Loading...In recent posts I’ve been talking about 1 Corinthians and its understanding of the Christian community in the important city of Corinth. We know about the community because of Paul’s letters written to it. In the New Testament of course, we have 1 and 2 Corinthians. (OUTSIDE the New Testament we have 3 Corinthians! It also claims to be written by Paul, but is a forgery; I’ll talk about it in a later blog post). They are both pretty long letters, and give us a lot of information.
That’s especially true for a reason most Bible readers don’t know, and would have no way of knowing. Scholars have long argued that 2 Corinthians is not just a single letter. Almost all critical scholars think it is two letters that have been cut and pasted together; and some scholars (including me) think it is actually five letters combined — all written at different times for different occasions. That may really matter, because it means we can trace a bit of the *history* of the community’s relationship with Paul by putting these letters in chronological sequence.
Here’s how I discuss the situation in my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (Oxford University Press).
(Right before this in my book I explain that Paul’s “tone” and attitude toward the Corinthians seems *very* different in 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians; now I continue that theme)
******************************
The Unity of the Letter
Paul’s tone changes even within his second letter, and rather severely. Indeed, many scholars are convinced that 2 Corinthians does not represent a solitary letter that Paul sat down one day and wrote but a combination of two or more letters that he penned at different times for different occasions. According to this theory, someone else, possibly a member of the Corinthian congregation itself, later edited these letters with “scissors and paste.” The result was one longer letter, possibly designed for broader circulation among Paul’s churches.
When you read through the letter carefully yourself, you may be struck by
A careful reading of this letter of Paul’s reveals things that almost no one would expect on a quick reading. Want to see how it works? Join the blog! It costs very little, gives very much, and every penny from membership fees goes to help those in need! Click here for membership options
Mr. Ehrman, if Paul lived today, which christian denomination would he adhere to?
He’d invent one.
😂😂🤣🤣🤣
😂👍🏼
Professor, are there any other churches that you think Paul most likely would’ve written letters to, of which letters and churches no longer exist?
Many, many. My view is that he must have started many other churches and known of many more, and written them all on occasion. If he knew of 25 churches and wrote each of them a letter even just once a year, during a ministry of nearly thirty years, well … do the math! That’s a lot of letters.
If I’m remembering correctly, in cases of textual additions to the gospels (the Marcan endings, the he-who-is-without-sin pericope, the “sweating blood” scene), we have manuscripts that reflect the text _before_ the change. But for our suspected changes to Paul’s letters, all we have are the versions after the change. What does that mean?
Does that mean that the changes took place very early, much earlier than these gospel changes? Or does it mean that Paul’s letters took a longer time to be seen as “scripture” and therefore unchangeable? Or does it mean that Paul’s letters were treasured by a smaller group until some later date when they gained wide acceptance, so that during that early period there were fewer copies of Paul’s letters in circulation than Luke or Mark? What’s your take?
Yes, changes without texual/manuscript evidence are called “interpolations.” And yes, they must have happened very early in the transmission practice. These are not limited to Paul’s letters, although there are several there (including, e.g., 1 Cor. 14:34-35, in my opinion). But one could argue that John 21, for example — the entire chapter! — was a later addition to the text, but before the copies of the Gospel that our surviving manuscripts were ultimately made from were themselves made.
Is this perhaps the original “seed faith” or prosperity theology being unleashed? Titus had caused “fear and trembling” (7.15). Despite the brethren’s factionalism, Titus had extracted “the gift … for ministering to the saints” (8.4) – NO mention of the poor of Jerusalem! Titus is sent *back* to Corinth by Paul (12.18) although we are also told Titus goes “on his own accord” (8.17). Either way, his mission seems to make the Corinthians an offer they can’t refuse. Curious who you think the “heavies” are with him …. an unnamed “brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” and an unnamed “brother whom we have oftentimes proved diligent” (8.18.22). Who are these enigmatic characters?
I wish we *could* reconstruct the entire situation! But alas….
