The Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
The Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
The historical reconstruction developed so far, though in its main outline enjoying widespread support, depends on the integrity of 1 Corinthians and of 2 Corinthians 1-9.
If parts of these letters were written at different times, perhaps by different authors, and somehow came together to constitute our present letters, then the reconstruction is without foundation. We would be left with too many unconnected fragments to make any widely believed reconstruction possible. Some of the points of dispute will shortly be surveyed, but first the contribution of 2 Corinthians 10-13 must be assessed.
The Place of 2 Corinthians 10-13 Despite widespread agreement on the main lines of the historical reconstruction just sketched in, there is equally widespread disagreement over the place of 2 Corinthians 10-13. Four principal theories address this issue.
1. Many argue that Paul, delighted by the news he received from Titus, immediately penned 2 Corinthians 1-9 (which thus becomes Corinthians D) and sent it off. They suggest that 2 Corinthians 10-13 is to be identified with Corinthians C, the severe and painful letter. 5
The advantage of this theory is that it fully explains the remarkable difference in tone between 2 Corinthians 1-9 and 10-13. The former chapters transparently reflect the good news that Titus has brought with him. If Paul must still give some explanation of his movements (1:15-2:13) and outline again the nature of apostolic ministry (3:1-18), if he must still exhort the Corinthians to press on with the collection (chs. 8-9), he does so with scarcely restrained joy and with restored confidence in the church’s obedience and growing maturity. By contrast, the language and emphases in chapters 10-13 are alternately angry, broken, and scathingly ironic. Paul’s joy has disappeared; his confidence in the maturity of the Corinthians has dissipated. No longer do we find Paul saying, "I am glad I can have complete confidence in you” (7:16); now he must say,
"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (13:5).
Moreover, proponents of this view argue that several passages in chapters 1-9 refer to statements previously made in chapters 10-13 (e.g., 1:23/13:2; 2:3/13:10; 2:9/10:6; 4:2/12:16; 7:2/12:17). And how, they ask, could Paul look forward to preaching the gospel "in the regions beyond you” (10:16) if he is already in Greece (more specifically, Macedonia) when he writes? Should he not have said "regions beyond us ”? Surely it is easier to think he writes such words from Ephesus—which presupposes that they were written before chapters 1-9.
Nevertheless, the theory stumbles over several obstacles. First, no Greek manuscript of 2 Corinthians suggests that the epistle originally terminated at the end of 2 Cor. 9, or suggests that chapters 10-13 originally had a proem typical of the epistles Paul wrote to churches where he was known. This is not decisive, of course: one could argue that our 2 Corinthians was not published until the two parts had been fused together. But in that case one ought to be able to give convincing reasons why someone should have performed such fusion. Second, the expression "the regions beyond you” (τα ύπερέκεινα ύμων [ta hyperekeina hymon, G5654]) does not demand that Paul not be writing from Greece. He may have thought of Achaia (where Corinth lay) as quite distinct from Macedonia; or he may have said "beyond you [Greeks]” in such a way as to refer to their land while excluding himself (as a Pole heading west might tell a German, on German soil, that he is going beyond "your country” on his way to France). Third, chapters 10-13 do not contain the one thing we are certain must have been in the severe letter, namely, the demand that a certain offender be punished (2:5-6; 7:12). Fourth, chapters 10-13 promise an imminent visit (12:14; 13:1), but Corinthians C, the severe letter, was sent instead of another painful visit (1:23; 2:1). Fifth, 12:18 clearly assumes that Titus had paid at least one visit to Corinth to assist in the collection; in other words, it presupposes either 8:6a or 8:16-19. Either way, it becomes hard to believe that chapters 1-9, where these two passages are embedded, were written after chapters 10-13, where 12:18 is located.
Still on the collection, if Paul was charged with using the funds himself (2 Cor. 12:16), how could he later boast so freely to Titus (7:14) and to the Macedonians (9:2) about the Corinthians’ generosity, without making some allusion to a patching up of misunderstanding on the point? It seems best to conclude that this first theory introduces more problems than it solves.
