67 IS THE WORD OF GOD INCOMPLETE? They do not reach the same agreement when determining the function of the section. In fact, for the last two decades, some schol- ars, applying relatively similar rhetorical approaches to the text, have not resolved whether Col 1,24–2,5 belongs to the epistolary corpus or not. On the one hand, first in his commentary and years later at a meeting of experts, M. Wolter qualified 1,24–2,5 as the self-presentation (Selbstvorstellung) of the apostle with the purpose of creating a trustful relation with a community that he did not found. By means of a literary fiction the author of Colossians would introduce himself to addressees he had never personally met. M. Wolter ’s reading considers 1,24–2,5 part of the epistolary introduc- tion but not of the epistolary corpus 16. On the other hand, J.-N. Aletti has shown Wolter’s dependence on F. Schnider and W. Stenger’s arguments. They criticize J.T. Sanders and J.L. White for rigidly following (mit allzu starrem Blick) the early epistolary model as it is found in the papyrus letters, and in particular for neglecting a necessary transition between epistolary introduction (praescriptum and thanksgiving report) and epistolary corpus 17. In turn, Schinder and Stenger depend on W.H. Wuellner’s remarks concerning the epistolary opening of Romans. According to Wuellner, Rom 1,13-15 shows a continuing effort on the part of the sender to establish an ethos in order to persuade his audience. Wuellner’s pre- mises followed by Schnider and Stenger are: Romans is an argumen- tation (Rede), and an argumentation needs to create an ethos persuading the hearers to trust the speaker. The rhetorical function of such an ethos in the exordium of a discourse is to provide implicit premises “such as reminding the reader of the speaker’s authority” 18. “Wie in Tim 1,12-17 steht auch hier die Selbstvorstellung des fiktiven 16 Autors zwischen Proömium und Briefcorpus”. WOLTER, Der Brief an die Kolosser, 98. In a similar way, N. Frank names the section “apostolische Selbst- charakterisierung”. FRANK, Der Kolosserbrief im Kontext des paulinischen Erbes, 89. See also T. VEGGE, “Polemic in the Epistle to the Colossians”, Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur (eds. O. WISCHMEYER – L. SCOR- NAIENCHI) (Berlin – New York 2011) 262. They underscore that Pauline letters are not addressed to individuals 17 but to a larger public. For this reason we cannot compare them to a conver- sation between friends, but rather to the rhetorical genus of an argumentation. F. SCHNIDER – W. STENGER, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS; Leiden 1987) 50-52. W.H. WUELLNER, “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An 18 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati