2 Corinthians - one letter or more?

by TheListener 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Do you believe 2 Corinthians is one letter or two or more put together for publication?

    I've seen the hypothesis that it's two letters.

    First letter is chapters 8-13

    Second letter is chapters 1-7.

    The explanation goes like this:

    chapters 8-13:

    Paul going to send Titus

    Macedonia giving lots of money - you rich Corinthians should too

    Paul plans on visiting a third time

    Paul angry with Corinthians and must brag about his qualifications 'cause they're not listening to him

    chapters 1-7:

    Titus back and Paul says Titus happy with Corinthians

    Paul couldn't make it for another visit

    Paul not angry anymore and apologizes for previous angry letter.

    Any other arguments for or against? The WTS doesn't comment on this as far as I could see. I don't know if it would change their viewpoint on what Paul said so it probably doesn't matter to them much.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Probably even more complex than that.

    Here's a brief summary from www.earlychristianwritings.com

    Second Corinthians is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted to contain authentic Pauline correspondence.

    Werner Georg Kummel would like to view the letter to be a whole composed by the apostle Paul on one occasion (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 287-293).

    However, there are difficulties that have suggested to several commentators that 2 Corinthians has been compiled from several pieces of correspondence. Since the "sorrowful letter" mentioned in 2:4 does not describe 1 Corinthians, we know that Paul had written at least three letters to the Corinthians. A quite reasonable suggestion is that the last four chapters contain the "sorrowful letter" that is mentioned in 2:4.

    Other evidence bears out this view. Edgar J. Goodspeed notes a few considerations that suggest disunity in 2 Corinthians (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 58-59). On the one hand, "From the beginning through chapter 9 it is pervaded by a sense of harmony, reconciliation, and comfort." On the other, "With the beginning of chapter 10 we are once more in the midst of personal misunderstanding and bitterness, and these continue to dominate the letter to the end . . . This undeniable incongruity between the two parts of II Corinthians naturally suggests that we have in it two letters instead of one - one conciliatory and gratified, the other injured and incensed. And as the early part of II Corinthians clearly looks back upon a painful, regretted letter, the possibility suggests itself that we actually have that letter in chapters 10-13."

    Norman Perrin offers the following solution with five Pauline fragments and one non-Pauline interpolation (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 104-105).

    • Verses 2:14-6:13 and 7:2-4 are "part of a letter that Paul wrote to defend himself and his authority against opponents who came to Corinth bearing letters of recommendation from Christian communities in which they had previously worked and who rapidly assumed positions of authority in the Corinthian community."
    • Verses 10:1-13:14 contain the sorrowful letter. After his first unsuccessful attempt to assert his authority with the Corinthian community failed, Paul visited the church and was humiliated in public (2:5, 7:12). After this incident, from Ephesus Paul wrote against the "superlative apostles" who appealed to visions and miracle-working as proof of their authority. Paul himself "appeals to the original effectiveness of the gospel he preached in Corinth so as not to be a burden on his converts, and to his own Jewish heritage and his sufferings as a servant of Christ" in order to win back authority in Corinth.
    • Verses 1:1-2:13 and 7:5-16 are a "letter of reconciliation." After the success achieved through his painful letter, Paul "wrote a letter rejoicing in the resumption of good relations between him and the Corinthian Christian community."
    • Verse 8:1-24 are "part of a letter of recommendation for Titus as organizer of the collection of saints in Jerusalem." It is impossible to know the relationship between this letter and the rest of Paul's correspondence with Corinth.
    • Verses 9:1-15 are "part of a letter concerning the collection for the saints." It is again impossible to determine this letter's relationship to the rest of Paul's letters to Corinth.
    • Finally, verses 6:14-7:1 contain a fragment that has next to no connection to Paul in ideas or wording, although it does have some affinities with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Kummel allows that 6:14-7:1 is interpolated yet still maintains that it is Pauline. However, Joseph Fitzmyer has argued that 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation from a document at Qumran in an essay reproduced in The Semitic Background of the New Testament, pp. 205-217. There are three reasons to posit that the passage is interpolated: "the paragraph radically interrupts the chain of thought between 6:13 and 7:2," the passage is "a unit intelligible in itself," and "six of the key-words in the passage are not found elsewhere in the New Testament." Fitzmyer argues that references to triple dualism, the opposition to idols, the temple of God, separation from all impurity, and the concatenation of Old Testament texts point to a Qumranic origin for the interpolated fragment.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Oh my God Narkissos! You just couldn't leave the two letter hypothesis alone could you.

