Return to search

WEAK ENOUGH TO LEAD: PAULS RESPONSE TO CRITICISM AND RIVALS IN 2 CORINTHIANS 1013: A RHETORICAL READING

This examination of the rhetorical form and logic of 2 Corinthians 1013 accounts for the macro-rhetoric of the discourse, showing how it responds coherently and potentially effectively to the criticism that Paul is a weak leader and to the effect of rival ministers at Corinth. The discourse both denies and agrees with the criticism: Paul is not weak in any way that prevents his performing his apostolic commission; but Paul is weak in ways essential to his re-presenting Christ to the Corinthians (e.g., he is weak rhetorically, in his humble and low-status presence, and in his avoiding severity and embracing the meekness and gentleness of Christ as he expresses authority). In this positive weakness lies Pauls conflict with his sophistic rivals, whose hubristic manner of leadership has de facto imported another Jesus, spirit, and gospel into the church. The discourse begins forcefully with appeal to believers and the threat of divine war against the rivals (10.16). It calls the Corinthians to examine the evidence regarding the criticisms, which it rebuts with three claims (10.711). A first section of rhetorical proof (10.1211.21a) supports those claims and proves why Paul cannot compare his ministry with the rivals, through an ongoing synkrisis that rehearses Pauls history with the Corinthians and contrasts his ministry against the rivals activities. The Fools Speech (11.21b12.10) proves both that Paul is not weak (through a hardship list that boasts, foolishly and kata sarka, that he is a better servant of Christ, 11.21b11.29) but simultaneously divinely weak (boasting of his weaknesses, en kyrio, with a climactic divine oracle that valorizes the weakness critics disdain, 11.2912.10). Rivals now forgotten, the remainder of the discourse resumes the opening appeal that the Corinthians mend their ways, allowing Paul to continue to be weakexercising his authority without severity, for their upbuilding, not their destruction. Throughout, the study also supports other pertinent topical theses.

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:VANDERBILT/oai:VANDERBILTETD:etd-0729102-144854
Date00 December 1900
CreatorsROBERTS, MARK EDWARD
ContributorsProfessor Daniel M. Patte, Professor Laurence L. Welborn, Professor Walter Harrelson, Professor Kathy L. Gaca, Professor Amy-Jill Levine, Professor Fernando F. Segovia
PublisherVANDERBILT
Source SetsVanderbilt University Theses
LanguageEnglish
Detected LanguageEnglish
Typetext
Formatapplication/pdf
Sourcehttp://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/theses/available/etd-0729102-144854/
Rightsunrestricted, Copyright information available at source archive

Page generated in 0.0017 seconds