Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:45:58.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Like Broken Pieces of a Ring: 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 and Ancient Theories of Literaru Unity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

L. L. Welborn
L. L. Welborn
Affiliation:
1810 Harvard Blvd, Dayton, OH 45406, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Johannes Weiss was the first to suggest that 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 was once an independent work.1 Weiss saw that the tone of these chapters varied, not only from chapter 10–13, but also from the intervening text, 2.14–7.4. Here the reconciliation is not apparent, which, in chapters 1–2 and 7, is the presupposition of Paul's joy. On the contrary, Paul must still answer charges that he has wronged, corrupted, and defrauded the Corinthians, and must plead with the Corinthians to open their hearts (2.17; 4.1–2; 6.3–13; 7.2–4). This passage must have been written at the height of the conflict, before the successful conclusion of peace. Then, Paul wrote again in a cordial manner, to assure the Corinthians of his confidence, and to remove the lingering traces of doubt. The proof of this analysis Weiss discovered in the connection between 2.13 and 7.5: the account of Paul's anxious search for Titus breaks off at the decisive point (2.13) and resumes only four chapters later (7.5) at the very point where it had broken off. ‘This separation of what belongs together is unheard of and intolerable, from a literary point of view, since 2.13 and 7.5 fit onto each other as neatly as the broken pieces of a ring.’2

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 559 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In his review of Halmel, A., Der Vierkapitelbrief im zweiten Korintherbrief des Apostels Paulus (Essen: Baedeker, 1894)Google Scholar in ThLZ 19 (1894) 513–14;Google Scholar elaborated then in Weiss, J., Das Urchristentum (ed. Knopf, R.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917) 245–53;Google Scholaridem, The History of Primitive Christianity (2 vols.; ed. F. C. Grant; New York: Erickson, 1937) 1.345–53.Google Scholar

2 Weiss, , Primitive Christianity, 1.349.Google Scholar

3 Weiss was followed by Halmel, A., Der zweite Korintherbrief des Apostels Paulus (Halle: Niemeyer, 1904);Google ScholarLoisy, A., ‘Les épîtres de S. Paul’, Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses 7 (1921) 213–50;Google ScholarCouchoud, P.-L., ‘Reconstitution et classement des lettres de saint Paul’, Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses 87 (1923) 8–34;Google ScholarPreisker, H., ‘Zur Komposition des zweiten Korintherbriefes’, Theologische Blätter 5 (1926) 154–7.Google Scholar Note the observation by Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief (KEK 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924; repr. 1970) 19;Google Scholar ‘Die Erkenntnis, daß die beiden Stellen 2.13 und 7.5 genau auf einander passen, wie die Bruchstellen eines Ringes, ist von höchster Wichtigkeit. Es ist erstaunlich, daß die hier vorliegende Schwierigkeit bisher noch von keinem Kommentator ernst genommen worden ist.’

4 Bultmann's lecture notes were eventually published as Bultmann, R., Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (ed. Dinkier, E.; KEK 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976)Google Scholar. In the preface (11–12), Dinkier notes the importance of Paul's reconciliation with the church in 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 for Bultmann's own theology: in the figure of the reconciling apostle, Bultmann saw the model of Christian existence as such, in which power is made perfect in weakness, and life is manifested in death.

5 Bornkamm, G., Die Vorgeschichte des sogenannten Zweiten Korintherbriefes (SHAW.PH 1961, 2. Abhandlung; Heidelberg: Winter, 1961) 21–3, 29–31.Google Scholar Bornkamm saw that by taking this letter as the frame for the epistle, the redactor sought to inscribe the polemic within a structure in which Paul's authority was restored.

6 The following scholars now regard 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 as an independent work: Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike (WMANT 11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964) 14–25;Google Scholaridem, ‘Second Letter to the Corinthians’, IDBSup, 183–6;Google ScholarMarxsen, W., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963) 73–7;Google ScholarCollange, J.-F., Énigmes de la deuxième épître de Paul aux Corinthiens: Étude exégètique de 2 Cor 2.14–7.4 (SNTSMS 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972) 7–15;Google ScholarVielhauer, P., Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1975) 150–5;Google ScholarSchenke, H.-M. and Fischer, K. M., Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 1:Google ScholarDie Briefe des Paulus und Schriften des Paulinismus (Berlin: Evangelische, 1978) 108–20;Google ScholarKoester, H., Introduction to the New Testament 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 53, 126–30;Google ScholarBetz, H. D., 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 141–4.Google Scholar