It seems very odd that, in this two-letter picture of 2 Corinthians, the supposed editor chose to put chapters 10-13 *after* 1-9. Wouldn’t it have made a lot more sense to do it the other way around, perhaps inserting a bit of transitional text between the early, angry letter and the subsequent, joyous one? (I was very mad at you but then Titus brought the good news and now I’m joyful and all is forgiven. XXOO, Paul)
Is there a logical argument to be made for the sequence we actually have?
I suppose it’s to start it off on the good and positive note and then to send warnings at the end.
I am looking forward to reading the next post. I hope that in it you suggest an appropriate order to read chronologically the different sections that make up 2 Corinthians.
“…he warns the congregation against those who oppose him, newcomers in their midst whom he sarcastically calls “superapostles” (11:5). He admits that these superapostles can perform miraculous deeds and spectacular signs,…”
1. Who do you think the “superapostles” are?
2. What miraculous deeds and spectacular signs do you think Paul thinks the superapostles could perform?
3. Do you think the superapostles are opposing Paul by saying that Gentiles must become Jews (male circumcision)?
1. I’m afraid we don’t know, but almost certainly they are people we’ve never heard of. 2. Don’t know. He says he does them too (2 Cor. 12:12). Wish I did know! 3. No, I think it’s a completely different group from the one causing him problems in Galatians.
I just want to say that this is a fascinating thread. I am most intrigued by Mark’s gospel, and the Holy Spirit is right there in chapter 1–though it seems that Mark readily assumes the reader already understands what he means by it. I don’t, so thanks!
Dr. Ehrman, what in your opinion was Paul’s understanding of Satan? How different was it from a modern Christian’s view?
Paul seems to have thought of Satan as a primary superhuman opponent of God, probably a very high level angel turned evil, who for now was in control of earthly affairs, but was soon to pay his due. My sense is that modern Christians have a range of views of Satan; the idea that he rules down in hell is not biblical and is certainly one Paul did not share.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do I have this correct?:
Galatians: all 1 letter, no interpolations
1 Corinthians: all 1 letter, but 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation
Philemon: all 1 letter, no interpolations
Philippians: 2 letters, no interpolations
Romans: all 1 letter, but Rom. 16:25–27 interpolated
1 Thess.: all 1 letter, no interpolations
2 Corinthians: no interpolations, but contains parts from 5 different letters patchworked together
Different scholars will have different views of course. What you lay out is pretty close to my view. I don’t have a strong opinion about Roman2 16:25-27 but I”m not sure I would call it an interpolation since there are manuscripts that omit it; it would be a textual variant. I do, though, think 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation.
Dr Ehrman,
apart from 1 Cor 14: 34-35 are there other verses or chapters with textual variants or interpolations in the First Letter to the Corinthians for which should the translation generally found in Bibles be revised (removing them or translating them differently)?
I’ve read of scholars who question the authenticity of 1 Cor 2:6-16 or 1 Cor 4:6 and 1 Cor 15:3-11 (and perhaps not only these) or that some ancient variants of 1 Cor 11: 24-25 do not contain the words “eat” and “take” and perhaps “broken” (this would change the Atonement Doctrine? I know you’re convinced that Paul had it).
I’ve read that you dispute only 1 Cor 14: 34-35 and not for example 1 Cor 15:3-11 where Paul says he had apparitions of the risen Jesus,
in fact you’re convinced that Paul had such visions.
I don’t know if they’re right, different scholars have different view, of course, but I’d like to know what you think.
In other words, premising that we’ll never have a way to get to the originals and absolute certainty, do you think that apart from 1 Cor 14: 34-35 the rest we have is authentic and translated correctly?
Thank you
Michele Fornelli
I’m not convinced by any of the others. The passage abut beingn “unequally yoked” in 2 Cor. 5 is almost certainly another instandce though. But we are here toaking about *interpolations* — that is passages/words put into the text not by the author but by someone *before* our surviving mss were made. We have hundreds and hundreds differences among the surviving mss as well, so that may words in many mss are not authentic. These though are “textual variants” (variations in our manuscxripts) rather than interpolations (insertions made before any of our manuscxripts.)
Dr Ehrman,
Thanks, the concept is clearer to me now.
You have repeatedly stressed of how a textual variant can be very significant in changing the whole meaning of a text (for example in Luke 22:20).
