I am continuing the topic of March 2020, when I looked at the rhetorical structure of 1 Corinthians. With Ben Witherington’s help, I now put the spotlight of rhetorical criticism (or analysis) on Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. The result is a real surprise that I want to share with you.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
Three Types of Rhetoric
First, a quick review. It is common to discern three types of ancient rhetoric, each with a different purpose:
Deliberative rhetoric: the art of persuading people to commit to a course of action or to embrace certain beliefs. Arguments are used to show which path is best, that is, what is most beneficial and what is most honourable. Both Romans and 1 Corinthians are clear examples of this type.
Forensic or judicial rhetoric: the use of rhetoric to discuss, explain, and defend past action. This form is used in legal proceedings taking place in a court of law. The focus is on the past: what happened and how can it be explained?
Epideictic rhetoric: the rhetoric of praise or blame. It is used to commemorate or celebrate; it serves to reiterate virtues and values.
I find it easy to think of examples of deliberative rhetoric in the Bible; for obvious reasons (Paul and other NT writers seek to persuade people), this type predominates. Only in some speeches in the book of Acts had I recognized the forensic type. This is where the surprise came in: with 2 Corinthians, we have “an example of forensic or judicial rhetoric” (Witherington 1995: 333).
It made so much sense, that my immediate response reading this was: “Of course!” (After all, 2 Corinthians is very much a personal defence by Paul). However, it had not occurred to me before, although it is important for correct interpretation. As we will see, this type of rhetoric comes with its own set of rules. Looking at 2 Corinthians through the lens of forensic rhetoric will help us to make better sense of its structure. After all, at first (and at second) sight, the letter looks confusing, so we need all the help there is.
The Confusing Structure of 2 Corinthians
Paul starts off with an explosion of relief, then writes about his travel plans and a particularly severe and painful letter (2 Cor. 2:1-4), one that has not been preserved. He breaks this off at the end of 2 Corinthians 2:13 to present a long defence of his ministry, starting in 2 Corinthians 3:1. He returns to his previous letter and travels in 2 Corinthians 7:2-16, but only after another, much shorter digression with an urgent appeal against associating with idolaters (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).
This is followed by another digression, on the collection for the church in Jerusalem, in 2 Corinthians 8-9. Paul’s argumentation finishes with a stinging attack on certain false apostles in 2 Corinthians 10 and following. It is probably the most sarcastic piece of writing anywhere in the Bible. The sharp tone of this section stands in obvious contrast to the far more conciliatory, at times even joyful tone in the earlier part of the letter.
What are we to make of this? Was Paul in a hurry? Did he fail to consider how to clearly (and orderly!) present his thoughts?
A Rhetorical Analysis of the Structure
No. The rhetorical structure presented by Witherington (1995: 335f and expounded throughout his commentary) helps us to make sense of the structure. In summary:
- Exordium (introduction): 2 Corinthians 1:3-7
- Narratio (background or statement of the facts): 2 Corinthians 1:8-2:14
- Propositio (thesis): 2 Corinthians 2:17
- Probatio (arguments): 2 Corinthians 3:1-13:4
- Peroratio (conclusion or closing argument): 2 Corinthians 13:5-10
In what follows, I will look at this in more detail.
Preliminary Matters (Exordium, Narratio)
In judicial rhetoric, the exordium is directed to the judge. In 2 Corinthians, this is God. An important aim is to establish rapport with and gain the goodwill of the broader audience, here the Corinthian church (we may assume Paul already has the goodwill of God!). This explains the exuberant and appreciative tone of the introductory paragraph.
“In the narratio the rhetoric was to state the facts of the case that were at issue or the main questions under debate” (Witherington 1995: 360); in defensive rhetoric, this had to include “reasons and motives for what the defendant was being accused of doing … [and ] give some explanation for the behaviour in question” (ibid.: 361). Because it is used to defend past actions, the forensic narratio tends to be much longer than the one in deliberative rhetoric. Paul uses it to explain why his travel plans kept changing and to clarify his motives behind the severe letter.
The Propositio: The Indictment against Paul
In a piece of forensic rhetoric, the propositio is the statement to be proved true or false by the arguments that follow in the discourse. It is thus a statement about past behaviour (whether words or deeds or both) about which some sort of charge has been made. It summarizes the main bone of contention and thus gives an indication of how the defendant will handle the charge. (Witherington 1995: 371).
In 2 Corinthians, the main charge against Paul is that he is not a true apostle, as will become increasingly clear in 2 Corinthians 10-12. Other things held against him (his changing travel plans and the severe letter) are relatively minor compared to this. Paul, so the charge, is using apostleship as a guise to channel funds his way (by means of the collection). Presumably, if he were a true apostle, he would not hesitate to accept patronage from those in the Corinthian church with financial means.
In his defence, Paul sets out to prove this propositio:
For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.
2 Cor. 2:17 ESV
The image is a powerful one: peddlers of God’s word. A peddler is someone who goes door to door to sell things. It often carries a negative connotation: the goods may be inferior, and the salesperson is of dubious character. Paul denies the charge that he is merely seeking to extract some money through a pretended ministry, and he asserts both his calling (“commissioned by God”) and his integrity (“men of sincerity”).
