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: "Frank W. Hughes" <fwhughes AT sunbeach.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Opponents in 1&2 Corinthians
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 07:46:21 -0300


> . . . 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.

What had changed was that Paul was no longer just getting a report which he
only
"partially" believes (1 Cor 11) or multiple reports from "those associated
with Chloe"
(1 Cor 1:10) which Paul seems to believe quite completely. Instead of
getting bits
and pieces which were negative -- coupled with the extremely positive
Corinthian
letter to Paul with its apparently self-congratulatory tone ("boasting")
about the
spiritual gifts which the congregation believed it had, so that the
congregation said
it was "filled" and "rich" and like "kings." Paul thinks that the problem is
primarily false spirituality and factionalism. So he doesn't bother to
defend himself
because he doesn't think he needs to. His message is generally that of
concord and
inclusion. He chooses to stay at the level of spirituality and the meaning of
apostolic ministry as long as he can. Finally in Corinthian letter E he gets
"down
and dirty" because being a "nice guy" didn't work. Paul now has the full
story on his
opponents and the specific charges against him. He now defends but also
clearly
prosecutes.

He was getting different -- as far as we know more accurate -- information by
the time
he wrote Corinthian letters D and following.

> 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.

. . .

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

This would be especially true if 1 Cor 9:1-18 was originally part of 2 Cor
10-13.

> 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.

2 Cor 10-13 is the best candidate for the "letter of tears" and letter G (2
Cor
1:1-2:13 + 7:5-8:24) describes in excruciating detail the reaction when the
letter of
tears was received.

> . . . 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?

Given the fact that by the time of 1 Cor or Corinthian letter C Paul is
dealing with
multiple reports which he now fully believes, and given that there can be
people
coming and going to Corinth whom Paul doesn't mention (perhaps he wants to
protect his
sources from letter D onwards), and the fact that the factions didn't
disappear,
simplicity is not at the essence of the Corinthian situation! One interesting
sidelight is that it may have been the Paul party which wrote Paul to ask his
opinion
about idol meat, marriage, etc., to which Paul responds in Corinthian letter
C or 1
Cor. Given the existence of the Cephas party and the other parties, why
would any
other than the Paul party have written Paul to ask his opinion and why would
they care
what his opinion was? Perhaps Paul was banking on the hope, when he wrote
letter C,
that the whole congregation would care what his opinion was since he was the
founding
apostle. This hope was unrealized.

You also ask about what Paul would have known about the opponents by the time
he wrote
1 Corinthians. In my opinion the opponents were there but he doesn't have
information
about what they are doing. Or they are behaving, like new church members
should, or
they do not yet have the influence in Corinth they would later wield -- they
hadn't
been given particular honors or leadership responsibilities in the church as
yet. Or
maybe Paul has bits and pieces of more information that he's not talking
about in 1
Cor or Corinthians letter C because his rhetorical strategy is to advise
unity and
concord. Maybe he wants to put the best construction on the reports he has
heard. Or
maybe he doesn't want to give ill-informed people any free publicity and
hopes that if
the church as a whole improves, "a rising tide will raise all the ships."

Frank W. Hughes
Codrington College
Barbados





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page