Abstract
This volume collects 20 studies by members of the European Association of Biblical Studies given from 2006 to 2008 in a seminar on 2 Corinthians. Its three divisions contain literary critical, interpretive and theological presentations on the three ‘major parts of the canonical letter’ (chapters 1–7, 8–9 and 10–13). The ‘scholars [are] from all the continents and from a wide range of generations of 2 Corinthians scholarship’ (p. 3). They vary greatly in academic experience from pastors, a seminary rector, university teaching assistants and lecturers to seminary and university professors from Durham, Arhus and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. They use a variety of approaches and methodologies to understand ‘Paul’s theologizing in the Corinthian context of conflict and reconciliation’ (from the back cover). As can be seen from many of their titles, all these essays are technical and scholarly studies meant for dialogue in the academy.
In the Introduction, the editors give a terse synopsis of each of the studies in this volume that is beautifully produced and includes indices for authors and biblical texts cited. Here, we identify all the entries, but the constraints of space allow us to make detailed comments on only a few of the essays.
In the first essay, ‘The Unity of Paul’s Narrative World in 2 Corinthians 1–7: N. Petersen’s Narrative-Critical Approach and the Coherence of 2 Corinthians’, Marilou S. Ibita finds in the work of Petersen a 10-step ‘method of constructing a story out of a letter’ to discover a narrative strategy for 2 Corinthians 1–7. Basically, her method identifies activity that is explicitly mentioned, as well as that which is only implied, in order to determine what the letter’s author imagines will happen. The key is her rather detailed analysis of the sequence of how those events are actually set out in the letter, its ‘poetic sequence’ (Tables 1 and 2). With this critical technique, she looks to find the motivation for the particular order in which the writer presents the events.
Ibita finds that in order to keep the Corinthians in suspense about the visit of Titus and the ‘letter of tears’, Paul first tells them that he did not want to make another ‘painful visit’ (2:1). He holds off mention of Titus’ arrival (7:5–16), however, until after he thoroughly describes his idea of ministry in 2:14 to 7:4. In this way, he makes Titus’ news quite positive, although the actual reconciliation of the community to Paul is not yet complete. This schema lends credibility to the hypothesis of chapters 1–7 being a literary unity and thus a separate letter bound into the rest of 2 Corinthians.
In a second article, ‘Mending a Broken Relationship: The Social Relations and the Symbolic Universe of 2 Corinthians 1–7’, Ibita explores Petersen’s narrative-critical and socio-anthropological approach to demonstrate the subtlety of Paul’s attempt to restore his initial role as apostle that was damaged by his previous ‘painful visit’. Next, Dominika A. Kurek-Chomycz (‘The Scent of [Mediated] Revelation? Some Remarks on ΦANEROΩ with a Particular Focus on 2 Corinthians’) conducts a philological study of the verbs phaneroō and apokaluptō and finds their meanings similar yet complementary in Paul’s authentic letters.
John Dennis (‘The Letter and the Spirit in 2 Cor 3,6 and Rom 2,29: An Exercise in Pauline Theologizing’) presents an exegesis of these two texts in order to show how differently Paul can use the same words/concepts. This shows the necessity of taking seriously both the occasional nature and the rhetorical context of all that Paul says.
Albert L.A. Hogeterp (‘The Eschatological Setting of the New Covenant in 2 Cor 3:4–18’) explores the ‘historical, intertextual, tradition-historical, and exegetical dimensions to [this] pericope about the “new covenant”’. He finds that for Paul, the old covenant of Moses ‘is enhanced and surpassed by the new covenant, but not terminated’ (p. 144).
Jan Lambrecht (‘The Paul Who Wants to Die: A Close Reading of 2 Cor 4,16–5,10’) treats us to an exhaustive exegesis of this passage and finds that although in one sense Paul longs for death to ‘be with the Lord’, he nevertheless knows that to continue living in this life (‘this earthly dwelling of a tent’) is to ‘be pleasing to the Lord’.
Reimund Bieringer (‘Dying and Being Raised For: Shifts in the Meaning of ὑπέρ in 2 Cor 5:14–15’) finds that in this text, Paul uses this preposition in three meanings so that Christ died ‘in place of and as representative of all’, and ‘for their benefit’.
Christof W. Strüder (‘Identität im Wandel: Konkretionen zu den Abstracta “Neue Schöpfung” und “Gerechtigkeit Gottes” in 2 Kor 5,17.21’) shows how ‘new creation’ in verse 17 connotes a real, and not merely forensic, change in the believer.