He also provides an indication as to how he will seek to defend himself (so Witherington 1995: 429). “Like so many” – there are those who indeed peddle God’s word, debasing it to a commodity and a means to make money. Paul will use the classic rhetorical tool of synkrisis: he will compare his ministry with that of his opponents.
Probatio I: Paul’s Defence of His Character
In a legal defence, arguments include witnesses (cf. God in 2 Corinthians 1:23) and contracts and other formal agreements (cf. the letter of recommendation in 2 Corinthians 3:1-4). Of overriding importance is to establish one’s ethos or moral character. Clearly, this is precisely what Paul is doing throughout much of the letter.
There is a digression in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. This passage is deliberative: Paul seeks to persuade the Corinthians to finally distance themselves from idolatrous meals in the temples (the same problem he dealt with in 1 Corinthians 8-10; apparently, some were still attending these banquets). At the same time, this passage also serves as part of his defence:
This passage shows Paul going on the attack, though in a deliberative mode, and as such it serves his larger goals in this discourse of defending his own integrity and that of his work in Corinth, with hopes of a full rapprochement with his converts. (Witherington 1995: 406)
In 2 Corinthians 7:2-16, Paul returns to narratio and completes his explanation for the change in travel plans and of his motives in the severe letter.
In 2 Corinthians 8-9, Paul again switches to deliberative rhetoric, seeking to move the Corinthians to get serious about the collection for the church in Jerusalem. At the same time, it serves his defence, as Paul shows how impeccably he deals with the money involved.
Probatio II: The Change in Tone
We now come to the sharp change in tone in the final part of the probatio. The change is so striking that some interpreters think Paul received news from Corinth between the writing of Chapter 9 and 10, informing him that the situation was far more critical than he had been thinking. This is unlikely, seeing there are clear hints and indications in the first nine chapters that the issues between Paul and Corinth are far from resolved. Instead, by changing his tone and moving to the attack Paul is following widely accepted strategic principles of his age in legal rhetoric.
Ethos (character) and pathos (emotion) were both considered important elements in a legal discourse but not at the same stage. Especially in a sensitive case, one would start with ethos in order to win over the audience, reduce hostility, and discredit opponents indirectly; the aim was goodwill. Toward the end, opponents would be attacked directly and with strong pathos. Less significant or controversial issues could be dealt with in the early stages of the discourse. One would wait with the main or real controversy or deal with it in less direct ways until the final stage:
Because Paul is dealing with a complex and interlocking set of problems, he must follow the procedure known as insinuatio, the indirect approach. In this rhetorical move one only alludes to the major issue that is under dispute in the early stages of the rhetorical discourse, reserving the real discussion of the major bone of contention for the end of the discourse, where it is attacked, using much pathos, in a more direct fashion … The closing stages of one’s forensic argument must include both praise and defence of one’s self and blame of one’s opponent – precisely what one finds in 2 Corinthians 10-13. (Witherington 1995: 429; for information on the order of forensic rhetoric, see also ibid.: 356f).
As noted, the propositio leads us to expect a synkrisis at some point, between Paul and those who truly are peddlers of God’s word. Paul first presents a positive comparison, with Moses, in Chapter 3. A more extensive synkrisis follows in Chapter 10-12, contrasting Paul and the false apostles, with plenty of strong emotion. At this point, he attacks his opponents, the false apostles, directly, whereas in Chapter 1-7, his references to them are indirect. In Witherington’s words:
What has been simmering on the back burner in chs. 1-9 is brought to a roaring boil in chs. 10-13. Up to this point a major focus has been on the Corinthians themselves; now Paul takes on his opponents almost head-on, which partly explains the change in tenor in the letter here. (Witherington 1995: 431)
There is more to this section and to Paul’s rhetorical strategy in 2 Corinthians. This includes Paul’s use of a ‘fool’s speech’ and numerous other rhetorical ‘tricks’ he uses in Chapter 10-12; there is much more involved than I can cover in this text. Ironically, and contrary to the opinion the Corinthians have of Paul, he shows himself to be a master rhetorician.
Peroratio: The Final Bang
At the end of a discourse stands the peroratio or conclusion. The final plea could be rational or emotional. Here, in 2 Corinthians 13:5-10, it is full of emotion. The irony continues: the Corinthians had put Paul on trial; they had been putting him to the test. Paul turns the tables on them: Examine yourselves and test yourselves (2 Cor 13:5)! This way, he puts them on the defensive (Witherington 1995: 471f). It is not about him; he couldn’t care less about his reputation. But he does care about them, and therefore he cannot be passive.
In the resulting defence, Paul gives us the gold standard of integrity in ministry.
Attribution
Miriams-Fotos <https://pixabay.com/photos/boiling-over-of-milk-ceramic-hob-2474181/> CC0
WilliamCho <https://pixabay.com/photos/justice-statue-lady-justice-2060093/> CC0
IanZA <https://pixabay.com/photos/lioness-close-eyes-portrait-blood-2815461/> CC0
References
All Bible quotations from: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles)
Witherington, Ben. 1995. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI : Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans ; Paternoster Press)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.