46, 49, according to Philo, diasporan Jews
took full advantage of learning in Greek Gymnasiums. 74 J.
Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A Critical Life, 50-52, suggests Paul was
likely a master of rhetoric, and that it was deeply ingrained in
him on the back of practice and study. C. Mihaila, The Paul-Apollos
Relationship And Pauls Stance Toward Graeco-Roman Rhetoric,
(London, T&T Clark, 2009), 128 75 J. Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A
Critical Life, 46,52-53, Strabo, Geography, But it is so different
from other cities that there the men who are fond of learning, are
all natives, and foreigners are not inclined to sojourn there;
neither do these natives stay there, but they complete their
education abroad; and when they have completed it they are pleased
to live abroad, and but few go back home 76 W. Englert, The
Philosophy of Cicero, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and
Rome, Ed. M. Gagarin, E. Fantham, (Oxford, Oxford University Press,
2010), 137 77 W. Englert, The Philosophy of Cicero, 138 78 J.
Patrick, Insights from Cicero on Pauls Reasoning in 1 Corinthians
12-14: Love sandwich or five course meal? Tyndale Bulletin, 55.1,
(2004), 43-64, 48-50, suggests it is likely that Paul came across
De Oratore either in Tarsus or Jerusalsm. 79 J. Patrick, Insights
from Cicero on Pauls Reasoning in 1 Corinthians 12-14, 48-49 80 W.
Englert, The Philosophy of Cicero, 137
72
12 201017867
kings (Acts 25:13-26:32), would support this theory.81 His
weighty letters would seem to indicate rhetorical prowess.82
Further examples of Pauls use of terms that can be traced to Cicero
include his description of his weak entrance (1 Cor 2:3), his
exhortations regarding imitation (1 Cor 11:1), his promise to
demolish arguments, and, importantly in the context of 2
Corinthians 10-13, his emphasis on knowledge and ethos.SIMILARITIES
IN PRESENTATION
For Cicero, in certain circumstances, presenting in weakness,
trembling, and shame, is a sign that a speaker takes his message
seriously. Those who do not present this way are worthy of
rebuke,83 while modesty is viewed as a testimony to integrity.84 To
be truly convincing, the speaker must truly believe in, and care
about his subject.85 This may have informed Pauls anti-sophistic
presentation in Corinth (1 Cor 2:3), which is framed in terminology
used of orators,86 and self-described as weakness, presented with
fear and trembling.SIMILARITIES IN ORATORY PHILOSOPHY
The churchs conformity to the popular practice of mimicking ones
adopted teacher formed part of Pauls rebuke in 1 Corinthians.87
Cicero, like Paul, urges his readers to select their models
carefully,88 imitate the most excellent
B.W Winter, Paul and Philo, 225-227 F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric
and Pauls Apology, 181, contra P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to
the Corinthians, 18 who suggests rhetorical structure was so
popular any first century citizen could pick it up. 83 Cicero, De
Oratore, 1.XXVI.120-121 84 Cicero, De Oratore, 1.XXVI.122, For
there was a marvellous kind of modesty about Crassus, though this
was so far from being any disadvantage to his oratory, as
positively to help it, by bearing witness to his integrity For the
better the orator, the more profoundly is he frightened of the
difficulty of speaking, and of the doubtful fate of a speech, and
of the anticipations of an audience While as for him who is
un-ashamed as I see is the case with most speakers, I hold him
deserving not merely of reprimand, but of punishment as well.
Assuredly, just as I generally perceive it to happen to yourselves,
so I very often prove it in my own experience, that I turn pale at
the outset of a speech, and quake in every limb and in all my soul.
