Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Opponents in 1&2 Corinthians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Opponents in 1&2 Corinthians
  • Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:35:28 -0700


Frank Hughes wrote:

<<We do not know when the opponents came to Corinth or when their influence
on the Corinthian church began.>>

I think you have ducked the question here, Frank. You said earlier that
you see the same opposition behind both 1 and 2 Corinthians. If that is
still your view, then it seems to me that you have a problem explaining the
severity of 2 Cor 10-13. How would you explain Paul's mood when he wrote
this passage (much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears)? We
would not expect Paul to respond in that way to hearing the news that
nothing much had changed in Corinth. If, on the other hand, there had been
a dramatic turn for the worse in Corinth just before Paul wrote 2 Cor
10-13, why did it take the opponents so long to cause such a change? Why
had they not had such a strong influence before 1 Cor was written?

Why not try putting the tearful letter before 1 Corinthians? We could then
see it as Paul's emotional over-reaction to first hearing the news of the
arrival of the opponents in Corinth, and we could read 1 Cor as the
aftermath of their visit. It seems to me that many of the insights that
you shared in your post would support such a reading of 1 Cor.

<<It interests me that we see traces of the aftermath of Paul's decision
not to accept a salary from the Corinthians in both 1 and 2 Corinthians.>>

Me too. 1 Cor 9 and 2 Cor 11:7-12 can be explained by the influence of the
same external opponents, I think.

<<The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that the Corinthian
correspondence reflects Paul's successive (but unsuccessful) attempts to
deal with the problems in the Corinthian church, based on his quite
incomplete knowledge of what was going on there, especially in 1
Corinthians or in Jewett's partition theory, letters A and C.>>

But you haven't explained why 2 Cor 10-13 WAS largely successful, while
(supposedly) 1 Cor and (hypothetical) visits by Paul and Tim failed.

On the question of how much Paul knew at various stages of his
correspondence, Thrall has argued (I don't remember where) that Paul had
rather sketchy information when he wrote 2 Cor 10-13. I think this is
confirmed by 2 Cor 7:11, which suggests that Paul had been mistaken in at
least some of what he had written. So I don't see any reason to explain
away 2 Cor 10-13 with the suggestion that he had more accurate information
at that time than he had had when writing 1 Cor.

Thrall has also argued that the person of Peter lies behind the opposition
in 2 Cor 10-13. Others have argued that 10-13 is aimed at the Christ
party. These theories don't really work when 2 Cor 10-13 is place after 1
Cor because 10-13 is aimed at the whole church, not just factions. Indeed,
factions are what he fears (12:20), not what he knows to already exist.
But if we place 2 Cor 10-13 BEFORE 1 Cor, the origin of the parties comes
into focus. I would tentatively suggest the following interpretation:

The external opponents of 1 & 2 Cor had obtained letters of recommendation
from the Jerusalem apostles, and claimed authority from them. They brought
new ideas such as the view (of Jesus) that apostles should accept support.
They held the Jerusalem apostles in higher esteem than Paul. They raised
the issues concerning the council agreement, and Paul responded in kind.
After the visitors had departed, the Corinthians questioned whether Paul
was a proper interpreter of Christ. A legacy of their visit was that some
came to see Peter as the foundation of the church. Another legacy was an
interest in the commands of the Jesus, and a willingness to distinguish
them from the teachings of Paul.

An interpretation along these lines, in my opinion, makes sense of both 1
Cor and 2 Cor without having to suppose two different occasions when the
Corinthians came under the influence of outside forces. Placing 2 Cor
10-13 after 1 Cor, on the other hand, requires two such occasions. In
fact, placing 2 Cor 10-13 after 1 Cor creates duplications not just of the
occasions of outside influence, but also of changes of travel plans,
missions of Timothy, beginnings to the collection, severe letters,
reconciliations etc.. Why make things complicated when they can be simple?

<<When he wrote letters A and C, he doesn't mention opponents because he
presumably didn't think there were any.>>

Not buying. He would have known from Staphanas that some outsiders had
visited Corinth. He cannot have been aware of their influence without
having been told of their visit.

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page