2. Some argue for the essential unity of 2 Corinthians: the entire book was written at one time. 6 Certainly this coheres with the textual evidence. If some reason must be given for the remarkable change in tone between 2 Cor. 1-9 and 10-13, there is no shortage of theories. Perhaps Paul had a sleepless night before composing the second part; perhaps the two parts of the book betray the ups and downs of a mercurial temperament; perhaps Paul finally exposes his deepest and hitherto repressed emotions on these matters. Better yet, Hughes argues that the difference in tone between the two parts of the book is greatly exaggerated: there is really no problem to solve. He draws comparisons between 1:13 and 10:11; 1:17 and 10:2; 2:1 and 12:14,
21 (see also 13:1-2); 2:17 and 12:19; 3:2 and 12:11; 6:13 and 11:2 (see also 12:14);
8:6, 8, 22 and 12:17-18. 7
Similar lists of comparisons, however, could be drawn between 2 Corinthians 10-13 and 1 Corinthians, but no one would be brash enough to suggest they show that 2 Corinthians 10-13 once belonged to 1 Corinthians. Doubtless there is a difficult question of judgment involved: Are the two principal parts of our 2 Corinthians sufficiently different in tone to throw doubt on the assumption that they were written at the same time, under the same circumstances, in one letter? In our judgment, the differences in tone and emphasis are sufficiently strong that some account must be given of them, and the psychological solutions are not very satisfying. Was Paul’s temperament so mercurial that it seriously affected his pastoral stance toward his converts, with no other cause than the day Paul happened to be writing? Is there any evidence that Paul was so emotionally immature and so full of repressed resentments that he was prone to losing control of himself? A more sympathetic reading is that Paul is constantly aware of what image he is projecting and takes it into account (see 1 Cor. 4:21). In 2 Corinthians 1-9, Paul is primarily engaged in building bridges toward the Corinthians, encouraging them, removing any obstacle in the way of their understanding; even the rebukes he administers are part of that design. By contrast, in chapters 10-13 Paul deploys sharp irony and dire threat, and whatever encouragement he offers is part of this pattern.
Harris offers a variation on this theory. 8 He suggests that when Paul received Titus’s good report, he did not immediately write any part of 2 Corinthians. Instead, he continued his pastoral work in Macedonia and quite possibly engaged in pioneer evangelism along the Egnatian Way and right around to Illyricum (see Rom. 15:19-21). When he returned to Macedonia, he heard of fresh problems in Corinth and wrote the entire epistle. This has the effect of explaining the tone of 2 Corinthians 10-13, but the cost is high: it fails to explain why 2 Corinthians 1-9 is so positive, why there is such euphoria in Paul’s words at the reception of Titus’s good report (7:6-16). Like the other theories that argue for the essential unity of 2 Corinthians, this one does not adequately grapple with the differences in stance between chapters 1-9 and 10-13.
3. The most popular theory among recent commentators is that 2 Cor. 10-13 were written after 1-9. In this view, chapters 10-13 constitute the whole or part of another letter, Corinthians E. After Paul heard from Titus, he immediately wrote Corinthians D (=
1 Cor. 1-9) and sent it off. Shortly after, however, he learned that the basically positive report brought by Titus was either premature or obsolete. The Corinthians had succumbed again to their carping criticism of Paul and had been wooed by the interlopers into a stance that was threatening the very integrity of the gospel. Once more they were taking decisive action against these leaders, and they were succumbing to the blandishments of the intellectual and cultural arrogance typical of Sophists. Paul therefore responds with his fifth letter to the Corinthians, namely, 2 Corinthians 10-13. 9
The primary advantage of this explanation—and it is very weighty—is that it fully accounts for the profound difference in stance between 2 Cor. 1-9 and 10-13. Correlatively, it explains why in 12:19-13:10 Paul envisages a third trip to Corinth, a visit that will be characterized by stern justice or (Paul hopes) happy reconciliation, but which is a visit unforeseen in and inappropriate to chapters 1-9. Some also argue that this theory best accounts for Paul’s references to Titus’s behavior in 12:17-18. There Paul, expecting a negative answer, asks the Corinthians if Titus or any other of his emissaries had ever exploited them, presumably in connection with the collection. This, it is argued, presupposes that chapters 10-13 were written after 8:6, 16-24 and 9:3-5, where Paul tells his readers he is about to send Titus.
This last point is surely not very strong, since the first part of 2 Cor. 8:6 demonstrates that Titus had been sent on an earlier visit to Corinth in connection with the collection, and 12:17-18 may refer to that earlier trip, thereby removing any need to postulate a time gap between 8:6, 16-24; 9:3-5, and 12:17-18. That no manuscript tradition supports the division of 2 Corinthians into two letters is important, though not decisive, since it might be argued that the two parts were published together: perhaps (it is suggested) they were copied onto the same scroll. If so, why should the conclusion of 1 Corinthians 1-9 be lost, along with the greetings, salutation, and thanksgiving of 2 Corinthians 10-13? In short, this theory is possible, and better than the other two, but it has to rely rather heavily on a stupid scribe early in the manuscript tradition.
