2 Corinthians Chapters 1-9 and 10-13: Compilation or Unity?

Gordon Coulson

March 24, 2008

The unity of 2 Corinthians has become the object of much debate.  Was it written all at once, or in two parts, or is it a compilation of several letters, compiled and edited by someone besides the apostle Paul?  We will examine the unity question in particular by evaluating and discussing the arguments put forth in four authoritative sources.[1]  We will pay particular attention to the question of the provenance of chapters 10-13 in relation to 1-9, after a cursory look at authorship, date, origin and occasion.

The writer of 2 Corinthians is generally not questioned—it is the apostle Paul.[2]  Likewise, there is little disagreement for the date written.  Achtemeier estimates it at 55 or 56 CE;[3] Brown at late summer or early autumn of 57 CE;[4] Carson argues for 56 CE, although he adds a caveat that he may be short by a year.[5]  Similarly, there is little debate as to where the letter was written, as there are several references in the letter itself to its Macedonian origin (2:13, 7:5, 8:1-5, 9:2). 

Achtemeier, Brown and Carson then, are in close agreement regarding authorship, date and origin.  Ehrman, however does not discuss these explicitly in his chapter on 2 Corinthians.  Perhaps the reason is that he, more strongly than the other sources, sees 2 Corinthians as a compilation of at least two, and as many as five letters,[6] with one section possibly not Pauline—2 Cor 6:14–7:1.[7]

The occasion for writing 2 Corinthians is not seriously debated.  Achtemeier notes Paul’s painful visit (2:1) was followed by a “harsh letter” (2:4).  Paul is informed by Titus that this disciplinary letter had achieved its desired effect, and Paul, elated at the news, composed 2 Corinthians, or at least chapters 1-9.[8]  Ehrman, Brown and Carson for the most part agree using similar reasoning.[9]  The internal evidence in the letter, especially chapter 7, is sufficient support for this proposition.  Achtemeier adds that the main problem addressed in 2 Corinthians is the challenge to Paul’s apostolic authority as well as his apparent inconsistency and lack of divine power.[10]

Regarding the question of unity of 2 Corinthians, we will address the most common proposed division: chapters 1-9 and 10-13.  Unfortunately space does not allow for a meaningful discussion of other proposals: namely, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, chapter 8 and chapter 9.

The common argument for considering chapters 1-9 and 10-13 as separate letters is the abrupt change in tone.  Chapters 1-9 are generally conciliatory and joyful but in chapter 10 Paul abruptly takes on a stern, emotionally charged and disciplinary stance.  The question is, can this change in tone be accommodated in the normal writing of such a letter or must we posit two sources and some later editing?

Achtemeier argues for unity and proposes two possible solutions.  Either the situation has changed since writing chapters 1-9, or Paul is addressing a different group in the church.[11]  An objection to the first solution is that it is unlikely the Corinthians would so quickly backslide again.  However Brown and Carson note that this is typical of the Corinthians, even after Paul.[12]

Achtemeier’s second proposal may be closer to the mark.  Although not mentioned by the sources, in the opening to chapter 10, we read:

“I myself, Paul…need not show boldness by daring to oppose those who think we are acting according to human standards.” (2 Cor 10:1-2, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)

The demonstrative pronoun “those” could reasonably be taken as a reference to a sub-group within the Corinthian church who were opposing him, and would therefore provide a reasonable transition into chapters 10-13, as well as accounting for the change in tone.  People who have experience in church life know that a congregation is never completely homogenous; factions and political behaviour are, sadly, commonplace.  A good pastor will direct his sermons to the needs of the various groups he knows exist in his church, and will change his tone accordingly.

Ehrman is fairly certain that there are at least two letters in 2 Corinthians, and perhaps as many as five.  He also applies the change of tone argument to divide chapters 1-9 from 10-13, and further proposes that chapters 10-13 are part of the “painful letter” mentioned in 2:4, and were therefore written prior to 1-9.[13]  As noted above, the change in tone can be accounted for in other ways.  Carson suggests that perhaps this was Paul’s intention:

“…the Corinthian readers would become aware of the startling contrast between Paul’s joy at Titus’s report and his broken indignation at their recent defection.  This would have the effect of turning even the earlier chapters into an implicit rebuke…”[14]

