Loading...In this series of posts have been summarizing each book of the New Testament, in canonical sequence, “in a nutshell.” I have now come to 2 Corinthians, a book less-frequently read and known than 1 Corinthians.
Have you read it? Do you know it? If so, try to give a summary of it, in one sentence of fifty words. Here’s my attempt.
In 2 Corinthians Paul explores the history of his checkered relationship with the church in Corinth, recounting both his gratitude that they have turned back to him in friendship and loyalty after earlier having rejected him, and severely upbraiding them for questioning his apostolic authority and following other “super apostles.”
Now I will try to unpack the letter at greater, though still nutshell, length.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Dear Dr Ehrman-Please forgive my intruding upon your time, and thank you very much for this thought provoking discussion. I have recently been reading, and much enjoying, ‘The Triumph of Christianity’, in which you state that belief in the salvific death of Jesus by Crucifixion was a central belief of the early Christians. Furthermore you state that this belief arose quite quickly, existing prior to the coming of Paul. If I may ask, is this still your opinion?
Yup, most decidedly!
Dear Dr Ehrman-thank you very much for your kind answer. This is a refreshing change from the older perspectives, in which the Jesus sect was seen to venerate it’s martyred master, and any notion of his death as salvific is but a Pauline/semi pagan incursion. Such an opinion was famously espoused by the late Hyam Maccoboy. If I may ask a final question, why would you consider this opinion academically unlikely?
Paul was persecuting Christians *before* he became one, and he intimates that it is because they were claiming that Jesus was a crucified messiah raised from the dead; he also explicitly admits that his views of Jesus’ death and resurrection were those held by the apostles before him (1 Cor. 15:3-4). That’s a rare admission on his part; he more commnly likes to take credit for his views. Together that shows pretty clearly that it wsa the Xn message from the outset. Many scholars have taken on the idea from popular circles that Paul was the “enemy of the Jews” and that he corrupted the Xn religion himself. I think that’s a complete misreading.
Yesterday you said in a comment to me… “Paul saw all followers of Jesus as descendants of Abraham and so of the Israelites.” But in this post, they were pagans and not a word about them being descendants of Abraham and of Israel. Understanding who Paul’s audience was is important to understand who Paul’s message was meant for. Let’s see who Paul believed they were.
In 2 Corinthians 3:3–6, Paul references Jeremiah 31:31–34, applying the New Covenant—promised only to Israel and Judah—to the Corinthians, implying they are dispersed Israelites. In 3:13–16, he uses the veil imagery from Exodus 34 to describe Israel’s blindness but says the Corinthians now see—indicating they’re part of the remnant (cf. Rom 11:7). In 6:16, he cites Leviticus 26:11–12 and Ezekiel 37:27—exclusive promises to Israel. In 6:17–18, Paul echoes Isaiah 52:11, calling them out of captivity like exiled Israelites returning to covenant holiness.
And recall that in 1 Cor 10:1, Paul says, “our fathers… passed through the sea,” identifying the Corinthians converts as descendants of those of the Exodus.
Paul understood his Corinthian audience to be descendants of the tribes of Israel, living as pagan Gentiles and called Gentiles, being restored through Christ.
When Paul says “not all Israelites belong to Israel and not all the descendants of Abraham are of Abraham” I think he’s indicating that true Israel is made up of people with faith in Jesus, not the physical descendants of Abraham.
When Paul said “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” he was making a distinction between Jews who were Israel by birth and those who were Israel by covenant. In other words, he’s referring to Jews who were descendants of Israel but weren’t chosen for restoration, the believing remnant who would receive the promises.
This perfectly aligns with Old Testament precedent, which Paul mentions in the next verse.
1. Not all descendants of Abraham were counted as the seed (Ishmael vs. Isaac)
2. Not all of Isaac’s sons were chosen (Esau vs. Jacob)
Not all of Abraham’s physical descendants (e.g., Ishmaelites, Edomites) were part of the covenant line.
Paul was distinguishing between natural lineage and covenantal identity. Just because someone is descended from Abraham doesn’t mean they’re a child of the promise.