7 Georgi, D., The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 335.Google Scholar

8 For the criteria listed here, see Heath, M., Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) 153Google Scholar and passim. The criteria are emphasized in varying degree by the literary theorists: Aristotle insists upon completeness in his analysis of plot in the Poetica; critics of historical writing, from Polybius to Lucian, stress continuity; Plato emphasizes appropriate order; writers on rhetoric are concerned about symmetry, as is Diodorus Siculus.

9 This is the thesis argued by Heath in Unity in Greek Poetics. His view is best supported by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, whose theory of style incorporates variety as one of its essential principles (Comp. 12.43.17–46.15; 19.84.5–87.21). But even Dionysius insists upon the restraint of diversity by appropriateness (καιός) in Comp. 12.45.6–21. By way of contrast, see Horace's criticism of variare and incongruous conflations at the beginning of the Ars Poetica, and the comments of Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry 2:Google ScholarThe Ars Poetica (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1971) 104–5.Google Scholar

10 The explanation of 2 Cor 2.14–7.4 as a theological digression goes back to Bengel, J. A., Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742);Google Scholar trans. Gnomon of the New Testament (3 vols.; trans. A. Fausset; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877) 2.361:Google Scholar ‘A most noble digression is here introduced in respect to events which had in the meantime occurred and sufferings which had been endured by him elsewhere.’ The view is widespread in subsequent scholarship: e.g., Heinrici, C. F. G., Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (KEK 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900) 36, 251–2;Google ScholarPlummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915) 67;Google ScholarKoch, L. J., Fortolkning til Paulus' Andet Brev til Korinthierne (Niva, 2nd ed. 1927) 48–50;Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 97;Google ScholarHyldahl, N., ‘Die Frage nach der literarischen Einheit des Zweiten Korintherbriefes’, ZNW 64 (1973) 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 On the significance of genre and its relation to unity, see Cairns, F., Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh: University, 1972)Google Scholarpassim and Heath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 17–18, 20–2, 38, 150–4.Google Scholar See esp. Plato's discussion of order in Phaedrus 264c-d: the elements of a work are rightly composed when they are related to the whole which they together form; the whole is defined by its end, that is, the effects which it aims at producing (Phdr. 269c–274b); cf. Grg. 503e–504a. This is the point of the organic analogy so widespread in ancient criticism: a text should be σωματοειδῶς, that is, it must have all and only the parts proper to it; cf. Aristotle Rhet. 1415b7–9; Rhet. ad Alex. 1436a27–31; 1438b14–29; 1442b28–33; Diodorus 20.1.5; Dionysius Pomp. 3.14; Lucian Hist. Conscr. 23, 55; Ps.-Longinus 10.1.

12 See my forthcoming dissertation, Paul's Letter of Reconciliation in Second Corinthians 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16; 13.11–13.

13 Text cited according to Nestle-Aland, , Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 26th ed. 1979) 475, 482.Google Scholar

14 See the chapter on repetition in Denniston, J. D., Greek Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952) 78–98Google Scholar, with many examples. Cf. Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (Munich: Hueber, 2nd ed. 1973) 1.608–64.Google Scholar

15 Text in DeWitt, N. W. and DeWitt, N. J, Demosthenes 7 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1949) 218, 220.Google Scholar The meaning that μετελθών has here is without parallel in fourth-century prose, as noted by Goldstein, J., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York: Columbia University, 1968) 245Google Scholar, though the verb is attested in the Attic orators. The catachresis is motivated by the figure of repetition.

16 Text in Hercher, R., Epistolographi Graeci (Paris: Didot, 1873) 277–8.Google Scholar

17 Nor are these the only terms repeated in 2 Cor 1.3–7; note also πᾶσα and περισσεύει. Cf. Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 36–43.Google Scholar On the frequent employment of the same word, or a number of words (the device known to the Romans as traductio), see Cicero, De Or. 3.206;Google ScholarRhet. ad Her. 4.20. With 2 Cor 1.3–7, compare Plato Rep. 537e–538a. See the discussion in Denniston, , Greek Prose Style, 80–1.Google Scholar

18 The construction of the verses suggested here is anticipated by Halmel, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 44–7.Google Scholar Thus, Paul is not describing his plan for a ‘double visit’, as customarily assumed, but is expressing his desire, twice formulated, to pay a visit to Corinth. In support of this interpretation, see Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1956) §1782:Google Scholar ‘ἐβουλόμην followed by an infinitive may express an unattainable wish’. In support of the ellipsis of ‘ἐβουλόμην in 1.16 is the resumption of the term (βουλόμενος) in the following sentence.

