Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: 2 Corinthians

  • The Moral Influence of Jesus’ Death

    The Moral Influence of Jesus’ Death

    In my Sunday School class yesterday we discussed Mark 15. We’re reading this with Allan Bevere’s Keeping Up with Jesus: A Narrative Devotional Commentary on Mark.

    In the thought questions for chapter 15, Allan asks both why Jesus is silent at his trial as depicted in Mark, and what it means that Jesus died for our sins.

    On the first question, there were a number of answers, including simply, “prophecy,” that it was expected. But I want to focus on one note I make myself about this, because it relates to the third question, which is how we understand Jesus dying for our sins. (There are three questions following each chapter in the commentary. I’m focusing on the first and third.)

    In a trial with a foregone conclusion, there is really no point in making a defense, unless you are doing so for someone listening. In this case, I suspect the crowd is well selected for hostility (at least of the moment), and thus not prepared to actually listen to a defense.

    This leads me to what I think is a key point about the death of Jesus. It creates a story of contrast and of black and white confrontation. Nobody is seeing the day in shades of gray. In a book by one of my favorite authors, David Weber, there’s a quote by one of the characters, which I paraphrase from memory here: “Very few days are outlined in black and white, and most of those days have a body count.” I don’t know if that quote is original to Weber, and I can’t locate the correct book, but it’s good.

    The day of the crucifixion was not set out in gray, and it definitely had a body count. It creates the moment of contrast between what good is willing to do and what evil is willing to do. Good dies for others; evil kills what it does not like.

    A portrayal such as this is one that day to day reality can’t really live up to. We don’t have the clear line drawn in the story. We have our struggles both to understand and to do. But that is a critical value of the story: It drives us to higher ground. If we let it.

    So what did this have to do with the third question. What does it mean that Jesus died for our sins?

    What I loved about this question was that it called for each person to think: What does that mean to me? It’s easy to be very prescriptive. We like to have one interpretation and get everyone to understand it.

    The Values of Multiple Metaphors

    I would suggest that no single metaphor can possibly do justice to the atonement. It’s a good thing we don’t have only one!

    Moral Influence

    As an undergraduate working on my degree in biblical languages, there was a required course on exegesis of Romans in Greek, to be taken after I completed intermediate Greek. The professor for this class was an advocate of the moral influence theory of the atonement. This theory is often presented simply as Jesus providing an example in his life of how we should live and influencing good behavior in us.

    That’s not the whole story. In that theory, the portrayal of good and evil meeting at the cross becomes a powerful influence, a powerful changemaker.

    I didn’t get that in class. I wanted something other than penal substitutionary atonement, and I hoped that I could accept what this scholar presented. I wanted to read this view in Romans. I tried to do so diligently.

    It never worked.

    It took me some time to realize that there was something here for me to take in and make a part of my understanding. That portrayal, brutal as it was, was a necessary part of the story of salvation. It was easy to miss this in other views. Then I started to see other metaphors for the atonement, and to see how they build a picture.

    Penal Substitutionary Atonement

    In fact, I came back to appreciate the courtroom metaphor presented by penal substitution, which, among other things helps portray completeness, and finality while excluding the idea of us earning the result. I have conservative friends who still think I’m ditching this dominant evangelical view of the atonement and progressive friends who wonder why I don’t just ditch it. To me, however, each of these views is essential. Since this is not my main topic, I’ll leave it at that.

    I turn next to expressions of faith by the Apostle Paul. Paul can be an annoying character. He covers a lot of ground and expects you to keep up.

    About Paul

    I was interviewing author Herold Weiss, author of the book Meditations on the Letters of Paul in a series I did titled “Who Was Paul?” One question I asked was this: Let’s imagine you’re at a conference and you have the duty of introducing Paul as the next speaker. What do you say?

    Herold laughed and said, “I don’t have to answer that. You see, Paul would never have been invited to speak in the first place!”