85 Cicero, De Oratore, II.XLV.189-190, I give you my word that I
never tried, by means of a speech, to arouse either indignation or
compassion, either ill-will or hatred, in the minds of a tribunal,
without being really stirred myself, as I worked upon their minds,
by the very feelings to which I was seeking to prompt them. See
also, Cicero, 86 B.W Winter, Paul and Philo, 163 87 B.W Winter,
After Paul Left Corinth, 36-39 88 Cicero, De Optimo Genere Oratoum,
III, Translated C.D Yonge, retrieved online 7 May 2012,
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/cicero-best-style.htm82
81
13 201017867
qualities rather than the superficial style of their teachers.89
For Cicero, somewhat presciently given the development of the
second sophistic, the passing of generations of orators, and the
trend of imitating the superficial, was leading to the bankruptcy
of oratory.90 His proposed solution was for the student to read
widely and model themselves on as many orators as possible,
especially those who speak plainly,91 something Paul also values (2
Cor 1:13, 4:1-2). Paul has also suggested the Corinthians should
choose their model for imitation carefully (1 Cor 11:1). Both Paul
(2 Cor 10:2-6) and Cicero speak of argument in the military
language of demolition.92 Paul responds to the "#%&' charge by
pointing to his knowledge. Cicero pre-emptively rejected the
central principle of the second sophistic, that an orator could get
by with eloquence but not knowledge.93 While considering eloquent
presentation important,94 Cicero taught that eloquence without
wisdom is most mischievous and never of advantage,95 that virtuous
character is also more important,96 and that without the fetters of
duty and virtue, it could overturn cities and undermine the
principles of human life.97 He is equally concerned about the
importance of the orators character in writtenCicero, De Oratore,
II.XXII.90-92, For nothing is easier than to imitate a man*s style
of dress, pose or gait. Moreover, if there is a fault, it is not
much trouble to appropriate that and to copy it ostentatiously he
did not know how to choose the model whom he would most willingly
resemble, and it was positively the faults in his chosen pattern
that he elected to copy. But he who is to proceed aright must first
be watchful in making his choice, and afterwards extremely careful
in striving to attain the most excellent qualities of the model he
has approved... he speaks again about the importance of imitating
people of substance in Cicero, De Optimo Genere Oratoum, III,
Translated C.D Yonge, retrieved online 7 May 2012,
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/cicero-best-style.htm 90
Cicero, De Oratore, II.XXII. 94-95, Afterwards, when these men were
dead and all remembrance of them gradually grew dim and then
vanished away, certain other less spirited and lazier styles of
speaking flourished. 91 Cicero, De Optimo Genere Oratoum, III 92
Cicero, De Oratore, 1.XXXI.143 93 Cicero, De Oratore, II.II.6, Yet
I maintain that such eloquence as Crassus and Antonius attained
could never have been realized without a knowledge of every matter.
94 Cicero, De Oratore, I.XXV.115, but there are same men either so
tonguetied, or so discordant in tone, or so wild and boorish in
feature and gesture, that, even though sound in talent and in art,
they yet cannot enter the ranks of the orators. 95 Cicero, De
Inventione, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, I.1, (London,
George Bell and Sons, 1888), Trans. C.D Yonge, retrieved online 7
May 2012, http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/dnvindex.htm,
though holding that wisdom without eloquence was of little
advantage. 96 Cicero, De Oratore, II.XLIII.182-184, Now feelings
are won over by a man's merit, achievements or reputable life,
qualifications easier to embellish, if only they are real, than to
fabricate where nonexistent... Moreover so much is done by good
taste and style in speaking, that the speech seems to depict the
speaker's character. For by means of particular types of thought
and diction, and the employment besides of a delivery that is
unruffled and eloquent of good-nature, the speakers are made to
appear upright, well-bred and virtuous men. 97 Cicero, De
Inventione, 1.I89
14 201017867
rhetoric.98 In a broader rejection of the principles of the
second sophistic, Cicero was critical of the Greek tendency to
trivialise oratory as a trifling amusement.99 He sought to avoid
artifice for the sake of plausibility,100 because great oratorical
ability required proportionally great integrity.101 Ciceros
definitions of virtues are quite different to those advocated by
the Corinthian elite. One cannot be praised for wealth, looks, or
the gifts of fortune, but rather how one employs such gifts,102
which provided opportunities for beneficence and temperance, rather
than pride.103 If one accepts that part of Pauls purpose in 1 and 2
Corinthians is upending the principle that status and power are
virtuous,104 then he finds an ally in Cicero.