19 This objection seems to have originated with Barrett, C. K., ‘Titus’, in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969)Google Scholar, repr. in idem, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) 130Google Scholar nn. 25, 26; followed by Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 2nd ed. 1975) 291;Google ScholarWatson, F., ‘2 Cor. x-xiii and Paul's Painful Letter to the Corinthians’, JTS 35.2 (1984) 336;Google ScholarFurnish, V., II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 393Google Scholar, among others.

20 Suggested by Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 226.Google Scholar Alternatively, Paul may be following a narrative convention: accounts of sea voyages in ancient literature frequently have the narrative in the first person plural. See, for example, Acts 27; Josephus Vita 30.14–16; cf. Plümacher, E., Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972) 14 n. 431;Google ScholarRobbins, V., ‘By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages’ in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. Talbert, C.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 216;Google ScholarWehnert, J., Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).Google Scholar

21 Note the first person plural pronoun following a singular verb in 7.9, 12, and the change from singular to plural within the same sentence in 7.14. See the comments of Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 226.Google Scholar

22 Thus, rightly, Barrett, , Essays on Paul, 130 n. 26:Google Scholar ‘πνεῦμα and σάρξ are here (though not usually) almost equivalent psychological terms’.

23 Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 95;Google ScholarBauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) 675Google Scholar, s.v. πνεῦμα 3b; Schweizer, E., ‘πνεῦμα’, TDNT 6 (1968) 435.Google Scholar

24 Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 226;Google ScholarBultmann, , Der zweite Brief, 56;Google ScholarSchweizer, E., ‘σάρξ’, TDNT 7 (1971) 125:Google Scholar ‘According to 2 Cor. 7:5 ἡ σάρξ ἡμῶν = ἡμεῖς, and it expressly embraces inner anxieties too, though external affliction is primary here.’ That is to say, σάρξ has the meaning often attached to σῶμα; note the parallel in Ps.-Euripides Ep. 5.1: Καὶ ἀφικόμεθα εἰς Μακεδονίαν, ὦ βέλτιστε Κηφσοφῶν, τό τε σῶμα οὐ μοχθηρῶς διατεθέντες.

25 In 1 Cor 7.34 Paul uses σῶμα and πνεῦμα of the human person in its totality. For σάρξ and πνεῦμα as component of man, see Euripides, Fr. 971:Google Scholar ‘Swollen with σάρξ, he expired, releasing the πνεῦμα to the aether.’ Plutarch occasionally speaks of σάρξ and ψυχή as the human components, De Exilio 1.599c; Ser. Num. Pun. 17.560c. See in general, Schweizer, E., ‘Die hellenistische Komponente im neutestamentlichen σάρξ-Begriff’, ZNW 48 (1957) 237–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Note the conjecture of Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms. A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 193:Google Scholar ‘This striking parallelism between “flesh” and “spirit” [in 2 Cor 2.13 and 7.5] would seem to indicate that Paul accepts an anthropological dichotomy similar to that found in Rabbinic tradition.’

26 Smyth, , Greek Grammar, §337, 2736.Google Scholar

27 On the dative, see the parallels in 1 Cor 7.28; 2 Cor 12.7. See further, Blass, F., Debrunner, A., and Funk, R., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961) §190(3).Google Scholar

28 Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914) 900–1;Google Scholar followed by Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 95.Google Scholar But see Blass-Debrunner, A Greek Grammar, §343, who takes ἔσχηκεν as a narrative tense, equivalent to the aorist; thus also, with hesitation, Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of the New Testament Greek 1:Google ScholarProlegomena (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) 145, 238.Google Scholar This logic probably accounts for the presence of the aorist ἔσχεν in part of the manuscript tradition: þ46 B F G K.