    He’s likely right. Paul was too much of a disruptor to be invited to church conferences. It was much more likely that conferences would be held to talk about him and what he was doing, such as in Acts 15.

    Paul, Good and Evil, and Crossing the Line

    In many of Pauls’ letters we have what looks like a theological section, which generally talks about salvation and will frequently inform you that it is not of works. Then you move to a section that talks about things you ought to do. Often these sections are presented as distinct, as though Paul had multiple personality. “Not of works, now get to work,” so to speak.

    I think a closer look will allow these to be coordinated, and I think Philippians is an excellent place to do so. The reason is that until chapter 3, which seems to be a kind of side-tirade, Paul is ready to go through the basics quickly.

    By Philippians 1:27 he’s telling his readers/hearers to live in their community in a way that is “worthy of the good news (gospel).” He wants to hear that they are “standing firm,” and “striving together” for the gospel. He continues that God has granted the the privilege not only of believing (a privilege, a gift, not a purchase), but also of suffering for Jesus as well.

    Not of works. Here come the works.

    Well, yes and no. Paul is writing here, I think, on that line drawn between good and evil at his crucifixion. You get a choice. Are you a crucifier or are you crucified?

    Too often Christians have answered that they are with the crucified one while picking up nails and erecting crosses.

    Persecuted or Persecutor

    I was asked once in Sunday School who I thought was right when two groups were fighting over doctrinal points, really fighting, to the extent of killing one another. It has happened way too much in Christian history. I said that anyone who was killing the other one over their beliefs was wrong. Killing people in the name of the one who went to the cross silently and said, “Father forgive them,” is blasphemous.

    Have I departed from Paul and his letter to the Philippians? I think not.

    How to Look at Other People

    Paul now tells the Philippians to make his joy complete (2:2) by being of one mind (sharing viewpoint) and having the same love. Nothing is to come from selfishness or vanity, but they are to regard others as better than themselves (2:3) then also look to the interests of others, rather than their own.

    I think Paul is looking at that line. Are you a crucifier or are you with the crucified?

    Philippians 2:5-11 is a famous passage. Jesus emptied himself, humbled himself, became obedient, and went to the cross. Others called for his blood.

    This was a portrayal of the nature of good and the nature of evil. That is something we should not forget about the crucifixion, if for no other reason that we avoid becoming the persecutors.

    As Paul says it in Galatians: “I have been crucified with Christ. I’m no longer the one living, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:19b-20a). That’s the line drawn in morality and in history. Paul has no intention either in Philippians or in Galatians of telling his hearers that this is easy. He doesn’t suggest that everyone will love them after the decision or that they will get a new job, drive a better car, or be suddenly totally free of disease.

    Be crucified with Christ.

    Identifying the Power

    Things start going off the rail again right here. We think that having been crucified with Christ, or at least made the choice of which side of that line we want to be on, we must get on the ball and be better people.

    Indeed, Jesus was exalted after death and given the name above all names. But first he went to that cross, was taken into the tomb, and was raised again by the very power he laid down in the first place.

    Remember where the power comes from.

    Having died, and been buried with him by baptism, you don’t come back and start fixing yourself.

    “So, if anyone is in Christ, there’s new creation. The old stuff is gone. It has all become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:18b)

    You can’t sanctify yourself. You’re dead. You’ve got no stuff at all. It’s all new, and it’s all His.

    Who Works?

    So back to Philippians and one of my favorite passages:

    (12) So, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I’m there, but also when I’m away, with fear and trembling work out your own salvation. (13) For it is God who works in you all, both to will and to accomplish his pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13)

    So how does this work?

    I wonder why it’s so hard to see God at work in us morally when we already know God is at work in us. If you are a believer in God and that God is the creator, then everything, ultimately, is a gift of God. I could paraphrase this physically as “Do your own breathing with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you both to make you want to breathe and also to make you breathe.”