As far as chapters 10-13 being part of the earlier, “painful letter”, Achtemeier, Brown and Carson argue in the negative.  Achtemeier, reasoning from theme and content, proposes that Paul, in 10-13 defends his apostleship by addressing the issues raised in 1-9, implying an overall framework for 2 Corinthians and arguing against 10-13 being written prior to 1-9.[15]  This argument makes a good point, but rests too heavily on a single pillar.  Brown poses a better argument by adding points 4 and 5 employed in Carson’s argument below.[16]

Carson constructs a thorough, multi-point argument, including:

1. the absence of manuscript support for separate letters;

2. Paul’s intention to preach in “regions beyond you” (10:16) not precluding him from writing in Greece (the position of those arguing the opposing case);

3. admonition to punish the wrongdoer is missing;

4. the intention is to visit shortly (12:14, 13:1), whereas Paul sent the “painful letter” instead of visiting them (1:23, 2:1); and finally,

5. Titus’s first visit (which had already occurred) and the planned second visit is referenced in 8:6, 8:16-19 and 12:18, and so precludes chapters 10-13 being written prior to 1-9.[17]

If we combine the arguments of Achtemeier, Brown and Carson, we get a powerful refutation of the proposition favored by Ehrman and others.  The view that 2 Cor 10-13 is that “painful letter” written prior to 2 Cor 1-9 can be set aside.

None of our sources seriously consider 1 Corinthians as that “painful letter”.  Yet 1 Corinthians is full of chastisement for unchristian behaviour, including divisions (1:10-17), immaturity (3:1-23), arrogance (4:8-21), sexual immorality (5:1-13, 6:9-20), un-spiritual lawsuits against each other (6:1-8), an unbalanced view of sex in marriage (7:1-39), insensitivity (ch. 8), slander (ch. 9), idolatry, drunkenness and overeating at the Lord’s supper (ch. 10) and disorderly conduct (ch. 14).  If this is not a “painful letter”, one must ask, what is then?  Brown objects that there is no mention of the earlier “painful visit” in 1 Corinthians, [18] but perhaps there was no need to state the obvious.  If 1 Corinthians is the “painful letter”, then the previously troublesome, now repentant individual mentioned in 2 Cor 2:5-8 would be the incestuous person of 1 Corinthians.  Brown implicitly admits the possibility.[19]

Furthermore, if it is argued that 2 Cor 10-13 must be sourced from a separate letter because of the drastic change in tone, why not 1 Cor 13?  In the midst of harsh admonition on multiple fronts, Paul breaks into one of the most memorable passages of scripture in the bible, gushing with warmth and Godly love.  There appears to be some inconsistency in applying the change of tone argument in 2 Corinthians which is not noted by our sources.

In summary, there is no manuscript evidence for 2 Corinthians being a compilation of two (or more) letters, and reasonable explanations exist for the sharp change in tone in chapter 10, as well as solid proof against chapters 10-13 being that “painful letter” mentioned in 2 Cor 2:4.  The view that chapters 1-9 and 10-13 originated in the same letter is, therefore, a valid one and should be taken seriously.  Furthermore, the contention that 1 Corinthians cannot be that “painful letter” cited in 2 Corinthians should perhaps be revisited.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson. 2001. Introducing The New Testament, Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Brown, Raymond E. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament.  New York: Doubleday.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. 1992.  An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Ehrman, Bart D. 2004. The New Testament.  New York: Oxford University Press.

[1] Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing The New Testament, Its Literature and Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001), 327-354; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 510-558; D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 259-286; Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 316-331.

[2] Some scholars believe 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is non-Pauline, but this is a minority position.  See Ehrman, 329, for example.

[3] Achtemeier, 347.

[4] Brown, 542.

[5] Carson, 282-283.

[6] Ehrman, 330.

[7] Ehrman, 329.

[8] Achtemeier, 348.

[9] See Ehrman, 327; Brown, 543; Carson, 267.

[10] Achtemeier, 348.

[11] Achtemeier, 353.

[12] Brown, 544; Carson 272.

[13] Ehrman, 330.  Also Box 20.4, 331.

[14] Carson, 271.

[15] Achtemeier, 351.

[16] Brown, 543.  See note 4.

[17] Carson, 268-269.

[18] Brown, 543.  See note 4.

[19] Brown, 544.  See note 8.