1. Introduction

The rhetoric of the marginalized … demonstrates that …

the ‘humblest’ do not only ‘stand forth’ in order to persuade;

by persuading, they are also ‘standing forth,’ assuming agency.¹

These words of Jacqueline Bacon aptly capture the yearning that expresses itself in the rhetoric of the marginalized. Their yearning is for agency and it stems from their lived experience of being relegated to the periphery. This paper aims to underscore one such episode in the New Testament. 2 Cor 11:1–6, 12–15 depicts Paul lamenting the easy submission of the Corinthians to the message of his opponents whose “cunning” left the community “deceived” (cf. 11:3).² In as much as Paul sees his opponents holding sway, it could be construed that Paul perceives himself relegated to the periphery. His discursive response therefore exhibits his earnestness to regain his apostolic authority. As such, his response in the chosen pericope can be read as “rhetoric of the marginalized” – rather, rhetoric from the edge.

The paper begins by stating the problematic: the abrupt shifts from 2 Cor 10 and how they inform the forcefulness of Paul’s rhetoric or the lack thereof. A short list of representative scholarly responses to the said problematic is then presented. With an aim to appreciate Pauline arguments, Dalit reading is suggested as a viable interpretive strategy. After a brief introduction to Dalit literature, especially their dominant literary features such as resistance, ridicule and reversal,³ the chosen text (2 Cor 11:1–6, 12–15) is re-read with a particular focus on Paul’s apostolic resistance, ridiculing sarcasm, and novel reversals. These together help appreciate the apostle’s response as rhetoric from the edge. The paper then ends by listing a few gleanings from the proposed reading.

2. The Question of Pauline ‘Rhetoric’

Literary Context: 2 Cor 11:1–6, 12–15 forms a significant part of the introduction (vv.1–21) to the so-called “Fool’s speech” (11:22–12:10).⁴ Scholars situate the speech within what is considered a lost “letter of tears” (chaps. 10–13; cf. 2:3–4, 9).⁵ A new tone marks the beginning of ch.10. Coming on the heels of “the warmhearted appeals of chaps. 8 and 9, the change of tone at 10:1–2 to vigorous and sustained self-defense, self-assertion, and polemic comes as ‘a bolt from the blue.’”⁶ The language marks a unique shift as well. Personal pronouns abound here. Contrast to their modest 23 occurrences in chaps. 1–9, they total to an impressive 94 in chaps. 10–13!⁷ The pericope is also unique for its Pauline new terms: “super-apostles” and “pseudo-apostles.”⁸

While these shifts in tone and language can become obvious to a careful reader, the content of the speech arrests the attention of even a cursory reader. A striking inconsistency seems to be at play here. For example, Paul delineates the rules for boasting in ch.10 and assures that he will not “boast beyond limit” (10:13). And even if he has to, he will only boast of his weakness (cf. 11:23; 12:5). But he seems to break his very rule when he declares: “whatever anyone dares to boast … I also dare to boast” (11:21). Going further, his detailed list of sufferings (11:16–29) and the visions and revelations he was privy to appear to be yet another breach in his self-restraint. As regards “comparison,” Paul sees his opponents doing it and so shuns it (cf. 10:12). But when he asserts that he is “not in the least inferior to these super-apostles” (11:5), he seems to throw his very guidelines to the winds.⁹ How can we meaningfully account for these shifts and inconsistencies? Much scholarly energy has been spent to appropriate these shifts within the broader context of Paul’s use of rhetoric.

3. Scholarly Appropriations

How persuasive is Pauline thought-flow in chaps.10–13? Or, more to the point, how does the logic of Paul fare in comparison to the rhetoric of his time? Scholarly answers hardly point to a consensus. For example, William R. Baker perceives in Paul “a shy school boy” who hesitantly “climbs on to the stage, eyes downcast, stammering, fidgety, embarrassed, cautiously opens his mouth to speak, determined to be bold, but out comes a squeaky-voiced apology.”¹⁰ Baker locates Paul’s lack of confidence in the fact that the apostle was forced (cf. 12:11) to break his very guidelines concerning boasting, comparison, etc.

On the other hand, Ryan S. Schellenberg is convinced of the impressive rhetoric of chaps. 10–13 and therefore suggests that any reader who is interested in Pauline rhetoric must first go to these chapters because here is a “brilliant piece of text,” “magnificent composition,” and therefore “Paul’s rhetorical tour de force.”¹¹ While the images of a “shy school boy” and “rhetorical tour de force” present two extreme views, other scholarly options position themselves somewhere along the continuum. For Duane F. Watson, Paul was “a man who works within the conventions of his time, but in new and often surprising ways proffered by his new Christian perspective and values.”¹² Polemics provides the clue for Peter Lampe.¹³ Other scholars resort to terminological nuances to account for the apparent inconsistency in Paul’s logic. While Murray J. Harris distinguishes between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” boastings,¹⁴ Jan Lambrecht differentiates between “self-commending” and “boasting.”¹⁵ This list of scholarly options is by no means exhaustive nor can any single view be sufficient to account for the shifts and the rhetorical force of the chosen text. Acknowledging that every attempt can at best be provisional, this paper proposes to read 2 Cor 11:1–6, 12–15 as rhetoric from the edge.

