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