PAUL, CICERO, AND THE RHETORICAL UNITY OF 2 CORINTHIANSIf this
link can be established then one might also argue that Paul is
consciously employing rhetoric in 2 Corinthians without being
inconsistent. While Cicero advocates a neat though unscientific
structure of argument,105 closely modelled on the Aristotelian
form, he suggests this structure is up for grabs, and can be
adapted situationally.106 Securing the sympathy of the audience in
the introduction is of paramount importance in Ciceronian
rhetoric.107 The case shouldnt be stated, or narrated,
Cicero, De Inventione, 2.XL Cicero, De Oratore, II.V.21 100
Cicero, De Oratore, II.XXXVI.163, I always considered that a
speaker would be more pleasing and acceptable to a nation like ours
if he were to show, first, as little trace as possible of any
artifice, and secondly none whatever of things Greek. 101 D.J
Kapust, Acting the Princely Style, 605, cites Cicero, De Oratore,
III.LV, For if we put the full resources of speech at the disposal
of those who lack these virtues, we will certainly not make orators
of them, but will put weapons into the hands of madmen 102 Cicero,
De Oratore, II.LXXXIV.342-344 103 Cicero, De Oratore,
LXXXIV.342-344 104 As argued by P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, 403
105 Cicero, De Oratore, II.XIX.83 106 D.J Kapust, Acting the
Princely Style: Ethos and Pathos in Ciceros On the Ideal Orator and
Machiavellis The Prince, Political Studies, 58, (2010), 590-608,
596, In On the Ideal Orator, then, we see that the skilled orator
seeks to portray himself as embodying particular qualities in order
to seem credible. In addition, the orator tries to arouse
particular emotional responses from his audience, depending on the
context in which he finds himself and, crucially, on the beliefs of
his audience. 107 Cicero, De Oratore, II.LXXVII.313-
II.LXXVIII.321, the goal of the exordium is to secure the goodwill
and compassion of the audience via a statement of the whole of the
matter and a demonstration of character, Cicero, De Inventione,
1.XVI, Goodwill can be established through four topics: the
individuals character, or the character of the accusers, the judge,
or the99
98
15 201017867
at the outset,108 but the audience should be engaged,109 with
the precise point of issue must be envisaged.110 The winning of
love,111 and securing of the audiences compassion, and emotions,112
are vital to success, and must be built up to, rather than expected
from the outset.113 Compassion can be secured through descriptions
of adversity and ones adversaries.114 If one has become unpopular
as a result of harsh words, or personal dislike that arises from
slander, this can be addressed by reproof, admonition, a promise
that if one is heard out the other will agree, or an apologia115
These principles of rhetoric, drawn from Cicero, are of particular
relevance to Pauls argument in 2 Corinthians, and his methodology,
speaking to the unity of the letter by explaining away certain
objections. Some use the identification of a sharp change in tone
between chapters 1-9 and 10-13 as evidence of multiple sources,116
others suggest Paul received further bad news from
audience. Refuting charges and demonstrating the damage caused
by an accuser who acts with malicious intent will serve these
purposes. 108 Cicero, De Oratore, II.LXXXI.330, Cicero, De
Inventione, 1.XX 109 Cicero, De Oratore, II.LXXX.326 110 Cicero, De
Oratore, II.LXXXI.331 111 Cicero, De Oratore, II.L.206-207, Now,
since the emotions which eloquence has to excite in the minds of
the tribunal, or whatever other audience we may be addressing, are
most commonly love, hate, wrath, jealousy, compassion, hope, joy,
fear or vexation, we observe that love is won if you are thought to
be upholding the interests of your audience, or to be working for
good men, or at any rate for such as that audience deems good and
useful. For this last impression more readily wins love, and the
protection of the righteous esteem ; and the holding-out of a hope
of advantage to come is more effective than the recital of past
benefit. You must struggle to reveal the presence, in the cause you
are upholding, of some merit or usefulness, and to make it plain
that the man, for whom you are to win this love, in no respect
consulted his own interests and did nothing at all from personal
motives. For men's private gains breed jealousy, while their zeal
for others' service is applauded. 112 Cicero, De Oratore,
II.XLIX.200-202, what an opening you made! How nervous, how
irresolute you seemed! How stammering and halting was your
delivery. 113 Cicero, De Oratore, II.LIII.213-214 114 Cicero, De
Oratore, II.LII.211, Lastly compassion is awakened if the appeals
to the hearer can be brought to apply to his own adversities,
compassion whether endured or only apprehended, the lamentations
uttered over someone else, or if, in his contemplation of another's
case, he many a time goes back to his own experience. Thus, while
particular occasions of human distress are deeply felt, if
described in moving terms, the dejection and ruin of the righteous
are especially lamentable. And, just as that other kind of style,
