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).