Corpus-Paul

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

If you pull a 2 Corinthians commentary from your shelves and look at its
scripture index you will probably see that the commentary on 2 Cor 10-13
contains more references to 1 Cor 4.10-21 than to any other part 1
Corinthians. I will argue that the numerous parallels between 1 Cor 4.10-21
and 2 Cor 10-13 demand a stronger historical connection between these
passages than is normally supposed.  It can be demonstrated from other
parts of the Corinthian correspondence that Timothy, who was travelling to
Corinth when 1 Cor was written, was carrying 2 Cor 10-13, and the evidence
from 1 Cor 4.10-21 seems to confirm this, as we shall see.

In 1 Cor 4.10 Paul uses cutting irony, contrasting his own 'foolishness'
and 'weakness' with their 'wisdom' and 'strength'.  He does the same in 2
Cor 11.1,16,19,30; 12.9-10; 13.9.

In 1 Cor 4.11-12 Paul gives a tribulations list, as he does in 2 Cor 11.23-27.

In 1 Cor 4.13-14 he says that he has just written to warn them about the
pedagogues.  Some rival teachers are in view and they can be equated with
those of 2 Cor 10.12-18; 11.4,12-15.  

Against the pedagogues Paul emphasises that HE was their father in the
faith (1 Cor 4.15) and they were his children (4.14).  He makes a rather
similar point in 2 Cor 10.13-16.

Pedagogues were well known for their use of corporal punishment and it may
well be that Paul has this in mind here (see also 4.21 where Paul may well
be saying, "do you really want me to come with a rod like the
pedagogues?").  Is it a coincidence, then, that in 2 Cor 11.20 the
Corinthians had yielded to the opponents because they had hit them in the
face?

In 1 Cor 4.16-17 Paul says that Timothy will remind them of his ways in
Christ.  It is normally assumed that Timothy was to do that by his own
behaviour, but it is equally possible that Paul had sent a letter with
Timothy to achieve that purpose.  I suggest that Timothy was carrying 2 Cor
10-13 when 1 Cor was written.  Notice that, with its emphasis on boasting
in weakness and its extended tribulations list, 2 Cor 10-13 does more to
remind its readers of Paul's 'ways in Christ' than any other letter.

The connections between 1 Cor 4.18-21 and 2 Cor 10.9-10; 13.10 are strong
and have been mentioned before on this list, and have been alluded to by
many of the commentators.  To what has been said before, I would like to
add that the references to LOGOS in 4.19,20 may indicate that the arrogant
Corinthians had placed a high value on eloquent speech, and this is a theme
which also appears in 2 Cor 10.10; 11.6. 
The term 'kingdom of God' is so rare in Paul that it may well be that Paul
has here adopted the terminology of his opponents.  If so, it would seem
that those arrogant Corinthians had accepted 'another gospel', and we see
this in 2 Cor 11.4.

Now, I am equating those who are defiant against Paul in 2 Cor 10.10 with
the puffed up of 1 Cor 4.18-19.  They have criticized Paul because of some
earlier letter(s) (2 Cor 10.8-10), and it is surely no coincidence that the
subject of the 'former' letter appears at 1 Cor 5.9, so soon after 4.18-19.
 Independently of 2 Cor 10-13, Gordon Fee has suggested that the arrogant
of 4.18-19 were responsible for misreading Paul's former letter.

In 2 Cor 10.8-10 Paul has been criticised for going too far in his use of
authority in his earlier correspondence.  In 1 Cor 5.9-13 Paul has more
detailed knowledge of the Corinthians' response to his letter.  He realises
that they had actually misinterpreted his letter.  To my mind that data
fits best if 2 Cor 10-13 was written before 1 Corinthians: the letter which
betrays the more detailed knowledge should be placed after the other.

From 1 Cor 5.9-11 we gather that the Corinthians had misinterpreted Paul's
letter, going beyond what he had actually written (2 Cor 1.13 alludes to
the same thing).  So I would like to suggest that 1 Cor 4.6 refers to the
former letter.  I do not know why commentators do not consider this
possibility.  Perhaps they do not see how the Corinthians' reading of the
former letter could have made them puffed up in favour of Paul's rivals.  I
think 2 Cor 10-13 gives us the answer: they had shown allegiance to his
rivals because they were able to punish (11.20), whereas Paul in his former
letter had made threats that he did not have the authority to carry out
(10.1,8-10). 

I have suggested that Paul's self-defense in his tribulation list of
4.10-13 is against charges that resulted from the Corinthians' reading of
the former letter.  I therefore wonder whether we should be surprised that
the probable issues of the former letter are repeated in 2 Cor 6.14-7.1
following a tribulation list (2 Cor 6.4-10).

Richard Fellows
Vancouver