29 The expression ἡ συνεχοῦς μνήμη is found in Menander Rhetor Rh. Gr. 3.440.27; Russell, D. A. and Wilson, N. G., Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 213Google Scholar, translate ‘unbroken commemoration’. Cf. τò συνεχὲς τῆς διηγήσεως in Polybius 6.2.1, which Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957) 637Google Scholar, translates ‘the continuous thread of the narrative’. Compare Quintilian's rectum iter in Inst. 4.2.104: ‘And if we do introduce a digression, it must always be short and of such a nature that we give the impression of having been forced from our proper course (recto itinere) by some uncontrollable emotion.

30 On the technique of digression in Greek literature, see Race, W. H., ‘Some Digressions and Returns in Greek Authors’, CJ 76 (1980) 1–8;Google ScholarHeath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 21–3, 32–5, 89–98.Google Scholar For the rhetorical theory of digression, see May, J. H., ‘The Ethica Digressio and Cicero's Pro Milone’, CJ 74 (1979) 243–4.Google Scholar

31 Text and translation in Bury, R. G., Plato 9:Google ScholarTimaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univrsity, 1981) 430–3.Google Scholar

32 Note also the long philosophical digression in Plato Ep. 7, 341b–345c. The return to the subject is signalled by the statement, πῶς δ' ἠτίμασεν ἐγὼ φράζοιμ' ἄν, and the narrative of the third Sicilian visit is resumed: Οὐ πολὺν χρόνον διαλιπὼν τò μετὰ τοῦτο, κ.τ.λ.

33 Summarized by Race, ‘Digressions’, 1–2; Heath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 32–4.Google Scholar

34 Text and translation in Norlin, G., Isocrates 2 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1982) 426–7.Google Scholar See the extended discussion of this passage by Race, W. H., ‘Panathenaicus 74–90: The Rhetoric of Isocrates' Digression on Agamemnon', TAPA 108 (1978) 175–85.Google Scholar Compare Isocrates' digression on Theseus in Helen 10.18–38.

35 Text and Translation in Cohoon, J., Dio Chrysostom 2 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1977) 38–41.Google Scholar

36 See Dio's discussion of digressions in Or. 7.128–132; he compares himself to a hunter in search of game, who leaves his first trail, when he happens to come upon another that is clearer and fresher.

37 For example, Plato's famous digression on the philosophical life in Theaet. 172c–177c. Plato puts the apology for the digression and the return to the subject into the mouth of the interlocutor, Theodorus: 'Eμοὶ μὲν τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐκ ἀηδέστερα ἀκούειν' $$$ᾴω γἀρ τηλικῷδε ὄντι ἐπακολουθεῖν. εἰ μέντοι δοκεῖ, πάλιν ἐπανίωμεν (177c). See the discussion in Barker, A., ‘The Digression in the Theaetetus’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (1976) 457–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Aelius Aristides' defence of oratory in Or. 2.73–4; he concludes the excursus with the remark, ‘Incited (κινηθείς) by my argument itself, I have perhaps digressed (ἐξήγαγον) at too great length in this matter (ταυτί). May Plato himself and everyone else grant me pardon (συγγνώμη) for experiencing a feeling which was innate in the argument. But I could not restrain myself, when divine intervention and healing happened to enter the discussion. So I was compelled to mention my own experience as part of the evidence. But I shall return (ἐπάνειμι) once more to the rest of the proof.’

38 Demosthenes returns to the subject at De Corona 211 with the words: ‘However (ἀλλά) in touching upon the achievements of our ancestors, I have passed by some of my decrees and other measures. I will now therefore return (ἐπανελθεῖν) to the point at which I digressed (ἐξέβην).’

39 Note already the question raised by Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 95Google Scholar, whether 2 Cor 2.14–7.4 is ‘als Abschweifung erträglich’. Similarly, Vielhauer, , Geschichte, 152.Google Scholar

