Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>]

J.Amador raised the question of the unity of 2 Cor.  This prompts me to ask
a subsidiary question: should 2 Cor 10-13 be seen as a rhetorical whole?
i.e. does it feel complete, or should we suppose that it is only part of a
larger letter?  Is anyone aware of any work that has been done on this issue?

J.Amador asked:
>What happens to the chronology proposed by Mr. Fellows if 2 Corinthians can
>be shown to be intact, i.e., not two different sources?

I suppose you could combine the Titus-Timothy hypothesis with a theory of
literary unity of 2 Corinthians.  Titus and the brother of 2 Cor 12:18
would still correspond nicely with Timothy and Erastus.  You would have the
same sequence of events as I proposed. However, as far as I can see, the
main arguments against literary unity still apply when Titus=Timothy.  

Here are some reasons for identifying 2 Cor 10-13 with the 'tearful'
letter, at the same time as identifying 'Titus' as Timothy.

1.  On the usual assumption that Titus was not Timothy, the tearful letter
announced the cancellation of Paul's plan to visit Corinth.  But 2 Cor
10-13, far from cancelling a visit, actually anticipates an imminent visit.
 With the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, on the other hand, we get that the
visit was announced with the tearful letter, and cancelled (by 1 Cor)
before the tearful letter arrived. (Remember that Timothy was en-route for
Corinth when 1 Cor was written).  So 2 Cor 10-13 fits the tearful letter
exactly, but only if Titus was Timothy.

2.  Paul's strongest outburst in 1 Cor is in the very passage where he
mentions the sending of Timothy (4.14-21), and this passage reflects many
of the same concerns as 2 Cor 10-13.  Compare, for example 1 Cor 4:21 with
2 Cor 13.10.

3.  As John Hurd pointed out in his book 'The Origin of 1 Cor' the letter
was written in response to information received recently by a letter from
Corinth, and other older information.  Now, the main themes of 2 Cor 10-13
are contained in the passages in 1 Cor that can be identified as being
based on the earlier information.  This fits perfectly with the suggestion
that 2 Cor 10-13 was sent with Timothy, who had been sent some time before
1 Cor.  If Titus was not Timothy, we would get the impression that a second
set of rivals appeared in Corinth, after 1 Cor was sent, and that they lit
no new fires, but chose to fan only the older fires while ignoring the
newer ones.

Further arguments are presented in my article at

http://www.ameritech.net/users/jgibson000/WasTT8w.html

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca