As I’ve noted before, I’m now reading Calvin J. Roetzel, 2 Corinthians
, in the Abingdon New Testament Commantaries series. I want to emphasize here that I accept the use of historical-critical methodology in Bible study. That does not, however, force me to find all critical theories plausible. I’m arguing against this specific set of theories, not against historical-critical methodologies generally.
In arguing against the unity of the book, Roetzel says:
… Most [scholars who argue for the integrity of the book] side with Kümmel that the canonical version of 2 Corinthians was Paul’s original epistle, and they tend to ignore the hypothetical nature of their own construction even while repudiating the hypotheses of others (Kümmel 1965 [Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1965], 292). – p. 25
This seems to me to be an odd statement. Though it is not explicit, it appears to aim to place all views on a level playing field, from unity to the five letter hypothesis. But that doesn’t seem the correct approach.
If I have a letter with an essentially unified textual history, in this case meaning that the partitioning of the letter is nowhere evident in the textual history as we have it, then we might give at least slight preference to the notion that it is, in fact a letter. When it fulfills all the forms, that suggestion is strengthened.
I suppose that the idea that the letter is a unity is, indeed, an hypothesis, but it seems a rather obvious one. Suggestions of Paul’s changes of mood and/or rhetorical intention are based on observing the text based on this first and most obvious hypothesis.
On the other hand multiple letter hypotheses are immediately much more complicated. First one has to assume that someone combined multiple letters into one, cutting out the salutation of at least one and the conclusion of another. If we assume five letters, then the situation becomes more complicated.
There are clearly shifts or seams in 2 Corinthians. The question is why? The problem for multiple letter hypotheses, I think, is to answer the question not just of why such seams are there (which they answer by proposing multiple letters), but also just why someone should put the document together in this way.
I don’t see this addressed anywhere. What is the purpose of the redactor? If he wishes to preserve all the letters why not just copy them in succession? If he has some theological purpose, then the question goes right back to the start–what is the meaning of the text as it stands? (I would welcome comment from someone who has spent more time studying New Testament than I have.)
I’m suggesting two things. First, that the hypothesis that the letter as we have it is a unity should be privileged in discussion to some extent, because it is supported by the best possible evidence–that’s what the letter looks like now. Second, that a theory that involves redaction must also explain the actions of the redactor. Simply producing plausible pieces and providing a chronology for them does little without some reason why they would have been combined as they were.
Let me illustrate from some texts where I feel I’m on more solid ground. Many people try to solve the chronological differences between Genesis 1 and 2 by attributing them to two sources. Now I believe they are from two sources. I think the evidence is fairly solid for that. But having said that, I have solved nothing regarding the difference in chronology between the two chapters, because I still must think about a redactor who somehow thought that putting them together made sense. So now I must ask about his motivations and what message he intended to convey bringing them together.
In the case of Isaiah, we again have a composite book, but here were have a hypothesis for why redactors would want to add to the book. Very likely there was a school of prophets or scribes who preserved Isaiah’s work and added to it from time to time. Their motivation is to preserve the prophet’s (or prophets’) words. They are not cutting pieces out and combining them, but rather putting the pieces together, generally as they were.
I don’t see any similarly plausible hypothesis for 2 Corinthians, which makes me find the arguments for unity much more plausible in view of the lack of solid reasons for someone to sew the book together from two to five pieces as various theories suggest.
in the New Testament Library series. I’m going to post a few notes in review of that commentary, but this is just a brief note, a passing thought, and definitely not a completed theory.
, page 35.)
Loading ...
Commentary: II Corinthians (NTL)
I have really enjoyed studying 2 Corinthians with this commentary. Since I’ve used a number of volumes from the New Testament Library before, the easiest evaluation of this commentary I can give is that it meets and in some cases exceeds the expectations I have of volumes in the New Testament Library series. If you have used and liked other volumes in either the OTL or the NTL, you won’t be disappointed.
There are several things I look for in a commentary, and of course different commentaries serve different purposes. In a scholarly commentary intended for the preacher or teacher I look for solid coverage of critical issues, reasonable accessibility, good theological applications (or at least hooks on which to build them), and comprehensive coverage without going overboard. On all these points this commentary stands up well.
For my personal use I like good coverage of text-critical issues and language issues. As is usual with NTL or OTL volumes, the language and text issues are a little less prominent, being largely covered in short notes following the translation. Considering the purpose of the commentary, this is actually a feature, since overdoing minor textual issues is simply distracting for someone who need to go out and preach to a congregation that will have limited use for that type of information.
Two things stood out in reading the commentary. First, Matera covers the literary integrity of the book in some detail, including discussion of the various arguments for believing that more than one letter has been combined to make the single book we call 2 Corinthians. Matera supports the literary integrity of the book as we have it. He does not treat the other side unfairly, however.
Second, Matera covers rhetorical issues in some detail, which helps the reader see the book as a whole as well as digging into the details. I had never been able to really “feel” 2 Corinthians, even though I’ve studied it and read it many times. It always seemed like a patchwork of topics. That’s OK for a letter, but with Matera’s comments I see more connection and structure and less of a loose collection of topics.
I find it helpful two compare one commentary to another to give a more precise idea of what it’s like. In this case I’m starting to read 2 Corinthians
by Calvin J. Roetzel in the Abingdon New Testament Commentaries series (Abingdon).
Of these two, the Abingdon volumes aim at theology students, but are expected to also be useful to pastors and teachers. NTL volumes aim a bit higher on the scholarly scale. The Abingdon volumes do not use footnotes, while the NTL uses them quite extensively. This might give an impression that the text is more dissimilar than it is. While I haven’t completed my read of the Abingdon volume, I find it about the same reading level, provided one skips the footnotes in NTL, which I don’t.
The NTL volume is 314 pages of content, while the Abingdon is only about 138 pages. That in itself is quite a difference, but the Abingdon pages are about 70% of the length of those in the NTL. That, of course, means that the larger volume can cover a great deal more data.
As for writing style and content, Matera, as I have noted, argues for the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, while Roetzel goes for a five letter hypothesis. I found Matera’s discussion of the various hypotheses on how to divide the book quite helpful; Roetzel sounds dismissive of those, like Matera, who argue that the book is a single letter largely for rhetorical reasons. I realize that Roetzel has less space to work with, but he found the space to go through the various views in some detail.
The Abingdon volume is printed in the order in which Roetzel has reorganized the text. That has the advantage of clarity for those who want to understand just what the fragments from which he thinks 2 Corinthians was constructed would have looked like.
If I might add my own note in response, I find it quite easy to believe a two letter hypothesis, such as 1-9 being one letter with 10-13 added from a second letter. It’s not hard to imagine a scribe copying two letters into one manuscript and assuming everyone would know there were two letters, though it’s hard to understand in that case why all the elements that one would expect from a letter have been removed from this second one.
What I find hard to believe is that five different letters were pasted together out of order. I just don’t understand the motivation and what the redactor, if one should call him that, was trying to accomplish. Any good redactional theory should be able to explain what the redactor was up to.
I found Matera’s explanation, even where it tends to stretch things a bit, such as in explaining Paul’s change of mood from chapter 9 to chapter 10, to be very carefully thought out and well worth considering. I strongly recommend this commentary (5 of 5 stars).