At this juncture, a note on “rhetoric” and “edge” is in order. By “rhetoric,” the focus is on the persuasiveness of Pauline logic. A detailed Rhetorical Critical reading is beyond the scope of this paper. “Edge,” on the other hand, points to speaker’s perceived position. Relegated to the periphery, Paul constructs his counter-discourse. Such discourses from the edge are often characterized by dominant literary features such as resistance, ridicule, and reversal. Because Dalit literature is an apt contemporary example, a brief introduction to the Dalit literary features are delineated below which will serve as point of departure to appropriate Pauline discourse as rhetoric from the edge which demonstrates his apostolic resistance, ridiculing sarcasm, and novel reversals.

4. Dalits and Dalit Literary Features

“Indian society is divided into numerous castes and sub-castes, numbering roughly over four thousand.”¹⁶ Within this birth-based caste system, Dalits are relegated to the lowest rung.¹⁷ “Dalit” is often rendered as “ground down or broken to pieces”¹⁸ or “downtrodden.”¹⁹ These renderings bespeak centuries of denied equality and human dignity to Dalits. Relegated to the periphery of society, perceived as polluting and polluted, and thus deemed untouchables, Dalit history bears witness to their experiences of trauma.²⁰ And such lived experiences express themselves in their literature which is marked by dominant features such as resistance, ridicule, and reversal. Also a violent and protesting tone dominates Dalit literature because the writers “attempt to be true to their lived experiences … Their vehicle is often brutal, coarse and crude language of the slum.”²¹ Dalit counter-narratives are their arsenal to demolish the dominant paradigm of the high caste people. By means of their resistance, ridicule, and reversal, Dalit literature not only subverts hegemonic metanarratives but also, in the process, constructs and affirms Dalits’ otherwise fragmented identity.

4.1. Resistance

“Dalit literature is one of the major sites of their resistance and creativity.”²² Dalit discourse is an excellent example of Resistance Literature because of its two-fold aim:

Dalit writers regard themselves as inserting their previously silenced voices into the hegemonic canon of Indian literary history through the twin projects of creating a body of new literature along strict theoretical and aesthetic principles and turning their own critical gaze on canonical Indian literary texts.²³

An illustrative instance occurs in their depiction of “gods and goddesses [who] condemn caste and preach a religion of common human values.”²⁴ Such audacious but imaginative portrayals effectively resist hegemonic myths that legitimize the relegation of Dalits to the periphery. Further still, such resistive acts subvert even the very logic of the caste system.

4.2. Ridicule

As a counter-discourse, Dalit literature embodies a tone of ridicule, scorn, or mockery. Such belittling rendition goes hand in hand with its protest tone. For example, the Marathi Dalit literature “refers to … the legend of Dyaneshwar, who produced the sacred Vedas [Hindu Scriptures] from the mouth of a buffalo.”²⁵ Since buffalo is associated with lower caste people, such a bold depiction makes a mockery of the Hindu notion of eternal Vedas.

4.3. Reversal

If resistance and ridicule undercut the dominant worldview, reversal simultaneously critiques and constructs. Dalits construct “their identity by reversing the symbols that defined them as low and/or polluted into symbols of their culture and positive identity.”²⁶ For example, drum has been largely associated with Dalit community. Hence, high caste people cast a condescending look on drum and drum-playing. But Dalit literature has constructed counter-discourses that extol drum and drum-playing.²⁷ Similarly, within the South Indian society, beef-eating is seen a sign of pollution and therefore a characteristic mark of an outcaste. Various legends try and explain as to how the Dalits came to this despicable state. However, a Dalit community has created counter-discourses that applaud their habit of beef-eating.²⁸ These three dominant literary features together bear witness to Dalit literature as rhetoric from the edge. The following section endeavours to read the chosen text from a similar vantage point.

 5. A Dalit Reading of 2 Cor 11:1–6, 12–15: Rhetoric from the Edge

At the outset it must be acknowledged that compared to the lived experiences of Dalits which include denied equality, denigrated subjectivity, and dehumanizing exclusion, Paul’s situation appears to fare better. All the same, there are points of contact because of which both the discourses – Dalits’ and Pauline – can be meaningfully seen as rhetoric from the edge. As its founder, Paul felt sidelined when the Corinthian community submitted readily to the message of his opponents (cf. v.4). In as much as the apostle felt relegated to the periphery, Paul’s ethos and pathos are comparable to that of Dalits. And so, semblances of Resistance Literature can be readily perceived in the discourse of Paul, to which we turn now.

Dominic S. Irudayaraj, PhD in Biblical Studies

Categories: (B) Article