PAUL AND HOW MANY “OTHERS”? A DISCOURSE ON ALTERITY IN 2 CORINTHIANS __________________________________________________ A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia ________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _____________________________________________________________ by J.A. HARTLE Dr. Signe Cohen, Thesis Supervisor DECEMBER 2015 © 2015 J.A. Hartle The Undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled PAUL AND HOW MANY “OTHERS”? A DISCOURSE ON ALTERITY IN 2 CORINTHIANS presented by J.A. Hartle, a candidate for the degree of Master of Arts, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. _________________________________ Dr. Signe Cohen _________________________________ Dr. Carrie Duncan _________________________________ Dr. Lawrence Okamura ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have been given the wonderful opportunity to study with and benefit from excellent professors and other positive influences in my life, all contributed to the completion of this project. I thank the chair of my thesis committee, Dr. Signe Cohen, without whose constant support, advice, encouragement, and patience, this project would not have been possible. Deepest gratitude is due to Dr. Carrie Duncan and Dr. Lawrence Okamura, members of my committee, for their suggestions, attention, and consideration. I am also extremely grateful for the direction, advice, and encouragement provided by Dr. Chris Seeman of Walsh University. Last, but certainly not least, I am forever grateful to my family and friends who provided encouragement, patience, and much more than just understanding. Specifically I would like to thank L. Pitchford and B. Clemons whose comments helped with clarity and a special thank you to carissimo et carissimis. “Thank you” seems inadequate. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ii List of Figures v Chapter 1. Introduction 1 2. Previous Analysis 9 2. 1 Jewish Christians of the Church at Jerusalem 9 2.2 Members from Jewish Christian Communities Outside of Jerusalem 11 2.3 Gnostics 15 3. Background on the Corinthian Correspondence 19 3.1 Social, Political, and Religious Environment 19 3.2 Text-Critical 20 4. Letter Writing Context 22 4.1 Categories of Letters 22 4.2 Relationships in Paul’s Letters 23 5. Rhetorical Context 27 5.1 Classification of Speech 28 5.2 Invention and Ambiguity of Rhetoric 30 5.3 Goodwill in Rhetoric 31 6. Reasons for Writing the Corinthian Correspondence 37 7. Paul and His Opponents 40 iii 7.1 Paul and His Opponents (especially in Philippians and Galatians) 40 7.2 Paul’s Characterization of His Opponents in 2 Corinthians 46 8. Conclusion 59 Bibliography 64 iv LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Paul’s Chiasmus 56 v Chapter 1 Introduction This thesis examines Paul’s use of the enigmatic expression ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι in 2 Corinthians 11:5 and suggests an interpretation that differs from prevailing scholarly interpretations. The expression appears in the context of Paul’s boast that he thinks himself to be “not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.”1 This is the Greek so that it is clear to see where ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι comes from. “λογίζοµαι γάρ µηδέν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι·” “Super-apostles” is a common modern translation of Paul’s Greek, ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι. What, precisely, is meant by this phrase? The Greek term ὑπερλίαν can mean “over and beyond”, “above, more than” or “exceedingly.”2 It is therefore possible to render ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι in English as “the more than apostles”, “the exceedingly more than apostles”, “the superior apostles” or the “super-apostles”. The question of Paul’s tone here is significant for the interpretation of the term. The earliest commentators, church fathers such as Chrysostom, read the term as an indication of Paul’s genuine admiration for these apostles.3 Given the derisive language of the surrounding text, however, it is more likely that Paul’s use of ὑπερλίαν is intended sarcastically. An examination of the general historical and cultural context of Paul’s letters will shed more light on this question. 1 All quotations from the Bible are from Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible 2 Lidell & Scott 3 Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 2 Lidell & Scott 3 Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1984), 502 1 There has been a great deal of scholarly debate surrounding the identity of these ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι. Some scholars suggest that opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians are Gnostics.4,5 These scholars differ a bit on whether or not these Gnostics were of Jewish or Jewish Christian origin – the differences lie in some ideas that originated with Jewish thought, “Christian” thought, or “Judeo-Christian thought.” Other scholars propose that ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι were Jewish Christians who were directly or indirectly associated with the leadership of the church at Jerusalem, specifically Peter, James, and John.6 7, 8 C.D. Stanley argues that the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι are other Jewish Christians.9 Another group of scholars argues that the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι in 2 Corinthians are Jews other than Paul.10 In this paper, I would like to propose an alternative interpretation of the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι. Rather than identifying them with specific individuals, I suggest that Paul employs ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι in order to cast these opponents in nonspecific terms as an element of his discourse of alterity or as nonspecifically “other.” In the context of Paul’s writing, ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι appear to embody a general threat to Paul’s community; they represent ideas or teachings at odds with those he wishes his readers to embrace. 