which by bearing witness to the speakers integrity is to preserve
the semblance of a man of worth, should be mild and gentle (as I
have repeatedly said already), so this kind, assumed by the speaker
in order to transform men's feelings or influence them in any
desired way, should be spirited and emotional. 115 Cicero, De
Oratore, II.LXXXIII.338-340, also in no other place is there more
to be gained by using facetious turns and a rapid style and
epigrammatic remarks expressed in a dignified and attractive way
116 J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second Letter to the
Corinthians, 10-11, suggests it is psychologically impossible to
switch tones like Paul did in a coherent presentation. Most see two
letters, D.G Horrell, and E. Adams, Christianity at Corinth, 12,
though some see as many as five, This assumption is exegetically,
rhetorically, and socio-historically unnecessary
16 201017867
Corinth mid-writing, which caused the dramatic change of tone,
these explanations are tenuous.117 It has also been suggested that
the change in tone is the result of Paul moving into the next stage
of a formal forensic apology, where 2 Cor 10-13 represents the
peroration.118 There is some strength to this approach,
particularly due to Pauls description of the exercise as an
apologia (2 Cor 12:19), though the similarities are not exact.119
Pauls change in tone also follows a particular rhetorical
convention.120 While the similarity between Pauls writing and
rhetorical form is inexact, enough parallels within the letter have
been identified through rhetorical analysis for the approach to
have some merit.121 The inexact nature of the comparison leads us
to conclude that while Paul loosely follows the forms of rhetoric
described by Cicero,122 he closely and consciously follows his
principles of rhetorical practice throughout the work.123 His
response to the issues in Corinth is situationallyand untenable,
So, for example, the argument in L.L Welborn, The Identification of
2 Corinthians 10-13 with the Letter of Tears, 148-153, posits a
reconstruction based on the assumption that a conciliatory letter
which avoided naming names and detailing issues could not sit
easily alongside a letter of rebuke which dealt specifically with
the issue, Welborns reconstruction is an exegetical convenience,
that splits 2 Corinthians into an anthology of letters with no
sense of internal chronology, and, pace D.A DeSilva, Meeting the
exigency of a complex rhetorical situation, 9 posits an editor who
has no real sense of why he sticks a series of letters together.
117 J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second Letter to the
Corinthians, 11-12, and others, support this version of events.
However, if this were the case one must convincingly account for
Pauls decision not to trash what he had previously written in
favour of a completely new missive, on the problems with this
approach see P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 23
118 F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Pauls Apology, 6, a conclusion
supported by P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2,
18, B. Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 338 119
J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second Letter to the Corinthians,
11, dismisses rhetorical reconstructions that operate using any
form other than epistle 120 B. Witherington III, Conflict and
Community in Corinth, 350-351, 431, F.J Long, Ancient Rhetoric and
Pauls Apology, 1-2 121 So, D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a
complex rhetorical situation: Pauls strategy in 2 Corinthians 1
through 7, 6-8, B. Witherington III, Conflict and Community in
Corinth, 333-339, suggests the book takes the form of a quasi-legal
defense, D. Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as exiles in Pauline
Hermeneutics, (Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 61, suggests 1-7
are an apologia for Pauls sufferings written in the context of an
attack on his ministry, M.A Jennings, Patronage and Rebuke in Pauls
Persuasion in 2 Corinthians 8-9, Journal of GrecoRoman Christianity
and Judaism, 6.5, (2009), 107-127, 114, 123, agrees and suggests
Paul presents as a patron in 8-9, after establishing that the
Corinthians relationship with God depends on a continued
relationship with Paul as their apostle. Alternatively, some see
1-9 as a cohesive rhetorical unit that lays the foundation for
Pauls polemic in 10-13. 122 The loose application of rhetorical
models then explains the number of different structures suggested
by, for example, B. Witheringon III, Conflict and Community in
Corinth, 333-339, D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a complex
rhetorical situation, 11, and others, who find perorations in
various locations, and a number of interlocking arguments. 123 So,
for example, D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a complex
rhetorical situation, 14, suggests Paul opens with a Ciceronian
captatio benevolentiae, while L.L Welborn, Pauls Appeal to the
Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1.1-2.13,7.5-16, 21-60, identifies
moments where Paul deliberately displays and appeals to
emotion.