    I don’t think that’s a ridiculous way to put it. I couldn’t type the next letter without God. God makes the various particles move around in a certain way. God brought me into the world. I can’t even make mistakes without God.

    If you try to take over and do your own working, that just makes everything harder. God knows that and has a plan for all that as well. God makes you want. God works in and through you. But ultimately it’s all God.

    If you go try to do it yourself, then it’s like jumping back to the person who just died, forgetting about being buried and raised to new life by divine power, and deciding to do it all just as if none of that every happened.

    Does this mean there’s nothing to do? Actions are still important. Actions have consequences. Paul even says this in Galatians, his strongest book against works of the law. “Don’t be deceived! God is not mocked! Whatever a person sows that person will also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

    The Life Context of Commands

    Again we have to look at context, in this case, life context. Not every command, not every discussion of good and bad, smart and stupid, effective and ineffective is about whether or not you are saved or have eternal life. Deciding someone’s eternal state is not my job and it’s not yours. Let’s say that I am hiking a trail in some beautiful mountains, tremendous beauty all around, and I get careless, lose my step, and fall off a cliff. Gravity (created by God) still works. The ground (created by God) is still hard. My body (created by God) is still not up to a fast encounter with a hard place. I die.

    Are the mountains still beautiful? Yes.

    I also still have eternal life.

    But it would have been a good idea to be more careful.

    The Invitation

    The invitation to salvation is not an invitation to an untroubled life. It’s not an invitation to always make perfect decisions. It’s not an invitation to comfort.

    It’s also, and this is critical, not an invitation to think of yourself as better than other people. It’s not an invitation to be God’s favorite grandchild, spoiled rotten and looking down on all the other children who have somehow failed to earn all that love.

    If you thought going to church was joining the popular kids’ club and becoming one of the important people, you missed the point. If you get a charge out of feeling superior, you’re missing the point.

    “Looking to Jesus, the author and completer[sic] of our faith …” (Hebrews 12:2).

    Completion

    Read Philippians 2:5-11 again. Try to imagine just what it was that Jesus thought was not something to hang onto, what Jesus gave up. That’s where God is taking you. Don’t diminish that by looking sideways or looking back. When your measuring stick is God’s glory and God’s grace, the differences in human beings are literally not measurable.

    And just as Jesus not only went to the cross and the grave, but rose again and ascended, so we now that God will complete what God has started.

  • Not Just Money

    Not Just Money

    On New Year’s Day this year I was struck by two texts and decided to make them a kind of theme texts for living during the year. I didn’t really make a plan or a resolution. I was just impressed to keep these two texts available and look at them. I’ve found that I actually end up looking at them at random times. They are Philippians 1:27-30 and Ephesians 5:1-2. At some point I’ll talk about the phrase “be imitators of God” in Ephesians 5:1, which I find challenging, or perhaps intimidating would be more the word.

    Today, however, I read on after the end of chapter one into the first four verses of chapter 2. Here Paul challenges the Philippians to do nothing from selfish ambition or contentiousness (two  closely related ideas!) or from vanity (we could spend a day meditating on that word), but to count others as greater than oneself with humility. Again, we could talk about the latter. Have you ever experienced someone counting something else greater than himself with no humility at all? “Look how great I am! I count even this lowlife failure as more important than I am!”

    But then there’s verse 4: “Don’t look out for your own interests, but for the interests of others.”

    Now there’s the one. If the church should have a key verse, this would be it, I think. It contrasts to the world’s value, expressed to me once by someone advising me on my business: Ain’t nobody cares about your business like you do!

    Now you see how my thinking turns toward business and the making of money. I have nothing against those things, but it’s actually quite easy to be generous with your money and to be contentious and vain with everything else. Thousands of brass plates on church pews, stained-glass windows, and other objects designated for “spiritual” use testify to the fact that there are people quite generous with their money while satisfying their vanity. If you don’t believe me, try removing one of those labeled pews or swap out the stained glass window. Even worse, leave the pew or the window there but remove the name plate. Vanity will jump up and slap you in the face!