4 The term Gnostic here is a modern construction created to identify similar patterns of belief and practice across a wide variety of groups. The texts do not provide a definitively unified group and thus there are several types of Gnostics incorporating ideas that have a clear Judeo-Christian attribution but not all texts possess these characteristics. 5 Walter Schmithals, Wilhelm Lütgert, Rudolf Bultman, Adolf Schlatter 6 Ernst Käsemann, Ferdinand Christian Baur, and C.K. Barrett 7 I recognize that while during the 1st century AD there was no such classification as Christian; for the sake of clarity I will use this label 8 Käsemann proposes that the letters of recommendation mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3:1 are from the apostles in Jerusalem. (Georgi) 9 Christopher Stanley, Arguing the Scripture: Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2004) 10 G. Friedrich, Dieter Georgi, Günther Bornkamm, and Victor Paul Furnish 2 Reading ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι in this manner allows us to shift the interpretative burden away from identifying ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι as specific historical individuals or groups to an understanding of the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι as a group Paul labels representing those who teach contradictory messages, “others.” That Paul uses rhetoric and rhetorical devices is not a new concept. What I am contributing to the discussion is that these devices enable us to appreciate how Paul construes them in terms of his own message and self-image as an apostle. This allows the opponents to be identified with more than one of the groups previous scholars have proposed. By defining his opponents as “other,” Paul allows for the focus to be on the message and not on the opponents. The “otherness” of ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι becomes a universally applicable category. Paul achieves this through his adherence to and avoidance of rhetorical conventions. Paul adheres to the basics of rhetoric, appealing mostly to logic and ethos with some appeal to pathos, using proofs, minimizing certain actions, defining good within a deliberative letter, garnering good will, leaving opponents unnamed. Paul avoids rhetorical convention when he invents words and when he uses ambiguous language. While Paul specifically names some of his opponents in 1 Corinthians (Cephas and Apollos) he does not name his opponents in 2 Corinthians. There are several ways to interpret Paul’s silence on the identity of ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι here. Perhaps the reluctance to name his opponents stems from the reconciliatory nature of Paul’s epistle. Furnish argues that Paul would not have provided information on the background of the opponents in 2 Corinthians because there would have been no doubt about who the opponents were.11 Another plausible reason for not naming the “super-apostles” could be 11 Furnish, II Corinthians, 48-49 3 that Paul is not referring to anyone in particular, but is merely suggesting a body of thought that differs from his own revelation. Moreover, leaving an opponent unnamed is a convention of rhetoric because naming the opponent would provide them status.12 It seems reasonable to assert that Paul is writing about general opposition to his ideas here, rather than about a specific person or group. Paul writing in general terms may be validated in that Paul wrote his letters with the intention that they be read by the intended audience and then circulated throughout the rest of the churches.13 One thing that scholars do agree upon is that Paul perceives his opponents, or opposing viewpoints, in 2 Corinthians as a problem – they are dangerous to his young church at Corinth. More specifically Paul writes that the visitors’, that is the “super- apostles,” gospel endangers the devotion of the congregation at Corinth to Christ.14 An additional danger, according to Paul, of ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι is that they are outsiders; they are not from inside the Corinthians community. Barrett suggests in his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 10:2 that ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι are clearly different from the Corinthians.15 Studying Paul’s words within the context of Barrett’s insight a question arises – which is more problematic, the fact that there are outsiders who have infiltrated the Corinthian community or the contradictory teaching that undermines Paul’s authority.