So Paul wasn’t redefining Israel to include Gentiles (in a universal sense). He’s refining the definition to show that only those covenantally chosen and faithful from Israel belong to the true Israel. The context is Israel. Non-Israelite believers aren’t in view.
Dr. Ehrman, are Paul’s writings in 2 Corinthians responsible for initiating the “mortification of the flesh” aspect of Christianity?
I suppose more like Romans 8:13?
No, I mean 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 that you mention in your post. If you’re a devout believer modeling yourself on Saint Paul, then perhaps you believe you should emulate him by enduring suffering. Hence hairshirts and self-flagellation?
Possibly, though none of his sufferings were self-induced. (I’m suggesging the Rom. 8:13 is more likely the source for the view you’re suggesting)
Complete change of subject:
In A-J Levine’s “Jesus for Everyone,” she uses her own translations of the Gospels which she describes as “very literal, and therefore not very mellifluous.” An example would be Luke 12:16:
“And he said a parable to them, saying, Of some rich fellow the field well-produced good crops.”
Bart, is this an accurate example of Koine Greek grammar?
I wouldn’t put it like that. I’d say it’s a very literal and intentionally wooden translation of Greek. To that extent it tries more or less to replicate the Greek grammar in English that doesn’t work well. You can, of course, do that with any language (try it with German some time!). But I’m not sure what it gives you other than a sense that it’s hard to make sense of. The Greek is really pretty straightforward and clear if you read it in Greek. One very big problem is that Greek grammar does not rely on word order in a sentence but inflection (i.e., the conjugations of the verbs, declensions of the nouns and adjectives, etc.), and that’s not really translatable.
In Mark 1 the dove descended into [ εις ] Jesus at his baptism. In its parallels (matt, luke) it is [ ἐφ ] I am aware of this adoptionism “issue” but I don’t see how this could an issue at the writing. Maybe at the copying stage. No in and upon are not the same thing, but could they be saying “hey it’s practically the same thing” or “we mean the same thing” even though it’s termed different we mean the same thing.? Do you know what is going on here.
The main problem is that Greek prepositions can mean a notoriously wide range of things depending on the context. εις can mean “into, in, to, before, up to, until, on, with, as far as, toward, with regard to,” and other things. Depends on the context.
Where else might I do a deeper dive into the idea that 2 Corinthians is two letters made into one with a mixed timeline order (The 1st part is the 2nd, the 2nd part is the actual 1st) . This is fascinating to me.
Any critical commentary or Bible dictoinary would discuss it (not conservative evangelical ones); I ‘ll be dealing with it a bit more in a post soon.
Hey Bart,
When Paul mentions Satan, what does he mean? Does he think of Satan as a singular spiritual being in opposition to God (similar to the modern conception) or more metaphorically simply as those who oppose Jesus? Basically, what was Paul’s conception of Satan? Thanks!
He appears to think of him as the chief supernatural opponent of God.
I’ve noticed that Paul addresses the Corinthians as The Church of God.
1 Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 1:1
Anything there to possibly hint that Paul considered the Corinthians as the favorite or best out of all the other churches? Yes, No, Not a Big Deal? None of the other churches are addressed that way in their greeting from Paul.
Good quesiton. All of his greetings are slightly different from one another, but it’s not clear why he uses that term here in particular. The word “of” in English can mean lots of things, of course, as does the Greek grammar. Does it denote possession, ownership, allegiance, focus, origin, source of poewr, something else?
“And so Paul is: laboring incessantly, constantly imprisoned, regularly beaten nearly to death, horribly flogged by Jews on five occasion, beaten with rods (by Roman authorities) three times, stoned once, shipwrecked, always in danger from robbers and enemies and “false brothers” (fellow Christians) , in the wilderness and at sea, often without food, often cold, often without shelter (1 Corinthians 11:25-29).”
Does Paul seem to be exaggerating to make his point?
I’m not sure many people would have been able to actually survive all of the issues that he has claimed to been through.
He may be, but I kinda doubt it and am not sure how we would be able to tell….