Chapter 12 The Rhetoric of “Consolation” in 2 Corinthians 1:3–11/7:4–13 in the Context of the Jewish and Graeco-Roman Consolatory Literature

James R. Harrison

1 The Issue of Epistolary Genre

“Consolation” as a topos has been extensively studied in relation to the epistle to the Philippians.1 The motif of “consolation” in 2 Corinthians has not com- manded the same attention, apart from J. Kaplin’s study of Paul’s understand- ing of grief and comfort from the perspective of Epictetus’s philosophy and Old Testament prophecy and laments (Isa 40:1–11; Lam 1–2).2 Paul’s terminology of “consolation” (παράκλησις: 2 Cor 1:3, 4, 5, 6[2x], 7; 7:4, 7, 13; παρακαλέω: 1:4 [3x], 6; 2:7, 8; 7:6, 7, 13), “affliction” (θλῖψις: 1:4, 8; 2:4; 7:4; cf. 4:17; 6:4) and “joy” (χάρα: 1:24; 2:3; 7:4, 13; χαίρω: 2:3; 7:7, 9, 13, 16) is woven throughout 2 Cor 1:1–2:13 and 7:4–13. Scholars who subscribe to a partition theory of 2 Cor 1–7 posit a concil- iatory tone for the two previous passages, whereas 2:14–7:3/7:4, it is proposed,

1 P. A. Holloway, “Notes and Observations Bona Cognitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9,” htr 91 (1998): 89–96; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). In addition to the vast secondary literature on Graeco-Roman consolation cited in Holloway (Consolation in Philippians, 181–85), see O. Schmitz and G. Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” tdnt 5:773–79; A. Wilcox, “Sympathetic Rivals: Consolation in Cicero’s Letters,” AJP 126 (2005): 237–55; B. Zimmermann, “Philosophie als Psychotherapie: Die Griechisch-Römische Consolationsliteratur,” in B. Neymeyr et al. (eds.), Stoizismus in der Europäischen Philosophie, Literatur, Kunst und Politik (New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 1:193–213; V. M. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 2007), 172–210; P. A. Holloway, “Gender and Grief: The Consolation of Women in the Early Principate,” in S. Ahearne-Kroll et al. (eds.), Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Essays in Honor of Adela Yarbro Collins (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 299–321; H. Baltussen (ed.), Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013), passim. On consolation in 2 Corinthians, see F. V. Filson, “The God of All Comfort—2 Cor 1:3–7,” ThTo (1951–1952): 495–501; C. J. Bjerkelund, PARAKALÕ: Form, Funktion, und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den pau- linischen Briefen (Oslo: Universitetsvorlaget, 1967); R. Bieringer, “The Comforted Comforter: The Meaning of παρακαλέω or παράκλησις Terminology in 2 Corinthians,” HvTSt 67 (2011): 1–7. 2 J. Kaplin, “Comfort, O Comfort, Corinth: Grief and Comfort in 2 Corinthians 7:5,” htr 104 (2011): 433–55.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391512_013 234 Harrison is polemical. While D. A. DeSilva has challenged this position from the view- point of rhetorical criticism,3 another approach is to consider each pericope (1:1–2:13; 7:4–13) against the backdrop of Graeco-Roman consolatory literature and the writings of Second Temple Judaism. Cicero, for example, speaks of the role of consolation thus: “These therefore are the duties of comforters: to do away with distress root and branch, or allay it or diminish it as far as possible, or stop its progress and not allow it to extend further, or to divert it elsewhere” (Tusc. 3.31.76). How did Paul, by means of his “consolatory” rhetoric, ensure reconciliation with the Corinthian church?4 Some of the Corinthian believers were alienated by Paul’s failure to keep his promises of a return trip (2 Cor 1:15– 2:4), with one leader publicly opposing the apostle on his arrival (2:5–11; 7:12), and others attaching themselves to the interloping apostles (3:1–3). What dis- tinctive rhetorical elements from Second Temple Judaism and Paul’s gospel framed his response? Although the Graeco-Roman epistolary genre of “consolation” is illuminat- ing for the rhetoric of 2 Cor 1:1–2:13/7:4–13,5 we must acknowledge the rich contribution that L. L. Welborn has made in uncovering Paul’s rhetorical strat- egies in each pericope. In a seminal study,6 Welborn argues that Paul’s rhe- torical stratagem draws upon the “conciliatory” style (θεραπευτική) of ancient letters,7 which appealed to the emotions in creating persuasive discourse. Paul arouses the “pity,” “anger,” and “zeal” of the Corinthians,8 employing in each case common topoi of the letters of reconciliation. However, Paul’s stratagem was to move the Corinthians beyond these emotions,9 but, unexpectedly, not

3 D. A. DeSilva, “Meeting the Exigency of a Complex Rhetorical Situation in 2 Corinthians 1 through 7,” AUSS 34 (1996): 5–22. 4 See F. W. Hughes, “The Rhetoric of Reconciliation: 2 Corinthians 1:1–2:13 and 7:5–8:4,” in Duane F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of G. A. Kennedy (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991), 246–61; G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” nts 35 (1989): 550–81. 5 On the genre of “consolation,” see J. H. D. Scourfield, “Towards a Genre of Consolation,” in H. Baltussen (ed.), Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013), 1–36. While the “consolation” genre primarily refers to writings that are intended to comfort the bereaved, it can also refer to writings that are designed to console recipients facing general adversities. 6 L. L. Welborn, “Paul’s Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1:1–2; 7:5–11,” jsnt 82 (2001): 31–60. 7 For literature on the θεραπευτική letter-style, see Welborn, “Paul’s Appeal,” 36–37. 8 Respectively, Welborn, “Paul’s Appeal,” 39–47, 47–54, 54–57. 9 On the emotions in the Graeco-Roman world, see E. Champlin, Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200 BC–AD 250 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); S. M. Braund and C. Gill (eds.), The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature (Cambridge: