2nd Corinthians
Hello, and welcome to the thirtieth installation of my Biblical scholarship effortpost series. Last time, we looked at 1 Corinthians, which saw Paul attempting to control, at a distance, the situation of the Corinthian church. This time, we’ll look at 2 Corinthians - but as we’ll see, the characteristics of this letter have led many scholars to believe that it’s actually multiple letters jumbled together.
The usual disclaimers: this is primarily about secular scholarship, not theology. I studied this in university, but I don’t have a PhD or anything. I’m aiming for a 100/200 level coverage, and if there’s anything people want to know that I haven’t covered, ask and I’ll see if I can answer.
2 Corinthians is thought to have been written (as we’ll see, at multiple points) in the summer/autumn of 57, though some scholars posit a revised chronology of Paul’s missionary career that would place it in 55 or 56. Its authenticity is not seriously disputed: there’s no reason to think it’s not Paul. However, most scholars think that a number of letters have been combined, accidentally or on purpose, into one document.
Why do they think this? They think that abrupt shifts in topic and the like indicate that multiple letters have been combined out of order - scholarly theories usually propose from 2 to 5 individual letters. It isn’t unheard of, though, for scholars to posit a single letter written in stages, and generally theories of fewer (rather than as many as five) letters also propose some writing in stages.
The primary reason to think there were multiple documents can be seen by briefly summarizing the letter. Chapters 1-9 are primarily a relatively low-key presentation of an apocalyptic worldview, contrasting the necessity of suffering and hardship now with the future glory that is promised, defending Paul’s authority but referring to opponents only obliquely. 10-13 are a strong defence of Paul’s authority as an apostle against challenges by those he sarcastically calls “super-apostles”. Defending his authority, he derives it from his gospel message and his willingness to suffer for that message, rather than from his own personal qualities.
As we saw last time, Paul had rolled into Corinth and evangelized, leaving a church behind. This church appears to have consisted of both Jews and gentiles, based on names given in 1 Cor and in Romans. Not everybody in it had been converted by Paul - for example, Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila were two Jewish Christians originally from Rome. Paul left, and subsequently wrote a letter (now lost, but mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9). He then learned of problems in Corinth through personal reports and a letter, and wrote 1 Cor to the community.
The timeline of 2 Cor’s composition will vary depending on whether you think it is one or multiple documents. Paul, acting upon reports of further problems in the community and challenges to his authority, returns to Corinth. However, a member of the community there publicly confronts him and he leaves, humiliated. He writes a letter to them, “with many tears”, which if you think 2 Cor is one whole, you will think has been lost; if you think it’s more than one letter, you might identify 10-13 as preserving part of the “tearful letter” - however, in 2:1-4, Paul says that he wrote the letter “with many tears” after resolving not to make “another painful visit” - which would argue against reading 10-13 as the letter referenced there.
This letter, delivered by one of Paul’s companions, has its intended effect, and Paul soon learns that things are going his way again. He writes 2 Cor 1-9 at this point - and, if you think it’s all one letter, 10-13 as well. The abrupt transition between ch 9 (concerned largely with fundraising) and ch 10 (in which Paul argues for his own authority) is the strongest reason to think it’s more than one letter.
Both chapter 8 and 9 are fundraising appeals. They are quite similar and don’t acknowledge the repetition. Some scholars think that these are two separate letters.This makes chapter 8 a fundraising appeal directly to the Corinthians, in which he refers favourably to the fundraising done by the Macedonians, in order to encourage the Corinthians to give. Meanwhile, chapter 9 is a fundraising appeal to Achaia (the region of which Corinth was the major city); in it, he indicates that he is praising the audience (which could include Corinth) to the Macedonians and presumably thus encouraging them to live up to their reputation by continuing to donate. Regardless of to whom chapter 8 and 9 were addressed, they seem to make more sense as separate letters.
6:14-7:1 seems out of place, and if you skip from 6:13 to 7:2 the text flows better, so many scholars think that part was dropped in. It might not even be written by Paul; it uses vocabulary unusual for him and some think its level of dualism is more than one would expect from Paul. Those who think that the letter was composed as one piece offer various explanations for these seeming disconnects. They theorize that the 1-9/10-13 split reflects bad news that Paul received after he had already written 1-9. The major weakness here is that there’s nothing in 10-13 to indicate this might be the case. For the other disjunctions, scholars argue over how abrupt the disconnects actually are.
Considering the text of the letter, and leaving aside theories of composition, who are these “super-apostles” Paul is competing with? All we have to go on are what Paul says about them and our background knowledge. In 10:10 he says that they attack him for his lack of in-person charisma and rhetorical ability (“his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible”) and in 11:5-6 that he is not inferior to them, though he is untrained in speech. From this we can conclude that they had rhetorical skill - likely of the sort one would acquire in a Hellenistic education. In 11:22, he indicates that they (and he) are Hebrews, Israelites, and descendants of Abraham. So, demographically, these are likely people much like Paul: Hellenistic-educated diaspora Jews.
A side note: why does Paul describe himself using the word rendered in the NRSV as “untrained”, given that his writing indicates someone who has had some level of a Hellenistic rhetorical education? The word can be translated many different ways, and assigning meanings to ancient words is quite arcane. Paul could be indicating that he lacks natural ability rather than learned skill. I recall seeing some scholar or other speculate that Paul is indicating he has a speech impediment, but that’s pretty tenuous. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, a later composition which can’t be relied on to carry any real information about Paul, happens to describe him as a short, bald, bow-legged guy with a big nose and a unibrow (but nevertheless with the aspect of an angel about him). Were this to be accurate, it would indicate that Paul was not an unskilled public speaker - just funny-looking.
Unlike Paul, these “super-apostles” accept support from the Corinthians - in the Hellenistic world, since being a patron grants status, it can be rude not to take it. Also unlike Paul, they boast of their mystical experiences and the like. There is not much concrete information about what they were teaching, but if we consider Paul’s general teaching in the letter, it is possible that they taught that life in Christ was already exalted, whereas Paul promises future exaltation contrasted to the here and now.
Recent Comments