Since you are convinced that Paul claims to have had apparitions of the resurrected Jesus as well as the Doctrine of the Atonement I therefore infer despite the large number of textual variants that the way the First Letter to the Corinthians is generally translated is correct.
Did I get it right?
Thank you
Michele Fornelli
Yes, that’s my view: basically we have a really good idea of what he wrote.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is there reason to question the veracity of Philemon given that it does not appear in the early P46 manuscript?
It’s almost always seen as authentically Pauline. The ms is missing the final 16 pages and so also doesn’t have 2 Thess; Philemon may have been found on the final pages.
Prof. Bart – I love this blog, thank you.
Unrelated to this post: Do you know of a handy summary of the consensus dating of the books of the Hebrew Bible? I know JEDP+redactor(s) makes dating the Torah complicated, but is there broad agreement on the rest of the “Old” Testament?
On the NT, FWIW, my sense is that there’s a broad consensus on dating the books, with exceptions like the minority who place Luke/Acts very late. Is that correct?
Thanks!
Some of the books are veryhard to date, especially the poetry and wisdom sections (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. — with different parts of them coming at different times). Scholars hotly debate the dates of the Pentateuchal sources as well. So there isn’t really a consensus. As to the NT: I’d say there’s a broad consensus among critical scholars, and disagreements with evangelical scholars who tend to want to date everythign early.
Thanks much. Yes, now I recall reading that Psalms could have been scattered throughout a long swath of the biblical period.
Do you know of any good, concise treatments of the OT dating, preferably online?
No, not really. They probably exist. My point is that they would be hotly disputed. I do deal with chronological issues of which books were written when, so far as we can tell, in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction. But I didn’t feel that I could put it in a timeline since the issues are so incredibly murky and some of the books are so up for grabs.
“He threatens to come to them a “third” time in judgment, in which he will not be lenient (13:1–2)” By judgement does Paul refer to “the end times”? If so, why would he think he would have any barring on judgement? If some other time, what “stick” does he carry to make such a threat?
I suppose he’ll slay them with the words of his mouth!
Dr. Ehrman,
I noticed most scholars as well as you yourself date Paul’s conversion to about 3 years after the crucifixion. How is this calculated?
It’s a complicated business, but it has to do with how he dates other things (three years later I did this, then fifteen years later I did that) in relation to plausible dates of his letters based on their relation to each other and, to some extent, with some of the things said in Acts (which is the trickest part).
In the comments of an earlier post I asked what you thought about Marcion having a letter from Paul that is not currently with us? Marcion was a big fan of Paul and he got his ideas from someone. I then asked myself why Marcion didn’t include this letter in his “canon”? So here’s the question. Paul comments on having written an earlier letter to the Corinthians. Could this be one of the Corinthians letters in Marcions canon? How sure are we of Tertullian’s list and that the two letters to the Corinthians he mentions are the ones we have in our New Testaments?
We are pretty sure of which letters were in Marcion’s canon because Tertullian discusses them, and quotes what is in Marcion’s version so that he can attack Marcion’s views. He certainly would have attacked Marcion for including other letters (he attacks him for everythihng he can think of). So I don’t think there’s much of a chance that Marcion had one we don’t know about. That said, the Marcionites *were* said to have a Pauline letter we don’t have, the letter to the Laodiceans. (We have a later version of the letter, not the Marcionite one). It does not appear to be a letter known to Marcion, however, only to hist later followers; our once source for it (the Muratorian Canon) says they forged it.
Dr Ehrman,
when you explained the difference between interpolations and textual variants, I asked you if the translation of the First Letter to the Corinthians as it is generally translated in the Bibles is correct or if it should be revised because of the textual variants. You answered me:
“basically we have a really good idea of what he wrote.”
I was wondering if with this answer you were referring not only to the First Letter to the Corinthians, but more generally to all the seven Letters that we know to have been written by Paul himself?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
I think it’s true of the entire NT, and for most books from the ancient world. We have a pretty good idea, basically.
Dr Ehrman,
so in principle the Bibles we can read, at least the interdenominational ones, are quite correct in their translation, right?
Thank you
Michele Fornelli
Of course some translations are better than others.