    Looking after our own interests crops up everywhere. Why is the color of the church carpet a very contentious thing? We all have colors that we’d like to look at, and colors that we don’t find pleasing. How many times have you heard people argue carpet color on the basis that it would serve someone else better?

    What about a misspelled name in the bulletin when someone serves on Sunday morning? Have you ever heard the complaints about that? The church secretary ought to be fired!

    I don’t mean to list all the ways we can be contentious, as they are so numerous, and so many of them do not have to do with money.

    “Look out for the interests of others,” says Paul.

    One of the great problems with our witness in the American church is that we are so much like all the people we’d like to witness to. We want to explain all the theology to them and get them all straightened out. But what we really need to do is look out for the interests of others.

    And to be a good witness, we need to extend that action outside the church community as well.

    On page 25 of his little book Stewardship: God’s Way of Recreating the World (Topical Line Drives), Steve Kindle quotes 2 Corinthians 8:3-5. I’m just going to highlight one clause: “they gave themselves first to the Lord.” That’s the foundation of stewardship. It’s also the foundation of living in Christian community, and it’s the foundation of being an actual witness (not just a nuisance) to those outside the community. Looking out for God’s interests, perhaps. God is very interested in God’s children, in God’s creation.

    Who is welcome in your church? How will they live with you? How will you live with them? Do you give yourself to God first and then look out for the interests of others instead of your own?

    If you’ve followed me this far, let me suggest a question to think about. If a man and a woman entered your church this Sunday and the woman was wearing a hijab, while both clearly looked middle eastern, what would your reaction be?

    (Featured image credit: Openclipart.org.)

  • Paul’s Gospel vs. Another Gospel III

    Paul’s Gospel vs. Another Gospel III

    Apocalyptic background - flash and lightning in dramatic dark sky

    This is the unintentional third part of my discussion of this topic. Last week I talked a bit more about the initial statement of the gospel in Galatians and then began looking at how Paul talked about the gospel elsewhere, first in 2 Corinthians 5 and the ministry of reconciliation. I’ll be moving from there to Romans 1 (and a few other references in that book). I’m including those books whose authorship is controversial, though I’ll note each one as I make use of it.

    Here’s the embedded viewer for tonight:

    Remember my resource page on Paul. I will continue to expand on those references with some comments.

  • Ash Wednesday 1A – 2 Corinthians 5:21

    The whole passage (2 Cor. 5:20b-6:10) is great, but I’m just going to link to a few notes I’ve written on the key verse in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

    The way you understand the phrase “righteousness of God” will color much of the rest of your understanding of Paul, I think.

  • Righteousness of God Redux

    Just over three years ago I wrote a bit about the New Perspective on Paul, and particularly the interpretation of the righteousness of God in 2 Corinthians 5:21. I would still call my understanding of this a work in progress. There are many things I should read and assimilate yet.

    At the moment, however, I’m working my way through the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament volume on James and I came across this same phrase in James 1:20. The authors comment:

    … when James talks about the “righteousness of God” … he may mean something quite different than Paul’s characteristic subjective genitive (“the righteousness produced by God”; cf. Ro 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 10:3; 2Co 5:21; Php 3:9). Here the genitive “of God” … seems objective, because James is insisting that human wrath does not create the righteousness that can be offered or directed to God, the righteousness that we are called to live out on earth and that he demands from his followers (86, Greek text left out).

    Now “may mean something quite different” is not an extremely strong statement, but if Wright is correct on the meaning of “righteousness of God” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 (and I have correctly understood him), “covenant faithfulness” might work quite well on both sides. God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, and the righteousness to be produced in us is also faithfulness to the covenant. Thus we can “become” the righteousness of God, or become the bearers of God’s covenant faithfulness in the world, and that righteousness can be produced in us. The theology of James and Paul would not, on this point at least, be as far apart as often assumed.

