Rearranging II Corinthians

The text that we know as the Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians has come down to us through the centuries in its current form as a single letter. However, as Fred mentioned last year, many — perhaps most — scholars believe that 2 Corinthians is not really one single letter but an amalgamation of a few partial letters. That notion arises primarily due to difficulties in the text itself. So what are these internal textual difficulties that have led scholars to think that 2 Corinthians may not be just one single letter? Here are a few:

• There are a few places where the text seems to jump abruptly, both in content and in tone. For example, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 appears to be largely unrelated to anything else in the letter, while 2 Cor 7:2 seems to follow much more naturally directly upon 2 Cor 6:13. That is, 6:14-7:1 seems just to be inserted suddenly (and somewhat randomly) between 6:13 and 7:2.
• Different parts of the letter appear to reflect different time frames and circumstances. Paul indicates in 2 Cor 8:17,18,22, for example, that he (currently) is sending Titus and “the brother” and another brother to Corinth, but in 2 Cor 12:18 Paul says that he (previously) sent Titus and “the brother”; that is, chapters 10-13 seem to have been written sometime well after — and separately from — chapters 8 and 9.
• With the exception of the benediction in 2 Cor 13:11-14, the tone of 2 Cor 10-13 is markedly different from the rest of the letter. In those four chapters Paul seems exasperated, frustrated, even angry (and sarcastic), having to defend himself against others who have been attacking his ministry, whereas he seems much more conciliatory and warm in the rest of the letter.

In addition, 2 Corinthians itself refers to another “tearful” or “painful” letter. (See 2 Cor 2:3,4; 7:8.) Although some scholars assume that the other letter is 1 Corinthians, I think that is very doubtful since that letter does not appear to have the characteristics described, as Fred pointed out last year. Most scholars therefore think either that this other “tearful” or “painful” letter has been entirely lost or that chapters 10-13 constitute part of that letter. I am largely of that latter view, or at least that chapters 10-13 could form part of yet another difficult letter that might similarly have caused tears and grief.

As a result of these internal difficulties and clues, I have long been of the opinion that 2 Corinthians might be more easily understood with a little reordering of contents, so here’s my take on a (possible and hopefully reasonable) rearrangement:

• 2 Cor 8:1-9:15
  • I think we can consider chapters 8 and 9 to be just a part of some other letter that has otherwise been lost.
  • As I mentioned above, it seems to me that chapters 8 and 9 cannot have been part of the same letter as chapters 10-13 due to the language about sending Titus, and likewise must have preceded those later chapters by some time.
• 2 Cor 6:14-7:1
  • As I mentioned above, this bit does not seem to bear any particular relationship to anything else in the letter; it seems to stand on its own (but is clearly just a very small excerpt of something larger).
  • Whether it should come first, second, third, or fourth is impossible to say, but I think it makes decent sense to put it here.
• 2 Cor 10:1-13:10
  • Again, I’m considering these four chapters to be (part of) the “tearful” letter to which 2 Cor 2:3,4; 7:8 refer. If so, then these “ending” chapters must necessarily precede those “earlier” chapters.
• 2 Cor 1:1-6:13; 7:2-7:16; 13:11-14
  • That is, everything that isn’t covered by the three prior sections.
  • This part (or these parts) seems to be largely a reconciliation of whatever conflict sparked the “tearful” letter, along with a defense of Paul’s ministry.
  • I’m not entirely satisfied with the notion that all of this goes together, but without doing doctoral dissertation research I don’t have any clear sense of what to break out any differently.

Note that, as far as I know, there is no ancient external evidence to suggest that any portions of 2 Corinthians existed separately on their own. That is, no extra-biblical ancient sources say anything about separate texts being combined together to form 2 Corinthians, and the canon of Scripture has always had 2 Corinthians the way we have it now. The above rearrangement is just my own personal opinion and I am not dogmatic about it. Please take it that way — and with a pretty good sized grain of salt. Nevertheless, I hope you find this suggested reordering helpful in understanding what Paul was saying to the church in Corinth, as well as to us today.

For additional information and other perspectives, see:

• Cliffs Notes
• Wikipedia
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Blue Letter Bible