|
The
Relationship between 2 Corinthians 8 and 9
Prof.
Kota Yamada
The relation between 2 Cor. chs. 8 and 9 has been classified into four types. (1) Identifying chs. 8 and 9 with the letter of chs. 1-7 (Plummer, Barrett, Furnish), (2) Identifying ch. 8 with the letter of chs. 1-7 (Semler, Windish, Martin, Thrall; Nickle, Lang, Hering, Verbrugge; Bultmann, Bornkamm, Schmithals), (3) Identifying ch.9 with the letter of chs. 1-7 (Weiss, Vielhauer), (4) Chs. 8 and 9 as independent letters (Georgi, Betz). Recent rhetorical criticism on 2 Cor. is divided into partition theories (Kennedy, F.W.Hughes) and unity theory (Witherington, McCant, Amador). My point of view is close to that of H.M. Wuensh, but very different from his on chs. 8 and 9.
Paul uses diakonia (ministry) and charis (grace) to describe the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, along with several other words, and these are central concepts for the defense of his gospel and apostleship in chs. 1-7. This indicate that chs. 8 and 9 are conclusions (peroratio) of the rhetorical discussion of one side of his ministry in chs. 1-7 in order to resume another side of his ministry, the suspended collection by the suspicion against him. Weiss-Bultmann and Schmithals-Bornkamm think that 2:14-7:4 is independent from the rest of chs. 1-7, but they overlook the fact that typical motifs of suffering, consolation, sorrow and joy in 1:1-2:13, 7:5-16 are also seen in 2:14-7:4, particularly in 7:4, as well as in chs. 8 and 9. This woudl indicate the fact that 2:14-7:4 is not an independent fragment but a digression of the rhetorical discussion and that chs. 8 and 9 are continuation and conclusion of chs.1-7.
By surveying remarks on conclusions in rhetorical handbooks (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Aristotle’s Ad Theodectum, Ad Alexandrum, Ad Herennium, Cicero’s De Inventio, Quintilian, Anon. Seguerianus & Apsines), the functions and types of conclusions are multiple, but is eventually reduced to two types of conclusion for one function. In the process of this transition, the function is that of renewing the memory by the summary of discussion (anamnesis, enumeratio) and that of affecting the behaviour by appealing to the emotions (pathos, affectus), which is divided into emphasis (auxesis, amplificatio), indignation (deinosis, indignatio) and compassion (eleos, commiseratio, conquestio).
The type of rhetorical conclusion of chs. 8 and 9 is that of one function: appealing to the emotions. Its basic motives are praise (8:1-7,16-24, 9:1-5) and rebuke (8:8-15, 9:6-10) in the sense of the analytical words of Aristotle’s Ad Theodectum.
In ch. 8 Paul mentions Macedonians as the first example (paradeigma) in comparison (parathesis) with Corinthians in 8:1-7, who experience a great many “sufferings”, but are “joyful” with the grace, and in extreme “poor”, but “rich” with generosity described by the paradoxical double contrasts (antexetaseis), appealing to the emotions of shame and pride. Ethics mentioned here is generosity (haplotes). Paul refers to Jesus Christ as the second example (paradeigma) in 8:7-15 with the paradoxical double contrasts (antexetaseis) of Jesus being “rich” but becoming “poor” in order to “enrich” the “poor”, appealing to the emotions of competing feeling and willingness by the way of checking (dokimasia) their love. Ethics referred here is equality (isotes). In ch. 9 Paul at first brings up Corinthians who prepared the collection with willingness and zeal as the first example (paradeigma) but they could be anti-example (antiparadeigma) as it is suspended, described by the contrast (antexetaseis) of preparedness and unpreparedness with comparison (parathesis) of Macedonians in 9:1-5. The emotions appealed to are shame and zeal and ethics mentioned here is honour (time). Paul states God as the second example (paradeigma) in 9:6-10 with double comparisons (paratheseis) of greed and blessing, sorrow and joy, appealing to the latter two feeling. Ethics talked about here is righteousness (dikaiosyne). If the above mentioned is right, the first examples in chs.8 and 9, Macedonians and Corinthians, are in contrast and ethics are generosity and honour. The second examples are Christ and God, and ethics there are equalityand righteousness.
The expression of peri men gar (9:1) indicates that it refers to the reason, grounds and explanation previous to it (Stowers), thus ch .9 is not independent from ch. 8, but attached to it. The ethical reasons of the collection are mentioned in 8:13-15 as economical and physical one with “equality” on one hand, and in 9:7c-10 as religious and spiritual one with “righteousness” on the other. These are referred as two sides of the meaning of the collection, physical (sarkikos) and spiritual (pneumatikos), in Rom. 15:27. With this fact and others, particularly from the observations that the thanksgiving, praise and entreaty in 9:11-14 are summaries of chs. 8 and 9, it is clear that the discussion in ch. 8 continues to and comprise with that in ch. 9. Thus chs. 8 and 9 are written in this order as conclusions of chs.1-7 and sent to Corinth with a slight time lapse between chs. 8 and 9.
|