17 201017867
driven. First, he understands how the work will be received and
read in the church, so writes to his entire audience,124 secondly,
the content addresses the issues raised with the strategies
advanced by Cicero. His argument, in 1-9, which is repeated and
intensified in 10-13, includes a demonstration of his character (2
Cor 1, 3-5), employing emotional appeals and descriptions of his
own emotions (2 Cor 1-2, 7), showing the damage caused by his
opponents and their unfounded accusations (2 Cor 2:1-5), in a
manner fitting the situation.125
CONCLUSION: WHERE PAUL AND CICERO PART WAYSIn Cicero, Paul has
found the perfect foil for the sophistry operating at the heart of
life in Corinth. Ciceros emphasis on substance, virtue, and
integrity, marshalled for the sake of plausibility, provides Paul
with a praxis that can be readily adapted to gospel ministry. If
our proposed background is correct, it seems plausible that Pauls
single letter, to be read in all the churches in the region (2 Cor
1:1), as a plea for unity (2 Cor 13:11),126 would address Pauls
supporters, the factions, his opponents, and his rivals directly.
His approach is situation driven, and his apology centres on the
sacrificial nature of the gospel. His appeal is based on his own
demonstration of the message of Jesus in his teaching, but more
importantly, in his life. Paul departs from Cicero as he uses
rhetoric for weakness, while Cicero advocated its use to secure
power.127 In De Oratore, Cicero provided a handbook for seeming
credible,128 in 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul demonstrates his
credibility with the scars he bears.
D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a complex rhetorical
situation, 7-8, it was a rhetorical dictum that letters should be
written as dialogues, and suit the situation.125126
124
P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 17, suggests
the letter has been written to be read aloud. 127 On Ciceros use of
oratory as a means of gaining and holding power, see D.J Kapust,
Acting the Princely Style, 593-596 128 D.J Kapust, Acting the
Princely Style, 596
Namely, his relationship with the church, and hope for
reconciliation.
18 201017867
BIBLIOGRAPHYCicero, De Oratore, Electronic Copy, retrieved
online, 5 May 2012,
http://archive.org/details/cicerodeoratore01ciceuoft Cicero, De
Inventione, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, (London, George
Bell and Sons, 1888), Trans. C.D Yonge, retrieved online 7 May
2012, http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/dnvindex.htm Cicero,
De Optimo Genere Oratoum, Translated C.D Yonge, retrieved online 7
May 2012,
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/cicero/cicero-beststyle.htm Dio
Chrysostom, Discourses, 34, Loeb Classic Library, 1940, retrieved
online 9 May 2012,
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/
Discourses/34*.html Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, (London,
Harvard University Press, 1924), retrieved online, 7 May 2012,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Strab.+14.5.13&fromdoc=P
erseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198 D.L Akin, Triumphalism, Suffering, and
Spiritual Maturity: An exposition of 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 in its
Literal, Theological, and Historical Context, Criswell Theological
Review, 4.1, (1989), 119-144 J.W Barrier, Visions of weakness:
apocalyptic genre and the identification of Paul's opponents in 2
Corinthians 12:1-6, Restoration Quarterly, 47.1, 2005, 3342 P.
Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International
Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997) A.D
Clarke, Secular & Christian Leadership in Corinth: A
Socio-Historical & Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 6,
(Leiden, Brill, 1993) D.A DeSilva, Meeting the exigency of a
complex rhetorical situation: Pauls strategy in 2 Corinthians 1
through 7,Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 1996, Vol.
34, No. 1, 5-22 Justice A.R Emmett, Hermogenes of Tarsus:
Rhetorical Bridge from the Ancient to the Modern World,
Rediscovering Rhetoric: Law, Language, and the Practice of
Persuasion, Ed. J.T Gleeson, R.C.A Higgins, (Sydney, The Federation
Press, 2008)
19 201017867
W. Englert, The Philosophy of Cicero, The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Ancient Greece and Rome, Ed. M. Gagarin, E. Fantham, (Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2010) R.G Fellows, Was Titus Timothy?