40 One may contrast 2 Cor 2.12–13 with 1 Thess 3.1–8. In the latter passage, Paul departs for a moment from the account of his longing for the recent converts to make a pointed observation about the tribulation they have endured. When Paul could bear his separation from the Thessalonians no longer, he sent Timothy to strengthen their faith (3.1–2). The mention of ‘tribulations’ in 3.3a gives rise to ‘a pointed treatment of the topic of suffering tribulations in 3.3b-4’, thus Johanson, R., To All the Brethren. A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians (CBNTS 16; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987) 105.Google Scholar Johanson notes the care Paul takes in framing the prophetic utterance in 1 Thess 3.3b-4: ‘the reiteration of οἴδατε frames this subsequence at its opening and close in a way that serves both to delimit it and to give emphasis to the importance of what is said: αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ὄτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα · καὶ γὰρὅτεπρòς ὑμᾶς ᾖμεν, προελέομεν ὑμῖνὄτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε’. The digression is dismissed in 3.5 by διὰ τοῦτο κ.τ.λ. And the resumption is signalled by the temporal adverb and conjunction, ἄρτι δέ, in 3.6.

41 The point is anticipated by Lisco, H., Die Entstehung des zweiten Korintherbriefes (Berlin: Schneider, 1896) 37;Google ScholarHalmel, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 53–4.Google Scholar On παρήχησις, see Hermogenes, Inv. 4.7Google Scholar (Rabe 194.4). On παρονομασία and related figures, see Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode (HKAW 2.3; München: Beck, 1974) 304–5;Google Scholar Lausberg, Handbuch, §637.

42 On χάρις as a substitute for χαρά, see already Bleek, F., ‘Erörterungen in Beziehung auf die Briefe Pauli an die Korinther’, ThStKr 3 (1830) 621–2.Google Scholar Part of the manuscript tradition, אc B L P 81 104 365 614 1175 2464 al bo Thdt., has χαράν rather than χάριν. Chrysostom Homiliae III in Epistolam secundam ad Corinthios (MPG 61), on 2 Cor 1.15, adopts χάρις as the right reading, but explains it as χαρά: χάριν δὲ ὲνταῦθα τὴν χαρὰν λέγει. Yet, there is no basis for the conjecture of Plummer, , Second Epistle, 32Google Scholar, that a copyist substituted a more spiritual term, as in 3 John 4. Xάρις is the better attested reading; χαρά is obviously a scribal correction motivated by 1.24 and 2.3.

43 On μετωνυμία, or ὑπαλλαγή, and its relation to metaphor, see in general Lausberg, Handbuch, §565–71. Paul's cautious preference for metonymy in the letter of reconciliation is of a piece with his repeated qualifications, e.g., in 1.24; 7.8, 9.

44 Weiss, , Primitive Christianity, 1.348.Google Scholar

45 See the discussion of ‘unity’ in the Poetica by Halliwell, S., Aristotle's Poetics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1986) 96–108;Google Scholar note the useful history of the influence of the Poetica on pp. 286–323. Cf. the chapter on Aristotle in Heath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 39–55.Google Scholar

46 On the possession of ‘a beginning, a middle, and an end’ as a criterion of unity, see Aristotle Met. 1024al-3.

47 This is a persistent theme in the Poetica; so, in particular, 1450b21–23; 1452b28–30; 1454a13–15.

48 Note the attempt to infer Aristotle's attitude toward other genres by Halliwell, , Aristotle's Poetics, 283–4.Google Scholar

49 Scheller, P., De hellenistica historiae conscribendae arte (Leipzig: Noske, 1911) 41–3;Google ScholarWalbank, F. W., Polybius (Berkeley: University of California, 1972) 66–9.Google Scholar

50 The translation is that of Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957) 637.Google Scholar Cf. Cole, T., ‘The Sources and Composition of Polybius VI’, Historia 13 (1964) 442.Google Scholar

51 The translation modifies Usher, S., Dionysius of Halicarnassus: The Critical Essays in Two Volumes (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1985) 2.379.Google Scholar See the discussion in Sacks, K., ‘Historiography in the Rhetorical Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, Athenaeum 60 (1983) 65–87.Google Scholar

52 The translation modifies Sherman, C., Diodorus of Sicily 7 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1952) 233.Google Scholar See the discussion in Scheller, , De hellenistica…arte, 44–5.Google Scholar

53 Hollis, A. S., ‘Callimachus Aetia fr. 1.9–12’, CQ 28 (1978) 402–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Text and translation in Cohoon, J. W. and Crosby, H., Dio Chrysostom 3 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1940) 432–3.Google Scholar

