A Brief Thought on Partitioning Epistles

I’ve just completed reading Frank J. Matera’s II Corinthians: A Commentary in the New Testament Library series.  I’m going to post a few notes in review of that commentary, but this is just a brief note, a passing thought, and definitely not a completed theory.

There are many cases in which critical theories about authorship strike me as rather well-taken.  First and second Isaiah come to mind with a very striking change in style and theme between chapter 35 (36-39 provide an historical interlude) providing at least a substantial basis to consider multiple authorship.  The entire book gives evidence of collection, and so one shouldn’t be too shocked to see evidence of a seam here and there.

But in other cases such suggestions seem a bit less well taken, and epistles are one case.  Keep in mind that I’ve done much more study of Isaiah than I have of any New Testament epistle, but still it seems to me that the very nature of an epistle should suggest that it is not necessarily going to be a coherent theological presentation as might be expected of a thesis or dissertation.

But some of the arguments seem to depend on a slightly too sanitary an image of what an epistle should be.  Second Corinthians reads to me like a letter written by a volatile, emotional, and very intense man.  That he goes from a “that’s OK now” view at the end of chapter 7, invites them to participate in a collection, and then switches back to castigating them about certain other faults in chapter 10 seems out of place if Paul wrote a carefully planned, drafted, and edited letter.  On the other hand if Paul was responding to the situation with mixed emotions–you’re getting it!  some of it!  not all of it!  let me tell you what else you need to do!–then the letter actually seems fairly coherent.

Matera deals with the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians on pp. 24-32 and then again briefly on pp. 214-215.  I think he makes some excellent arguments.  He doesn’t appeal to anything like the idea I’m presenting here.  He relates this to Paul’s rhetorical goals.  I’m afraid I think that the letter might have been structured better rhetorically (from a certain point of view) if drafted by a committee of bishops, but Paul was hardly to be compared to a committee of bishops!

I recall the recent pastoral letter from the United Methodist bishops on care for God’s creation, titled God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action.  I think that letter should be strongly contrasted to 2 Corinthians.  While I disagree with very little in the bishops’ letter, though in some cases I think they are not doing well in terms of priorities, I nonetheless find the letter boring and unchallenging.  I have heard several of those bishops preach and without exception they produce a better sermon on their own.

What I’m getting at here is that it seems to me that some critics expect Paul to produce something akin to the bishops’ letter.  Paul was not too likely to do such a thing, so instead we have 2 Corinthians.