4. Perhaps a minor modification to the third theory would improve it. If Paul was as eager to hear from Titus as 2 Corinthians 2:13 suggests, it is altogether natural to assume that, once he heard Titus’s good report, he immediately set about communicating his relief to the Corinthians. He was grateful that his severe letter (= Corinthians C) had not done the damage he feared, delighted that the Corinthians had responded with repentance and obedience, and encouraged to learn that his most obstreperous and dangerous opponent had been disciplined. But even if he set to writing (or dictating) immediately, there is no reason to think he finished it promptly. This epistle is fairly long, and Paul was at this time extraordinarily pressed by his ministry in Macedonia. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the completion of the letter was delayed for weeks, or even longer: the phenomenon of unfinished letters is not entirely unknown today, and our letters are usually much shorter than 2 Corinthians! If during that time Paul received additional information about the situation in Corinth and learned that it had once again plummeted into the disastrous state presupposed by 2 Corinthians 10-13, the abrupt change of tone that begins at 10:1 would be accounted for. In other words, one might reasonably postulate that after finishing chapters 1-9, but before completing the letter and sending it off, Paul received bad news from Corinth and changed his tack in the final chapters of his epistle.
Several objections have been raised against this reconstruction.
1. It has been argued that if Paul had received bad news from Corinth before 2 Cor. 1-9 had been sent, he would have torn them up and begun a new letter. But this overlooks how much of chapters 1-9 is valuable in its own right. Indeed, if Paul left some markers in chapters 10-13 that he had received fresh information about the disastrous turn the Corinthians were taking (see discussion below), then the Corinthian readers would become aware of the startling contrast between Paul’s joy at Titus’s report and his broken indignation at their recent defection. This would have the effect of turning even the earlier chapters into an implicit rebuke, since the causes of Paul’s joy— Corinthian repentance, obedience, and zeal—would no longer be operative.
2. The only serious difficulty with this theory is that nowhere in 2 Corinthians 10-13 does Paul explicitly state that he has received fresh information. It must be remembered (a point frequently forgotten) that this difficulty also attaches itself to the third theory, which meets it by positing that part of Corinthians E was lost when it was joined with Corinthians D to form 2 Corinthians. But it is possible to construct an alternative explanation as to why Paul makes no direct mention of the arrival of additional
information. For instance, if some new report came to him in which many Corinthian believers, influenced by the false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13-15), were accusing Paul of showing too much meekness and gentleness to be a true apostle, then his opening words in 2 Corinthians 10:1 would be sufficient to draw attention to his knowledge of the latest in their list of theological fads: "By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you....” If charges were now widely circulating in Corinth that Paul’s formal credentials left a great deal to be desired, in comparison with those of the interlopers (10:12-18), that he could not be much of a teacher because he refused to charge for his services (11:7-12; 12:13), that his apostolic status could not amount to much because he did not talk much about the supernatural visions of which others were eager to speak (12:1-10), then his responses in all these areas would be enough to alert his readers that these latest developments had reached his ears.
3. We have already seen that some think the movements of Titus can be explained only if we postulate a break between 2 Cor. 9 and 10 (cf. 2 Cor. 8:6, 16-24; 9:3-5, and 12:17-18). But the pressure is eased if 12:17-18 refers to Titus’s earlier trip to Corinth (8:6a).
4. Some find it unlikely that the Corinthian church could have tumbled so quickly into such disarray. A slightly cynical response might be that such critics have not witnessed very closely much contemporary church life. More important, neither 1 Corinthians nor 2 Corinthians 1-9 encourages us to think that this was a very stable church. The Corinthian believers seem to have been characterized by various forms of arrogance, prone to attach themselves to various leaders, rather overconfident of their own spiritual discernment, and badly compromised with the surrounding culture. Nor is this the end of the evidence. Forty years later, Clement of Rome finds it necessary to write to the Corinthian church and speak against their dissensions and anarchy.
In short, the evidence is not sufficient for giving a decisive account of 2 Corinthians
10-13. On the whole, however, the fourth theory seems marginally stronger than the third, which is considerably more believable than either of the other two.
We may well ask if Paul’s Corinthian correspondence succeeded in turning the situation around, at least temporarily. Again, no decisive answer can be given. But there is some hope for an optimistic answer in the fact that, when the threatened third visit actually took place (2 Corinthians 13:2-3), Paul found the time and tranquility to write his epistle to the Romans. That letter betrays some anxiety about the future (Rom. 15:3031), but none about his present circumstances. It is unlikely that Paul would still be planning his trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24-28) if he thought his presence was still chronically necessary in Corinth (see 2 Cor. 10:15-16a). And the Corinthians did contribute to the collection for the poor believers in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26-27), though how much this may reflect a healed relationship with Paul it is impossible to say.