55 See the discussion in Downing, E., ‘οἷον ψυχή: An Essay on Aristotle's mythos’, Classical Antiquity 3 (1984) 164–78;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHalliwell, , Aristotle's Poetics, 103–7;Google ScholarHeath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 39–10.Google Scholar

56 Heath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 40.Google Scholar

57 Dionysius repeats his criticism of Thucydides' arrangement in Thuc. 9. See Scheller, , De hellenistisca…arte, 43–4.Google Scholar

58 The translation modifies Geer, R. M., Diodorus of Sicily 10 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1954) 144–7.Google Scholar See Scheller, , De hellenistica…arte, 44.Google Scholar

59 Watson, , ‘2 Cor. x-xiii’, 336–8;Google Scholar so, already, Dahl, N., Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977) 38.Google Scholar Similarly, Belleville, L., ‘A Letter of Apologetic Self-Commendation: 2 Cor. 1:8–7:16’, NovT 31.2 (1989) 143 n. 4:Google Scholar ‘Verses 12–13 deal with divine power overcoming human ineffectiveness in the context of evangelism, while 7:15–16 treat the idea of divine comfort in the midst of human affliction and suffering.’

60 Rightly, Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 95;Google Scholar cf. Acts 18.18; 20.1.

61 On example in narrative, see Lausberg, Handbuch, §415: ‘Als narratio ist das exemplum eine digressio innerhalb der argumentatio.’ Cf. Martin, , Antike Rhetorik, 119.Google Scholar

62 Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther I/II (HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1949) 131;Google ScholarDahl, , Studies in Paul, 38;Google ScholarThrall, M., ‘A Second Thanksgiving Period in II Corinthians’, JSNT 16 (1982) 109–10;Google ScholarWatson, , ‘2 Cor. x-xiii’, 338.Google Scholar

63 Meyer, H. A. W., Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879) 2.179–80;Google ScholarPlummer, , Second Epistle, 67;Google ScholarAllo, E.-B., Saint Paul. Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 45;Google ScholarPrümrn, K., Diakonia Pneumatos (Vienna: Herder, 1957) 1.76;Google ScholarKümmel, , Introduction, 291;Google ScholarBarrett, , Second Epistle, 97.Google Scholar

64 Cicero, De Oratore 2.77.Google Scholar See the discussion in Westlake, H. D., Essays on the Greek Historians and Greek History (Manchester: Manchester University, 1969) 1–38.Google Scholar

65 Text in Spengel, L., Rhetores Graeci 22 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1854) 80.27–30.Google Scholar

66 On digression in narrative, see Scheller, , De hellenistica…arte, 43–6;Google ScholarHeath, , Unity in Greek Poetics, 46–52, 82–9.Google Scholar The most rigorous pronouncement remains that of Aristotle Poetica 1451a30–35.

67 Text in Spengel, , Rhetores Graeci 2, 80.30–81.1.Google Scholar

68 On digression in the narratio of speeches, see the discussion in Lausberg, Handbuch, §§340–2; Martin, , Antike Rhetorik, 89–91.Google Scholar

69 Text in Platonis Epistulae (ed. J., Moore-Blunt; BT; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1985) 33–7.Google Scholar

70 Morrow, G. R., Plato's Epistles (New York: Harper & Row, 1962) 66Google Scholar, has shown how essential the philosophical digression is to the argument and how aptly it is fitted into the context. See the discussion in Edelstein, L., Plato's Seventh Letter (Leiden: Brill, 1966) 70–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 109: ‘Within the framework of the representation of the events in Sicily which the author has constructed, the philosophical digression seems indispensable if the story is to be credible.’

71 E.g., Heinrici, , Der zweite Brief, 101–2;Google ScholarStrachan, R. H., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935) 73;Google ScholarTasker, R. V. G., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Tyndale, 1958) 56;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., First and Second Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1971) 187;Google ScholarBarrett, , Second Epistle, 97.Google Scholar

72 Plummer, , Second Epistle, 67.Google Scholar

73 So, already, Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 96.Google Scholar

74 Contra Furnish, , II Corinthians, 391–2Google Scholar, who perverts the obvious function of 7.4 by making a new paragraph begin at this point, designating 7.4 ‘the topic sentence of what follows’. A number of scholars stress the verbal connections between 7.2–4 and 7.5: Heinrici, , Der zweite Brief, 251–2;Google ScholarLeitzmann, , An die Korinther I/II, 131;Google ScholarRissi, M., Studien zum zweiten Korintherbrief (ATANT 56; Zürich: Zwingli, 1969) 15–16;Google ScholarThrall, , ‘Thanksgiving Period’, 109–10.Google Scholar But the resemblance is merely verbal; the discontinuity of thought remains.