Emmanuel Nathan (‘Fragmented Theology in 2 Corinthians: The Unsolved Puzzle of 6:14–7:1’) notes a trend in scholarship towards the authenticity and integrity of this passage and musters five reasons for the rectitude of this opinion, lauding at any rate the ‘desire to understand the passage within its context’ rather than merely speculating on reasons for its existence there.
Volker Rabens (‘Paul’s Rhetoric of Demarcation: Separation from “Unbelievers” [2 Cor 6:14–7:1] in the Corinthian Conflict’) shows how this text indicates that ‘the new being and belonging’ of believers separates them both from the unconverted whom Paul calls ‘idolatrous people’ and from his opponents whom he call ‘unbelievers’.
Robin Griffith-Jones (‘Turning to the Lord: Vision, Transformation and Paul’s Agenda in 2 Corinthians 1–8’) takes as a presupposition that St Paul writes as a mystic, very much like the later rabbinic merkavah mysticism, in order to present himself as the model for the Corinthians’ ongoing transformation to glory.
Eve-Marie Becker (‘Stellung und Funktion von 2. Korinther 8–9 im literarischen Endtext: Anmerkungen zum Stand der literarkritischen Diskussion’) here reviews the ongoing debate over the unity of 2 Corinthians and pronounces it inconclusive, although its unity would certainly colour our interpretation.
Binz Antony (‘“He Who Supplies Seed to the Sower and Bread for Food”: The Pauline Characterization of God in 2 Corinthians 8–9’) examines the use of θεός here and shows that Paul uses concrete human situations and problems to develop his theology of God’s goodness. The inspiring reason for ‘the service to the holy ones’ (the collection for the Jerusalem church) is the opportunity for the Corinthians to become the divine instrument of God’s providence and covenantal loyalty.
Gesila Nneka Uzukwu (‘The Poverty and Wealth of the Macedonians: A Grammatical and Rhetorical Analysis of 2 Cor 8:1–5’) examines the rhetorical style of this text, focusing on the words ‘poverty’ and ‘generosity’, to point out how Paul exaggerates in order to motivate.
John M.G. Barclay (‘“Because He Was Rich He Became Poor”: Translation, Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Reading of 2 Cor 8.9’) argues that translation is always a choice of meaning. Here, the participial phrase ‘being rich’ should be taken to mean ‘because he was rich’ (in a causal sense) so that the reader must search out the meaning of ‘rich’ as referring to ‘wealth-as-generosity’ (p. 344).
David Bolton (‘Paul’s Collection: Debt Theology Transformed into an Act of Love Among Kin?’) examines Paul’s language on the collection and argues that he transforms the Old Testament theology of the debt of the nations to Zion (e.g. Isa. 60:1–14) to mean that by their alms the nations partake in Israel’s salvation. In a second study, David Bolton returns (‘Paul and the Whip: A Sign of Inclusion or Exclusion?’) to present a sociological study of Paul’s beatings in synagogues. He concludes that such punishment by Jewish authorities indicates that Paul was still seen by non-believing Jews as belonging to Israel and leading a movement within Diaspora Judaism.
Cosmin-Constantin Murariu (‘Impermissibility or Impossibility? A Re-examination of 2 Cor 12:4’) broaches Paul’s ecstasy and being ‘caught up into Paradise’ in this text. He concludes that what Paul heard was ineffable and impossible to convey to others, rather than the common translation/understanding that it was not permitted for him to speak.
James R. Harrison (‘Paul the “Paradoxical” Parent: The Politics of Family Beneficence in First-Century Context [2 Cor 12:14–16]’) studies Paul’s paternal metaphors in 1–2 Corinthians in relation to the paradigms of selfless parental gift-giving in antiquity. Their misunderstanding of Paul’s Christlike ‘weakness’ almost forced him to play the harsh ‘role of disciplining paterfamilias’ instead of ‘the more loving and constructive approach’ (p. 425) that Paul wanted.
Thomas A. Vollmer (‘“Fellowship with the Spirit”: The Evolution of a Theological Concept in 2 Cor 13,13?’) studies the context of this unique Pauline phrase (also in Phil 2:1) and determines that the genitive pneumatos has the subjective relationship to the noun koinōnia: ‘fellowship with the Spirit’. Thus, although not part of a truly trinitarian theology, the phrase provides a ‘building block’ for Paul’s deeper understanding of Spirit in Galatians and Romans as the agent of unity in the Christian community.
These studies are presented in the order in which their texts appear in 2 Corinthians with no further organization of theme or chronology. The lack of an overall conclusion to the volume leaves the reader with little more than an anthology of essays on quite disparate topics. Even more than in the usual Festschrift collection of articles, the quality of these studies is uneven. However, when considering some passage in 2 Corinthians from any of a variety of different points of view, one might do well to consult this collection. You might just find a helpful article on the very topic of your question.