    I would add the note that in either case, we should not be talking about human-produced righteousness. James 1:5, receiving God’s wisdom, should be as clear on that point as are the many statements by Paul regarding righteousness by faith. I have been impressed in my current study of James with the parallels between receiving God’s wisdom and receiving the Spirit. I might write a few notes on that later.

  • 2 Corinthians and Leadership

    Brian Fulthorp has written a few notes on 2 Corinthians, a book that has been growing on me over the last few years.  I think it’s unfortunately neglected in Christian preaching.  Except for a few proof texts we rarely hear much of the message of this book.

    This comment from Brian might indicate why the book is  not popular:

    Gombis notes Paul as the Apostle of weakness and that it is only through our weakness and dependency on God that we can experience his power or that God’s power them becomes fully manifest – listen to that carefully: it is only when we are completely and utterly and fully dependent on God and function in our own weakness that God’s power is made complete in us or that his power is fully manifest – this is true biblical and Pauline leadership.

    “[F]ully dependent on God and function in our own weakness….”  Doesn’t sound like much fun!  Might not be seeker friendly either. Time to go read a different book.

  • Devotionals on 2 Corinthians

    My wife Jody notes that in my talk at a local church last Sunday night I commented that people read 1 Corinthians more than 2 Corinthians.  I must add that I also said they read more Romans and Galatians than any Corinthians, but that’s beside the point.  In any case she’s meditating her way through 2 Corinthians for her devotional list, and I’m finding the posts pretty interesting.  The first one is here.

  • Book Notes: Roetzel on 2 Corinthians

    I’ve given up the enterprise of reading this book through from cover to cover, so these notes are based on using it as reference while I’m reading 2 Corinthians itself.

    The fact is that I found the book impossible to read straight through.  As I mentioned previously in using it as a comparison to Matera’s commentary, Roetzel divides the book into five letters:

    1. A Letter of Appeal for the Offering (8:1-24)
    2. First Letter Defending Paul’s Ministry ( 2:14-7:4)
    3. Second Letter of Defense or The Letter of Tears (10:1-13:10)
    4. The Reconciling Letter (1:1-2:13; 7:5-16; 13:11-13)
    5. Offering Letter to the Churches of Achaia (9:1-15)

    I find this reconstruction unconvincing not because it isn’t well thought out.  In fact, it proposes a rather interesting set of correspondence.  What I find unconvincing is any theory of why it would have been combined in the way it was by any redactor.  I simply see no logic, and Roetzel doesn’t seem to provide any, for why anyone should join the various letters together in this particular fashion. In my view, that is a fatal flaw.  What does the letter mean as constructed?  Why would one construct it in that particular way.

    Since Roetzel then writes the commentary according to his reconstruction, one almost is required to accept the reconstruction in order to read it comfortably.  Now that isn’t necessarily a criticism.  I suspect Roetzel would say that a person who follows the canonical form is requiring people to accept that (re)construction.  (See his comments on hypotheses on pages 24-25.)

    Using the index, one can still find the commentary useful in studying particular passages, and the introduction to the whole book as well as the introductions to the various sections are still quite useful.

    Due to space constraints, the commentary covers many of the major theological issues in the book very briefly.  That will actually be a feature to many readers, especially to pastors who are trying to prepare a sermon.  On the other hand, the pastor doing sermon preparation will have to work through the table of contents to find where his or her particular passage is covered.

    The language of the commentary is commendably clear, easy to read, and the referencing is light, and does not use footnotes.  That makes individual sections easy to read and to follow, again an advantage to the pastor of Sunday School teacher wishing to find the answer to some issue of interpretation.  Omissions in the discussion are entirely due to the size of the commentary.  You’ll find a great deal of information for the size of book involved.

    In the final analysis, I would have to say that I cannot overcome the negative factor of the book’s arrangement, and that goes back to my personal evaluation of the author’s hypothetical reconstruction of the book.  Were one to accept his reconstruction, the same things that I find annoying might be seen as helpful.

    As it stands, I must say that I prefer Matera’s commentary in all ways, and give this one three stars out of five.

  • Is Canonical 2 Corinthians a Hypothetical Reconstruction?

    As I’ve noted before, I’m now reading Calvin J. Roetzel, 2 Corinthians, in the Abingdon New Testament Commantaries series.  I want to emphasize here that I accept the use of historical-critical methodology in Bible study.  That does not, however, force me to find all critical theories plausible.  I’m arguing against this specific set of theories, not against historical-critical methodologies generally.

    In arguing against the unity of the book, Roetzel says:

    … Most [scholars who argue for the integrity of the book] side with Kümmel that the canonical version of 2 Corinthians was Paul’s original epistle, and they tend to ignore the hypothetical nature of their own construction even while repudiating the hypotheses of others (Kümmel 1965 [Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1965], 292).  — p. 25

    This seems to me to be an odd statement.  Though it is not explicit, it appears to aim to place all views on a level playing field, from unity to the five letter hypothesis.  But that doesn’t seem the correct approach.

    If I have a letter with an essentially unified textual history, in this case meaning that the partitioning of the letter is nowhere evident in the textual history as we have it, then we might give at least slight preference to the notion that it is, in fact a letter.  When it fulfills all the forms, that suggestion is strengthened.

    I suppose that the idea that the letter is a unity is, indeed, an hypothesis, but it seems a rather obvious one.  Suggestions of Paul’s changes of mood and/or rhetorical intention are based on observing the text based on this first and most obvious hypothesis.

    On the other hand multiple letter hypotheses are immediately much more complicated.  First one has to assume that someone combined multiple letters into one, cutting out the salutation of at least one and the conclusion of another.  If we assume five letters, then the situation becomes more complicated.

    There are clearly shifts or seams in 2 Corinthians.  The question is why?  The problem for multiple letter hypotheses, I think, is to answer the question not just of why such seams are there (which they answer by proposing multiple letters), but also just why someone should put the document together in this way.

    I don’t see this addressed anywhere.  What is the purpose of the redactor?  If he wishes to preserve all the letters why not just copy them in succession?  If he has some theological purpose, then the question goes right back to the start–what is the meaning of the text as it stands?  (I would welcome comment from someone who has spent more time studying New Testament than I have.)

    I’m suggesting two things.  First, that the hypothesis that the letter as we have it is a unity should be privileged in discussion to some extent, because it is supported by the best possible evidence–that’s what the letter looks like now.  Second, that a theory that involves redaction must also explain the actions of the redactor.  Simply producing plausible pieces and providing a chronology for them does little without some reason why they would have been combined as they were.

    Let me illustrate from some texts where I feel I’m on more solid ground.  Many people try to solve the chronological differences between Genesis 1 and 2 by attributing them to two sources.  Now I believe they are from two sources.  I think the evidence is fairly solid for that.  But having said that, I have solved nothing regarding the difference in chronology between the two chapters, because I still must think about a redactor who somehow thought that putting them together made sense.  So now I must ask about his motivations and what message he intended to convey bringing them together.

    In the case of Isaiah, we again have a composite book, but here were have a hypothesis for why redactors would want to add to the book.  Very likely there was a school of prophets or scribes who preserved Isaiah’s work and added to it from time to time.  Their motivation is to preserve the prophet’s (or prophets’) words. They are not cutting pieces out and combining them, but rather putting the pieces together, generally as they were.

    I don’t see any similarly plausible hypothesis for 2 Corinthians, which makes me find the arguments for unity much more plausible in view of the lack of solid reasons for someone to sew the book together from two to five pieces as various theories suggest.

  • Commentary: II Corinthians (NTL)

    I have really enjoyed studying 2 Corinthians with this commentary.  Since I’ve used a number of volumes from the New Testament Library before, the easiest evaluation of this commentary I can give is that it meets and in some cases exceeds the expectations I have of volumes in the New Testament Library series. If you have used and liked other volumes in either the OTL or the NTL, you won’t be disappointed.

    There are several things I look for in a commentary, and of course different commentaries serve different purposes. In a scholarly commentary intended for the preacher or teacher I look for solid coverage of critical issues, reasonable accessibility, good theological applications (or at least hooks on which to build them), and comprehensive coverage without going overboard. On all these points this commentary stands up well.

    For my personal use I like good coverage of text-critical issues and language issues. As is usual with NTL or OTL volumes, the language and text issues are a little less prominent, being largely covered in short notes following the translation. Considering the purpose of the commentary, this is actually a feature, since overdoing minor textual issues is simply distracting for someone who need to go out and preach to a congregation that will have limited use for that type of information.

    Two things stood out in reading the commentary. First, Matera covers the literary integrity of the book in some detail, including discussion of the various arguments for believing that more than one letter has been combined to make the single book we call 2 Corinthians. Matera supports the literary integrity of the book as we have it. He does not treat the other side unfairly, however.

    Second, Matera covers rhetorical issues in some detail, which helps the reader see the book as a whole as well as digging into the details. I had never been able to really “feel” 2 Corinthians, even though I’ve studied it and read it many times. It always seemed like a patchwork of topics. That’s OK for a letter, but with Matera’s comments I see more connection and structure and less of a loose collection of topics.

    I find it helpful two compare one commentary to another to give a more precise idea of what it’s like.  In this case I’m starting to read 2 Corinthians by Calvin J. Roetzel in the Abingdon New Testament Commentaries series (Abingdon).

    Of these two, the Abingdon volumes aim at theology students, but are expected to also be useful to pastors and teachers.  NTL volumes aim a bit higher on the scholarly scale.  The Abingdon volumes do not use footnotes, while the NTL uses them quite extensively.  This might give an impression that the text is more dissimilar than it is.  While I haven’t completed my read of the Abingdon volume, I find it about the same reading level, provided one skips the footnotes in NTL, which I don’t.

    The  NTL volume is 314 pages of content, while the Abingdon is only about 138 pages.  That in itself is quite a difference, but the Abingdon pages are about 70% of the length of those in the NTL.  That, of course, means that the larger volume can cover a great deal more data.

    As for writing style and content, Matera, as I have noted, argues for the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, while Roetzel goes for a five letter hypothesis.  I found Matera’s discussion of the various hypotheses on how to divide the book quite helpful; Roetzel sounds dismissive of those, like Matera, who argue that the book is a single letter largely for rhetorical reasons.  I realize that Roetzel has less space to work with, but he found the space to go through the various views in some detail.

    The Abingdon volume is printed in the order in which Roetzel has reorganized the text.  That has the advantage of clarity for those who want to understand just what the fragments from which he thinks 2 Corinthians was constructed would have looked like.

    If I might add my own note in response, I find it quite easy to believe a two letter hypothesis, such as 1-9 being one letter with 10-13 added from a second letter.  It’s not hard to imagine a scribe copying two letters into one manuscript and assuming everyone would know there were two letters, though it’s hard to understand in that case why all the elements that one would expect from a letter have been removed from this second one.

    What I find hard to believe is that five different letters were pasted together out of order.  I just don’t understand the motivation and what the redactor, if one should call him that, was trying to accomplish.  Any good redactional theory should be able to explain what the redactor was up to.

    I found Matera’s explanation, even where it tends to stretch things a bit, such as in explaining Paul’s change of mood from chapter 9 to chapter 10, to be very carefully thought out and well worth considering.  I strongly recommend this commentary (5 of 5 stars).