75 Text and translation in Kilburn, K., Lucian 6 (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1968) 66–7;Google Scholar see also Avenarius, G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim: Glan, 1956Google Scholar).

76 Weiss, J., ThLZ 19 (1894) 514.Google Scholar

77 Halmel, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 58.Google Scholar

78 Windisch, , Der zweite Korintherbrief, 226.Google Scholar

79 Windisch does not explain why ἀλλἀ καί would have been better; presumably he was thinking of those occasions on which ἀλλἀ is used as a connective or progressive particle, reinforced by καί or perhaps he sensed an implied οὐ μόνον in 2.12–13, completed by ἀλλὰ καί in 7.5, a familiar construction. On ἀλλὰ καί see Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950) 3, 21–2.Google Scholar

80 Bultmann, , Der zweite Brief, 56.Google Scholar

81 Thrall, , ‘Thanksgiving Period’, 109–10;Google ScholarWatson, , ‘2 Cor. x-xiii’, 336.Google Scholar

82 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 108–9.Google Scholar

83 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 58–60Google Scholar, with examples.

84 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 73, 108–10.Google Scholar

85 Denniston, , Greek Particles, lxxiiiGoogle Scholar: ‘If in such cases we do not catch a nuance of dialogue…we miss something of the colour of the style.’

86 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 73, 109.Google Scholar

87 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 109Google Scholar, where Denniston treats καì γάρ in answers, and lxiii, where he mentions cases of καì γάρ transferred to continuous speech.

88 Demetrius, De Elocutione 57Google Scholar: ‘A particle may often be used to express emotion…If you remove the particle, you will remove the feeling it conveys.’ He gives as example the words καί νύ, which suggest lament and mourning; cf. Denniston, , Greek Particles, lxxii.Google Scholar

89 Demosthenes ended his second exile in 322 BC by taking poison.

90 This was a standard rhetorical manœuvre for use before the assembly; see Anaximenes in Spengel, , Rhetores Graeci 1, 68.8–9.Google Scholar

91 Text in Drerup, E., Aeschinis quae feruntur epistolae (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1904) 69–73;Google Scholar see the discussion of Ps.-Aeschines Ep. 12 in Goldstein, , The Letters of Demosthenes, 265–6.Google Scholar

92 See also Ps.-Aeschines Ep. 12.4–6, where the author asserts that in exile the orator's true character was revealed to all the Hellenes: ‘For who does not know that when men must die or when they must flee from the fatherland, then especially they become such as manifest their character’ In confirmation of this statement, he says: ‘For indeed (καί γάρ) the things which they once concealed appear clearly in the midst of all.’

93 So, for example, Plato Ep. 7, 338b. Plato's second visit to Sicily was ended by the outbreak of war (338a). When peace was made, the tyrant sent for him, and kept demanding insistently that he should come (338b). Dion urged Plato to make the voyage, though his own recall had been deferred. The author confirms Dion's advice, supplying the motive for his counsel: ‘For in truth (καί γάρ δή) constant accounts were pouring in from Sicily how Dionysius was now once more marvellously enamoured of philosophy’ (338b). See also Ps.-Aeschines Ep. 12.14: καì γὰρ ὀργίζεσθαι $$$ᾳδίως ύμîν ἒθος ἐστι καἰ χαρίζεσθαι πάλιν. Cf. Apollonius of Tyana Ep. 35; Ps.-Euripides Ep. 5.3 (οὐ γάρ); Demosthenes Ep. 2.14 (οὔδἐ γάρ) On οὐδἐ γάρ; see Denniston, , Greek Particles, 111–12.Google Scholar

94 Rom 11.1; 15.3; 16.2; 1 Cor 5.7; 8.5; 12.13,14; 14.8; 2 Cor 5.2, 4; 13.4; 1 Thess 3.4.

95 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 1–2.Google Scholar

96 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 21.Google Scholar

97 Denniston, , Greek Particles, 22.Google Scholar