    II read the letter several time over the past week and I can definitely see at least two letters (per my original post). I can concede that it may actually contain more.

    Narkissos what about this:

    Edgar J. Goodspeed notes a few considerations that suggest disunity in 2 Corinthians (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 58-59). On the one hand, "From the beginning through chapter 9 it is pervaded by a sense of harmony, reconciliation, and comfort." On the other, "With the beginning of chapter 10 we are once more in the midst of personal misunderstanding and bitterness, and these continue to dominate the letter to the end . . . This undeniable incongruity between the two parts of II Corinthians naturally suggests that we have in it two letters instead of one - one conciliatory and gratified, the other injured and incensed. And as the early part of II Corinthians clearly looks back upon a painful, regretted letter, the possibility suggests itself that we actually have that letter in chapters 10-13."

    I re-read 2 Cor. and it just seems to make sense that the beginning of chapter 8 is a natural break in the flow. He goes from consolation and making up (chapters 1-7) to saying 'oh yeah you buttheads better give more money than the Macedonians'. (obviously not a direct translation).

    It seems from chapter 8 to the end he just gets more and more worked up.

    Narkissos, what about this:

    Since the "sorrowful letter" mentioned in 2:4 does not describe 1 Corinthians, we know that Paul had written at least three letters to the Corinthians. A quite reasonable suggestion is that the last four chapters contain the "sorrowful letter" that is mentioned in 2:4.

    I read 2 Cor. 2:4 again, - 2 Cor. 2:4 "For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you. "-blue letter bible.

    Couldn't this pertain to chapters 8-13 not just 10-13? I think it's possible.

    I can't even understand the Norman Perrin hypothesis. Seven books? Wow. I think it's possible but it would have required much more rework by Paul or Timothy (or dum dum dum dum someone else entirely).

    I think for now I will go with the two letter theory. It's easier to explain and doesn't rock anyone's apple cart. Yes, that the basis for all good decision making. Easy explanations and no apple cart rocking.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete


    Just for fun I'll toss in the bulk of the text of 3 Corithians seldom quoted today. I only do this so that some of us can see that "Pauline" material was being produced in the second century (if not earlier) that is fairly hard (if not impossible) to distinguish from the work of the author of Galations, 1 Cor. etc. As you read it ask yourself if you would have seen it for a fraud. It was very popular and accepted in the Syriac and Armenian churches.

    3 Corinthians

    Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the brothers in Corinth, greeting!

    Since I am in prison, I am not surprised that the teachings of the evil one are quickly gaining ground. My Lord Jesus Christ will quickly come, since he is rejected by those who falsify His words. I delivered to you from the beginning what I received from the apostles who were before me, who were at all times together with the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary of the seed of David. The Holy Spirit was sent from Heaven by the Father into her, that he might come into this world to redeem all flesh through his own flesh, and that he might raise up from the dead we who are fleshly, just as He has shown Himself as our example. Since man was molded by his Father, man was sought for when he was lost, that he might be quickened by adoption into sonship. The almighty God, who made heaven and earth, first sent the prophets to the Jews, that they might turn from their sins; for he had determined how to save the house of Israel, therefore he sent a portion of the spirit of Christ into the prophets, who at many times proclaimed the faultless worship of God. But since the prince who was unrighteous wished to be God, he laid hands on them and killed them, and so all the flesh of men were bound to passions. But God, the almighty, who is righteous and would not repudiate his own creation, sent the Holy Spirit to Mary the Galilean, who believed with all her heart, and she received the Holy Spirit into her womb that Jesus might enter the world, in order that the evil one might be conquered by the same flesh which he held sway, and be convinced that he was not God.