Journal for the Study of New Testament, 81, (2001), 33-58 S.J
Friesen, The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis,
Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society,
Ed. S.J Friesen, D.N. Schowalter, J.C. Walters, (Leiden, Brill,
2010), 231-256 M.D Given, Pauls True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning
and Deception in Greece and Rome, (Harrisburg, Trinity
International, 2001) J.T Gleeson, Ciceros De Oratore, Pro Milone,
and the Philippics character, argument and emotion, Rediscovering
Rhetoric: Law, Language, and the Practice of Persuasion, Ed. J.T
Gleeson, R.C.A Higgins, (Sydney, The Federation Press, 2008) J.
Harrison, Pauls House Churches and the Cultic Associations, The
Reformed Theological Review, 58.1, (April 1999), 31-47 J.R
Harrison, The brothers as the "glory of Christ" (2 Cor 8:23):
Paul's doxa terminology in its ancient benefaction context, Novum
testamentum 52.2 2010, 156-188 I. Henderson, The Second Sophistic
and Non Elite Speakers, Perceptions of the Second Sophistic and its
Times, ed. T. Schmidt and P. Fleury, (Toronto, University of
Toronto Press, 2011). J.B Hood, The temple and the thorn: 2
Corinthians 12 and Paul's heavenly ecclesiology, Bulletin for
Biblical Research, 21 no 3 2011, 357-370 D.G Horrell, and E. Adams,
Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church,
(Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2004) M.A Jennings,
Patronage and Rebuke in Pauls Persuasion in 2 Corinthians 89,
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 6.5, (2009),
107-127 E.A Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in
the First Century, Social Distinctives of the Christians in the
First Century. Pivotal essays by E. A. Judge, ed. D.M. Scholer,
(Massachusetts, Hendrickson, 2008) E.A Judge, The social pattern of
the Christian groups in the first century: some prolegomena to the
study of New Testament ideas of social obligation, (London, Tyndale
Press, 1960)
20 201017867
D.J Kapust, Acting the Princely Style: Ethos and Pathos in
Ciceros On the Ideal Orator and Machiavellis The Prince, Political
Studies, 58, (2010), 590-608 C.G Kruse, The Relationship between
the Opposition to Paul Reflected in 2 Corinthians 1-7 and 10-13,
Evangelical Quarterly, 61.3, (1989), 195-202 F.J Long, Ancient
Rhetoric and Pauls Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2
Corinthians, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004) P.
Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations
with the Corinthians, (Tubingen, Mohrs Siebeck, 1987) C. Mihaila,
The Paul-Apollos Relationship And Pauls Stance Toward GraecoRoman
Rhetoric, (London, T&T Clark, 2009) J. Murphy OConnor, St Pauls
Corinth: Text and Archaeology, (Wilmington, M. Glazier Liturgical
Press, 1983), 2002 reprint J. Murphy-O'Connor, Theology of Second
Letter to the Corinthians, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1991) J. Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A Critical Life, (Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1996) V.H.T Nguyen, Christian Identity in
Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, (Tubingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2008) J. Patrick, Insights from Cicero on Pauls Reasoning
in 1 Corinthians 12-14: Love sandwich or five course meal? Tyndale
Bulletin, 55.1, (2004), 43-64 C.J Roetzel, The language of war (2
Cor. 10:1-6) and the language of weakness (2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10),
Biblical Interpretation, 17 no 1-2 2009, 77-99 D. Starling, Not My
People: Gentiles as exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, (Berlin, Walter
de Gruyter, 2011) B.J Tucker, The role of civic identity on the
Pauline mission in Corinth, Didaskalia, Winter 2008, 71-91 L.L
Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the Wrongdoer of Second
Corinthians, (Berlin, Walter De Gruyter, 2011) L.L Welborn, Pauls
Caricature of His Chief Rival as a Pompous Parasite in 2
Corinthians 11.20, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 32.1
(2009), 39-56 L.L Welborn, The Runaway Paul, Harvard Theological
Review, 92.2, (1999), 115-163
21 201017867
L.L Welborn, The Identification of 2 Corinthians 10-13 with the
Letter of Tears, Novum testamentum, 37.2 April (1995), 138-153 L.L
Welborn, On the Discord in Corinth, 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient
Politics, Journal of Biblical Literature, 106.1, (1987), 85-111 L.L
Welborn, Pauls Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corinthians
1.1-2.13,7.5-16, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 82,
2001, 21-60 B.W Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists, (Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997), 2002 Edition B.W Winter, After Paul Left
Corinth, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001) B. Witherington III,
Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on
1 and 2 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1995)
22 201017867