Loading...I’ve mentioned several times in these posts on 2 Corinthians that scholars are reasonably confident that it is made up of two letters of Paul that have been cut and spliced together (chs. 10-13 was the first chronologically; chs. 1-9 later), and I’ve pointed out that some think it is made up of four or five letters. It seems that since I’m on the topic, and will not be again for a long while, I should repost a blog that I’ve done within living memory (as opposed to twelve years ago) since it deals directly with the topic.
Before explaining the situation, I should say that when I first heard in graduate school that 2 Corinthians was made up of five different letters, all spliced together, it struck me as a bit crazy, but as I looked at the evidence I began to see that it made a good bit of sense.
I should also say
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!
These articles on 2nd Corinthians have given me a fresh breath to dig into them a little deeper! It is one of those much-overlooked authentic letters from Paul! Thank you Mr Bart for your many many fascinating, in-depth, easy-to-read articles!
It’s intriguing that the five sections seem to align perfectly with chapter breaks. Given that chapter divisions were introduced later, is it possible that the scholars responsible for adding these divisions were aware of both the “spliced together” version of 2 Corinthians AND the 5 individual letters?
I wonder if they intentionally placed chapter breaks at these points, using the existing 5 letters to guide their organization?
The chapter divisions were made many centuries after 2 Corinthians had been in circulation, simply based on what a thirteenth century scholar (Stephen Langton) introduced into the Latin Bible. No one had any idea at the time that it was a composite of letter — for another six centuries.
Dr. Ehrman,
In contrast to 2 Cor.,…1 Cor., Gal., and Rom. are all unities, is this correct?
Yup, apparently so. But there are always debates: for a long time a lot of scholars thought Romans 16 was originally taken from a latter written to the Ephesians (since Paul knows by name well over 20 people in a church he’s never visited, and knows a lot about them!). But that view is no longer in vogue (since Harry Gamble published his Yale dissertation on just that question, back in the 70s)
I say yes to all three. The seams are hard to miss once you see them. If 2 Corinthians is a stitched-together mixtape, does that actually make it more valuable—as a window into a messy, evolving relationship?
Right! It makes it more historically useful (if that’s what one is looking for) (and I’m one of the ones who is) because it allows us to trace more of the history of Paul’s relationshipo with the church.