    For by his own body Jesus Christ saved all flesh and brought it to eternal life through faith, that he might present a temple of righteousness in his own body, through whom we are redeemed. These are not children of righteousness but of wrath, who reject the providence of God, saying that heaven and earth and all that is in them are not the works of the Father. They are themselves therefore children of wrath, for they have the accursed faith of the serpent. From them turn away, and flee from there teaching! For you are not sons of disobedience but of the church most dearly beloved. This is why the time of the resurrection is proclaimed.

    As for those who tell you there is no resurrection of the flesh, for them there is no resurrection, who do not believe in Him who has risen. You men of Corinth must understand that they don't know about the sowing of wheat or other seeds. That they are cast naked to the ground and when they have perished below and are raised again by the will of God in a body and clothed. The body is not only raised up, but abundantly blessed. And consider not only the seeds, but nobler bodies.

    You know how Jonah the son of Amathios, when he would not preach in Nineveh but fled, was swallowed by a whale and after three days and three nights God heard Jonah's prayer out of the deepest hell, and no part of him was corrupted, not even an eyelid. How much more, you of so little faith, will he raise up you who have believed in Christ Jesus, as he himself rose up? And if, when a corpse was thrown by the children of Israel on the bones of the prophet Elisha, the man's body rose up, so you also who have been cast upon the body and bones and spirit of the Lord will rise up on that day with your flesh whole.

    But if you receive anything else, do not cause me trouble; for I have these fetters on my hands that I may gain Christ, and his marks on my body that I may attain to the resurrection form the dead. And whoever abides by the rule which he received by the prophets and the holy Gospel, he shall receive a reward and when he has risen form the dead shall obtain eternal life. But to him that turns aside form them - there is fire with him and those who go before him in the way, since they are men without God, a generation of vipers; from these turn away in the power of the Lord

    May peace, grace and love be with you. Amen.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Sorry if I killed another thread. I thought the question was valid and in fact insightful. It may however be a first peek into the mass of assumptions made by both Fundamentalists but liberal scholarship alike. 3 Cor. posted above has elements that strike me as 'nonPauline' such as the references to Mary, yet I'm basing that suspicion upon prior assumptions that at least a couple of the Canonical books attributed to a 'Paul' are in fact just that. Yet that assumption is largely arrived at because these few books resemble each other in language and message and fit preconceptions about what and who Paul was. What if "Paulos" (meaning small) really was a creation/penname for another writer, for instance? Is the Paulos of the letters really the same person the author of Acts alone called Saul of Tarsus? Name changes in the Bible usually follow a plot shift for the character yet here we have no obvious motive. Is it possible that a certain Saul had traditions of his own and Paul was simply a penname that became attached to him through accident or clever invention? Is the name Paulos (small) a cue name for the one who called himself , or was called, "least of the apostles" (1 Cor 15:9) or is this passage too an interpolation as is concluded by many? The questions just keep coming.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Hey PP you killed my thread. That stinks.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    I'm just scared to post on it...

    [slinks away to hide in the shadow of a corner]

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Sorry, I ramble on a bit too much. Keep asking questions and avail yourself to the genius of narkissos and others here. I am always impressed with his depth of understanding. Leolaia seems to be absent otherwise she also is an incredible resource for such scholarship. It is important tho that they not be expected to spoon feed anyone. They and others can steer us in the right (or at least a possible) direction, then we should take it upon ourselves to study. It gets a bit tedious for them to write extensive detailed responses to everyone who has only a casual interest or is simply being a numbskull.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Corinthians

    On "Saul" one very interesting (yet not necessarily convincing) explanation is that of Eisenman:

    http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit