Saturday Series: 1 John 1:1-5

Over the next month or so, these Saturday studies will focus on the Johannine Letters (1-2-3 John). Key passages in the letters will be highlighted, using the methods and principles of critical analysis—textual, historical, and literary criticism—to elucidate the text.

Even a casual reading, in translation, of both the Gospel and Letters of John, would make rather apparent the many similarities in language, style, and thought between these writings. If not written by the same person, then, at the very least, they share a common religious and theological worldview, and manner of expression, suggesting that they were both produced and read among a specific group of first-century believers. New Testament scholars typically refer to this as a Johannine “Community” or “School”. Community is the better term, in the sense of referring to a number of congregations in a particular region which were unified, to some extent, in thought and organization. Tradition ascribes all four writings (Gospel and Letters) to John the apostle (son of Zebedee); this is certainly possible, but technically the works are anonymous, and attribution to John should not be treated as established fact. A disciple of Jesus known as the “Beloved Disciple” (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) is referenced in the Gospel as an eyewitness source of information and tradition, and it is often assumed that he was a central (perhaps the central) apostolic figure of the Johannine Community. I will regularly use the standard term “Johannine” without necessarily affirming the traditional identification of John the apostle as either the “Beloved Disciple” or author of the Gospel and Letters.

The location of the Johannine Community is also unknown, though tradition would identify it as the region around Ephesus, and, here too, the tradition may well be correct. In favor of Ephesus and Asia Minor are the following objective details:

    • The letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110-115 A.D.), many of which are addressed to congregations in Asia Minor, show many similarities with Johannine thought. The same is true of the letter of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who is said to have been a disciple of John the apostle. In writing to the Christians of Smyrna and Tralles, Ignatius attacks Christological views similar to those denounced in 1 John.
    • The book of Revelation, written by a “John”, and traditionally identified with John the Apostle, is addressed primarily to churches in Asia Minor (chaps. 2-3), the first of which is Ephesus. The warnings in those letters are similar in certain respects to those given in 1 and 2 John.
    • The island of Patmos, where “John” writes the book of Revelation, and where John the Apostle was exiled (according to tradition), is not too far from Ephesus.
    • John the Baptist features prominently in the Gospel of John, and it often thought that the Gospel was written, in part, against those would might identify the Baptist (rather than Jesus) as the Messiah. According to Acts 18:25ff; 19:2-6, there appear to have been disciples of the Baptist in the vicinity of Ephesus.

The emphasis on this idea of a Johannine Community relates to the importance of studying the Scriptures, first of all, in the historical-cultural context in which they were originally authored and distributed. Too often, there is a tendency for Christians to read Scripture out of context, as though the writings simply dropped down out of heaven fully formed. Any sound and reasonable view of the inspiration of Scripture must take full account of the natural processes by which the text took shape and was produced—this means a real life-setting of the work. Such a setting is easier to establish in the case of the Letters of Paul, where so much more detail is provided, but the critical analysis—under the heading of historical criticism— is just as necessary for the Letters of John. For a study on the background of the Letters, see my earlier article on the subject.

By way of introduction, we will begin with the first five verses of 1 John—the “prologue” (1:1-4) together with the initial declaration (in v. 5) of the work proper.

1 John 1:1-5

Every attentive reader will, I think, readily recognize the points of similarity between the “prologue” to 1 John (1:1-4) and the more famous Prologue of the Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). This is clear enough from the opening words:

1 John
Hó ¢¡n ap’ arch¢¡s
 ^O h@n a)p’ a)rxh=$
Th(at) which was from the beginning
Gospel
En arch¢¡ ¢¡n ho
 )En a)rxh=| h@n o(
In the beginning was the…

The form of the verb of being (eimi, here imperfect indicative ¢¡n, “was”) has profound theological (and Christological) significance in the Gospel of John, and is used most carefully in the Prologue as a mark of divine/eternal existence and life, contrasted with the contingent coming to be (vb gínomai) of creation. Also important is the noun arch¢¡ (“beginning, first, fore[most]”)—note the Gospel references in 1:1-2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4. There are nine other occurrences in the Letters, always in the expression “from the beginning” (ap’ arch¢¡s): 1 Jn 2:7, 13-14, 24 [twice]; 3:8, 11; 2 Jn 5, 6. One might also note the important occurrences of arch¢¡ in the book of Revelation (3:14; 21:6; 22:13).

The very way that 1 John starts, with the neuter relative pronoun (“[that] which”), could almost be read as a reference to the Gospel Prologue; indeed, many commentators feel that the author of the Letter is intentionally drawing on Jn 1:1-18, as a “deliberate reflection” upon its wording and theological message (Brown, p. 174). This seems most likely. However, while the (poetic) syntax of the Gospel Prologue is rather smooth and elegant, that of 1 Jn 1:1-4 is anything but, as most commentators and translators will acknowledge. The four verses make up one long (and rather awkward) sentence in the Greek; translations typically break this up and smooth things out considerably. Here I give my rendering of 1:1-4:

“Th(at) which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked at (closely) and our hands felt (by touching), about the word/account [lógos] of Life—and th(is) Life was made to shine forth, and we have seen (it), and we bear witness and give forth (as) a message to you, the Life of the Ages [i.e. Eternal Life] which was (facing) toward the Father and was made to shine forth to us—th(at) which we have seen and heard we also give forth as a message to you, that you also might hold common (bond) with us; and, indeed, our common (bond) (is) with the Father and with His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed, and we write these (thing)s (so) that our delight (in it) may be made full.”

I believe that a good deal of the grammatical awkwardness stems from the way that the thought/message of the Gospel Prologue is incorporated into the introductory message of the letter. It would seem that this took place two ways: (1) the initial (and repeated) use of the relative pronoun, and (2) the central proclamation (verse 2, highlighted in blue above) that interrupts the main statement. It is this proclamation that most clearly echoes the Gospel prologue:

    • “and th(is) Life was made to shine forth” (kai h¢ zœ¢¡ efanerœ¡q¢) [v. 2a]
      —Gospel: “and th(is) Life was the Light of men; and the Light shines…” (1:4)
    • “and we have seen (it)” (kai heœrákamen) [v. 2b]
      —Gospel: “and we looked at his splendor” (1:14, cf. also v. 18)
    • “and we bear witness [martyroúmen] and give forth (as) a message to you” [v. 2c]
      —Gospel: John the Baptist, in particular, bears witness to the Light/Life (1:6-8)
    • “the Life of the Ages which was [¢¡n] toward [prós] the Father” [v. 2d]
      —Gospel: “the Word [Logos] was [¢¡n] toward [prós] God…” (1:1) “this (one) was [¢¡n] in the beginning toward [prós] God” (1:2) “In him was [¢¡n] Life, and th(is) Life was [¢¡n]…” (1:4)
    • “and was made to shine forth to us” (kai efanerœ¡q¢ h¢mín) [v. 2e]
      —Gospel: 1:4f, 9ff, 14, 18 (see under v. 2a above)

The use of the relative pronoun adds to the complexity of 1:1-4 and requires some comment. It is a neuter pronoun, and, occurring as it does at the beginning of the sentence, is best understood in a general and comprehensive way. As I noted above, the allusions to the Gospel Prologue suggest that it is the unique message about Jesus, as presented in the Gospel of John, that is in view. I believe that this functions with three levels of meaning:

    1. Jesus as the eternal Word/Life/Light who came to earth as an incarnate (flesh and blood) human being
    2. The manifestation of this Life/Light on earth among other human beings—esp. his close disciples
    3. The message of Jesus—who he was and what he did—proclaimed by and among the first believers, down to the time of writing

The last of these is less prominent in the Gospel Prologue, but takes on special emphasis and importance in the Johannine Letters. The relative pronouns and points of reference in 1:1-4 shift subtly between these three levels of meaning, especially in vv. 1-3a—and it must be said that they are equally important (and interconnected) for the author. If the author is indeed making use of the (written) Gospel, then it is likely that 1 John was written somewhat later, after the Gospel (in some form) had already been in circulation in the Johannine churches. Probably he would have expected that his audience would understand and be familiar with his references to the Gospel Prologue, as well as the theology (and Christology) expressed by it. At any rate, the author’s own purpose in writing as he does is clear enough from the closing words in vv. 3-4:

“…th(at) which we have seen and heard we also give forth as a message to you, that you also might hold common (bond) [koinœnía] with us; and, indeed, our common (bond) [koinœnía] (is) with the Father and with His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed, and we write these (thing)s (so) that our delight (in it) may be made full.”

The specific wording here is significant and should be examined carefully. In particular, it is worth asking: if the author is writing to fellow believers, united in thought and purpose (as part of the Community), then why would he have any doubt that they “might also hold common (bond) with us”? The use of the subjunctive here (éch¢te, “might hold, would hold”) I believe is telling, as it relates to a certain conflict within the Community. We will examine this conflict in next week’s study; in preparation, I would ask that you read the letter carefully, from verse 4 through the end of chapter 2, paying special attention to the discussion in 2:18-27. What sort of conflict is described there, and what is the nature of the dispute? How would you relate it back to what the author expresses in the prologue of 1:1-4? In closing, it is worth noting the way the author re-states the Gospel message in verse 5:

“And this is the message which we have heard from him [i.e. Jesus] and deliver up (as a) message to you: ‘that God is Light, and there is not any darkness in Him’!”

This declaration again echoes the language of the Gospel prologue (1:5), as well as reflecting the dualism (i.e. Light vs. Darkness) that is especially characteristic of Johannine thought (3:19; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46, etc). This dualistic imagery will play an important role in how the author frames the conflict which is at the heart of the letter’s message. This we will explore…next Saturday.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 30 (1982).

Saturday Series: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (concluded)

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, continued

Last week, under the heading of Literary Criticism (and Composition Criticism), we explored our passage (2 Cor 6:14-7:1) from the standpoint of Pauline authorship, both in terms of the immediate context of 2:14-7:4, and the letter of 2 Corinthians as a whole. In particular, at the close of the prior study, I gave consideration to the place of the passage within the entire letter, on the theory that our canonical book was, in fact, composed as a single letter by Paul. Compilation theories are common among critical commentators, and are plausible (more or less) to some degree, but they all face considerable difficulties with relatively little hard evidence to support them. At the same time, the structure and flow of 2 Corinthians, considered as a single letter, is also problematic.

Last week, I noted that there is a consistent (and apparently straightforward) letter at the core of 2 Corinthians, one centered on the financial collection for the Christians in Jerusalem (chaps. 8-9); it could plausibly be reconstructed as follows: 1:1-2:13; 7:5-16; chaps. 8-9; and 13:11-14 (or a comparable closing). What distorts this clean structure are the two lengthy discussions on Paul’s apostolic status and relationship to the Corinthians—2:14-7:4 and 10:1-13:10—which fit uneasily into the formal epistolary and rhetorical pattern, and which largely account for the shifts in tone and emphasis. Both of these lengthy sections could serve as the core of letters themselves, with a self-contained structure that extends and distorts the outline of 2 Corinthians when taken as a whole. Thus, the critical view that one or both of these sections come from separate letters. But what of the possibility that they were both authored by Paul as part of the same letter (i.e. our canonical 2 Corinthians)? This could have a considerable bearing on the place and purpose of 6:14-7:1, and so should be examined in a bit more detail.

If, in fact, the financial collection for Jerusalem is the center of the letter, and Paul’s main purpose for writing, then the two ‘digressions’ on his apostolic status (in connection to the Corinthians) could be related to this. Is it possible to explain the letter’s (current) structure on this basis? and what, then, is the relationship? To begin with, in the structure of the letter as we have it, the two apostolic ‘digressions’ are embedded as part of the sections that bracket the central instruction regarding the collection for Jerusalem:

    • Extended Narration (narratio)—1:15-7:16
      [2:14-7:4—Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians]
    • Main Proposition (propositio) and Arguments (probatio) with Exhortation (exhortatio?)—8:1-9:15
    • Extended Exhortation (exhortatio), with concluding Argument/Appeal (peroratio)—10:1-13:10

Moreover, in spite of the differences in tone and style between the two apostolic discussions, they share a number of features and details in common, and are clearly related to the same basic subject—Paul’s role and status as an apostle to the Corinthians believers. Let us briefly consider the structure of these two sections—first, the discussion in 2:14-7:4:

    • 2:14-7:4—Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians
      • Basic proposition (2:14-17)
      • Issue 1: On Ministers and letters of recommendation (3:1-18)
      • Issue 2: On the honesty/sincerity of true apostles (such as Paul) in the preaching and ministry (4:1-6)
      • Issue 3: On the (physical) suffering of apostles such as Paul for the sake of the Gospel (4:7-5:10)
      • Exhortation/Appeal to the Corinthians, regarding Paul’s role as Apostle (5:11-6:10)
      • Personal (Concluding) Appeal by Paul (6:11-7:4)

Second, that in 10:1-13:4:

    • 10:1-13:4—Extended Exhortation (exhortatio): Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians
      • Initial Appeal and Statement (10:1-6)
      • Issue 1: The nature of Paul’s (apostolic) authority—theme of boasting introduced (10:7-18)
      • Issue 2: Comparison between Paul and other would-be Apostles who are influencing(?) the Corinthians (11:1-12:13)
      • Issue 3: Paul’s apostolic authority—exercise of discipline (12:14-21)
      • Closing appeal (13:1-4)

There is a general similarity in terms of structure: an initial statement, followed by three issues/arguments addressed by Paul, ending with a forceful exhortation/appeal. Admittedly, there are also significant differences, especially in terms of the thrust of each discussion. In particular, in 10:1-13:4 Paul uses a much stronger (and harsher) tone, similar in style and language to what we find in Galatians; as in that letter, Paul focuses on specific ‘opponents’, other (outside) leaders/ministers who are influencing the congregations he helped to found. There remains considerable scholarly debate as to just who these other (would-be) apostles are, along with the exact nature of Paul’s conflict with them. Based on the data in 2 Cor 10-13, we may plausibly determine the following details: (a) they were Jewish, (b) they came from outside the initial apostolic mission that founded the congregations, (c) they came with noteworthy credentials (commendatory letters), (d) they had a charismatic emphasis (more so than Paul), and perhaps were also more eloquent and impressive as speakers. It is unlikely that these were Palestinian Jewish Christians (from Jerusalem, etc); they appear to have been from the wider Hellenistic Jewish world, perhaps similar in background to Apollos. Interestingly, unlike in Galatians, Paul mentions no specific theological or doctrinal differences; his attack on them has more to do with how he viewed their personal character and understanding of the apostolic ministry.

Though it requires reading between the lines a bit, I believe the situation addressed by Paul in 10:1-13:4 is also in view in the earlier discussion of 2:14-7:4. In particular, the importance he gives to the question of letters of recommendation in chapter 3 is noteworthy. In an age when communication was extremely slow (and could be unreliable), transmission and presentation of letters played a key role in establishing a person’s legitimacy, qualifications, and intent. We also know from early Christian writings of the issues surrounding traveling ministers, the difficulties faced in establishing their pedigree and character, etc., including the potential danger an illegitimate itinerant minister could pose to a congregation. See, for example, chapters 11-13 of the so-called “Teaching (Didache) of the Twelve Apostles”. Apart from all other concerns, it was natural that a missionary like Paul would be highly protective of the congregations he played a role in founding. Moreover, from 1 Cor 1:10-17, it would seem there was a tendency among at least some in Corinth to identify themselves strongly with specific apostolic figures, in a partisan way that Paul found troubling. This could help us understand how influence from other outside ‘apostles’ could have quickly taken hold at Corinth, especially if such persons had impressive recommendations and/or demonstrated exciting charismatic abilities.

I think it may be possible to reconstruct a scenario that could explain why Paul writes as he does, including the two lengthy apostolic discussions. He wishes to see the effort of the financial collection for Jerusalem, so important in his mind, be carried through to completion (1 Cor 16:1-4, etc). However, significant problems had arisen which have disrupted and strained his relationship with the Corinthian congregations. He mentions one specific issue in 2:5-11, but it is clear that the conflict goes deeper and is more serious than this. He would not write so extensively defending and explaining his apostolic role and status, in relation to the Corinthians, were this not the case. Based on a careful reading of both apostolic discussion sections, it is possible to isolate two major (and likely related) issues: (1) the influence of other ‘apostles’ from outside who raised questions regarding Paul’s behavior and qualifications, etc, and (2) accusations/suggestions of misconduct by Paul. It is proper to consider them in this order and weight, since that is how Paul treats them in both discussions:

    • Extended discussion, with arguments, illustrations, etc, on Paul’s apostolic status and qualifications, both in relation to the Corinthians (emphasized in 2:14-7:4), and in comparison to these other ‘apostles’ (emphasized in chaps. 10-13)
    • At the close of the discussion, mention of accusations of misconduct, along with an implicit, but forceful denial.

Though less attention is given to the latter, it would seem to be the point that is most relevant for connecting the two apostolic discussions to the central matter of the financial collection for Jerusalem. The suggestions of misconduct occur at roughly the same point in each discussion—at the close of his arguments and in the context of the concluding appeal. In this first discussion, it happens to occur directly after 6:14-7:1 (a point to be further considered below), in 7:2ff. As I noted previously, Paul gives a concise three-fold denial of misconduct toward the Corinthians, using three verbs:

    • “we treated no one unjustly” (oudéna ¢dik¢samen)
    • “we corrupted no one” (oudéna ephtheíramen)
    • “we sought to have more (from) no one” (oudéna epleonekt¢¡samen)

In the second discussion, he addresses the matter in more detail, in 12:14-18:

“See, this (is the) third (time) I hold (myself) ready to come toward you, and I will not numb [i.e. weigh] you down—for I do not seek the (thing)s (that are) yours, but you. … And it must be (then), (that) I did not weigh you down; but (surely) (operat)ing under (an) all-working (cleverness), I took you with a trick! No, by any (one) whom I se(n)t forth toward you, did I seek to get more (from) you through him? I called Titus alongside and se(n)t him forth (to you) together with the brother; Titus did not (make) any attempt to get more (from) you (did he)? (and are we) not (moving) in the same track?”

Paul’s language here needs to be understood in light of the wider discussion in 2 Corinthians (especially here in chaps. 10-13), where Paul emphasizes that he did not burden the Corinthians with requests/demands for financial assistance (to support his ministry work)—on this point, see 11:7-11; 12:13, and the similar discussion in 1 Cor 9:1-18. The specific verb used in 12:14 (also 12:13 and 11:9) is katanarkᜠ(“numb down”), synonymous with katabaréœ (“weigh down”) in verse 16. This should have been viewed as a sign of Paul’s love and concern (his heart opened wide, 6:11); and yet, it appears to have played a part in suspicions and accusations against him. Twice in 12:17-18 (see the italicized words above), the verb pleonektéœ is used in this regard. It means simply “hold/have more”, but is often used in the sense of seeking to gain/get more from others (i.e. act greedily), sometimes with the harshly negative connotation of deceiving/defrauding others. This is one of the three verbs in Paul’s three-fold denial in 7:2 (see above), which would seem to confirm that the wrongdoing (adikía, “injustice”) of which he is suspected and/or accused relates primarily, if not entirely, to the idea that he is trying to get hold of money from the Corinthians through deception. If this is so, then it almost certainly is connected with the fundraising effort for Jerusalem (chaps. 8-9).

The accusation or suspicious criticism against Paul may have been along the following lines: He claims that he doesn’t ask any money of you for himself, but can you be sure he isn’t trying to defraud you with this collection? What if he is trying to trick you with these requests for money? Given the harshness of Paul’s attack in 10:1-13:4, it is likely that these other ‘apostles’ were at least partly responsible for spreading suspicions of this sort. As such, his collection efforts (and any accusations regarding them) cut right to the heart of his relation to the Corinthians as an apostle. Thus, he felt it necessary to expound and explain this to them in considerable detail—the nature of the apostolic ministry, and what it means for he (and his fellow missionaries) to be specially chosen and sent forth (i.e. an apostle) by God to proclaim the Gospel. At some level, he must have been hurt by any suspicions or accusation against him, however unfounded, and this comes through, especially in the first discussion, in the concluding exhortation/appeal (6:11-7:4), when he declares:

“Our mouth has been opened up toward you, Korinthians, our heart has been made wide; you are not in a narrow space in us, but you have (only) a narrow space in your inner organs (for us)! But (to give us) the (same) wage (back) in exchange, as (my dear) offspring, I say to you—make wide (your hearts) also to us, …. make space for us!

The striking difference in tone between 2:14-7:4 and 10:1-13:4 has been noted numerous times, and this, too, can perhaps be explained in context of the Jerusalem Collection (chaps. 8-9). Since the Collection is foremost in mind, central to the letter and Paul’s purpose for writing, it would make sense that he waited until the matters regarding it were addressed before embarking in his polemic against the would-be apostles that were influencing the Corinthians. In other words, the two apostolic discussions are, in effect, two halves of a single line of argument separated by the matter of the Collection. In the first half (2:14-7:4) Paul presents himself as a true apostle, whom the Corinthians should regard in their proper relationship to him; in the second half (10:1-13:4), Paul compares/contrasts himself with these would-be ‘false’ apostles. We may view this as two sides of the same conflict.

Even if this line of interpretation is essentially correct, how does 6:14-7:1 relate to it? In the previous study, I laid out a possible contextual relationship, relating the injustice (adikía) that characterizes the non-believer (6:14ff) with the accusation/suspicion that Paul has acted unjustly (vb. adikéœ, 7:2). As it happens, there is a similar sort of dynamic at the end of the second apostolic discussion; note the following comparative outline:

    • First appeal—for the the proper relationship between Paul & the Corinthians (6:11-13 / 12:14-18)
    • Warning against behavior that is improper for believers, drawing upon traditional ethical-religious instruction (6:14-7:1 / 12:19-21)
    • Second appeal—picking up and restating the substance of the first appeal (7:2-4 / 13:1-4)

Due to the harsher tone of 10:1-13:4, the warning in 12:19-21 seems less out of place than in 6:14-7:1, and it also happens to resemble more closely the type of traditional ethical instruction (utilizing standard vice lists) Paul gives elsewhere in his letters (Gal 5:19-23; Rom 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:9-11; 6:9-10). Even so, a strong argument can be made that 6:14-7:1 and 12:19-21 play the same role in both sections, and are evidence for the careful construction of those apostolic discussions within the setting of the letter as a whole. Though the context is less clear in the case of 6:14-7:1, it is strikingly evident in 12:19ff:

“In (what has) passed, do you consider that we are giv(ing) an account of ourselves to you? (It is) down before God in the Anointed {Christ} (that) we speak—and all th(ese thing)s, loved (one)s, (are) over [i.e. for] your (be)ing built (up). For I am afraid (in) no (little) way (that), (in my) coming, I should not find you like I wish (you to be), and I should be found like you do not wish (me to be)…”

In other words, the purpose of the apostolic discussions—both here and in 2:14-7:4—despite their apologetic character, where Paul seems to be defending his apostleship, is to the restore and preserve the proper relationship between Paul and the Corinthians. Note the important reciprocal language he uses: “For I am afraid … (that), (in my) coming, I should not find you like I wish (you to be), and I should be found like you do not wish (me to be).” Both sides of the relationship are threatened. This reflects a key theme that runs through both Corinthian letters—the importance of unity among believers, and how this aspect of our Christian identity is threatened by divisions and partisanship. In 12:20b, Paul neatly summarizes this disruption of unity through the popular ‘vice list’ format.

As in the case of 6:14-7:1, it is fair to refer to this as a description of what should not be present among believers (pístoi, those trusting)—rather, such disputes and divisiveness would more properly be characteristic of non-believers (ápistoi, those without trust). Moreover, the kind of immaturity that would lead to such division—including, to be sure the influence of the ‘false apostles’ and suspicions/accusations against Paul—might equally show one prone to more basic immorality and improper behavior. Again, as in 6:14-7:1, Paul refers to the immorality characteristic of non-believers, here indicating more directly that this may be a genuine problem for some Christians at Corinth (12:21). Thus, while Paul may deal with such ethical-religious matters in more detail in 1 Corinthians (5:1-13; 6:9-20; 10:14ff), it is not necessarily out of place here in 2 Corinthians, where the very character of what it means to be a true believer in Christ (in unity with others) is being addressed.

Conclusion

It may be helpful here, in conclusion, to bring together the strands of our study by way of a brief summary.

    • That there are a significant number of unusual or atypical details—words, phrases, style, points of emphasis, etc—in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, compared with the other undisputed Pauline letters, seems rather clear, as documented especially in our first study and in the separate note on 7:1.
    • For many commentators, these differences suggest that the passage is a non-Pauline interpolation, and thus not part of the original text. Such views are often related to the theory that 2 Corinthians is a compilation of letters (or parts of letters) by Paul.
    • The passage may be characterized as Jewish Christian homiletic material, based on a verse from the Torah (Lev 19:19), with a poetic exposition that includes a short chain (catena) of Scripture references, and concluding with a forceful exhortation (7:1) for believers. See our second study, as well as the article on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
    • There is evidence that Paul not infrequently made use of various sorts of traditional material—creeds, hymns, baptismal formulas, vice lists, Scripture catena, etc—which likely were not entirely his own creation, but reflect the early Christian tendency to adapt and promote traditional ways of thought and expression. A strong argument can be made that just such traditional material/expression was utilized by Paul in 6:14-7:1—this would explain many of the apparent differences in vocabulary and style, without excluding Paul as final author.
    • All interpolation theories face the profound difficulty of explaining just why 6:14-7:1 was included at its current location, especially since nearly all commentators consider 2:14-7:4, at least, to be part of a single letter. Though not without its own problems, the theory that Paul himself included the material as part of his line of argument/exhortation at the end of 2:14-7:4 is preferable. It does, however, require that some attempt be made to explain the sudden shift in tone by which our passage appears to interrupt the flow between 6:13 and 7:2.
    • Compilation theories for 2 Corinthians as whole, while plausible in varying degrees, remain highly speculative and ultimately rest on slight support. In terms of the external evidence (manuscript tradition, early versions, etc), there is no indication whatever that 2 Corinthians ever existed in a form different than our canonical text. If it is a compilation, it had to made early on, well prior to the middle of the 2nd century. Thus, it is at least worth seriously considering, on objective grounds, the possibility that Paul intended, and wrote, the letter as we have it.
    • The difficulties of structure, as well as the shifts in tone and style, are largely due to the two lengthy discussions on Paul’s apostolic status—2:14-7:4 and 10:1-13:4—which extend and distort the epistolary (and rhetorical) form of the letter. If original to 2 Corinthians, these sections surround the central discussion in chapters 8-9, on the financial collection for Jerusalem, and would have to be connected with it in some fundamental way.
    • The two apostolic ‘digressions’, while differing in tone and emphasis, share many key themes in common, as well as a basic outline—(1) initial statement, (2) discussion of three issues (with arguments, illustrations), and (3) a concluding exhortation/appeal. The primary subject in each is that of Paul’s role as an apostle, and his relationship, as such, to the Corinthians. These parallels strongly indicate careful authoring, with each discussion set within the structure of the letter, surrounding the matter of the financial collection.
    • Toward the end of each apostolic discussion, Paul mentions suspicions/accusations of wrongdoing on his part. Similarities in language suggest that more or less the same issue is being addressed in each discussion, and that it involves deceit/fraud related to the financial collection (on this, see above).
    • Connected with this, in each apostolic discussion, Paul includes a warning to the Corinthians regarding behavior that is improper for a believer, framing it in traditional religious-ethical terms: (a) Jewish Christian homiletic in 6:14-7:1, and (b) Greco-Roman/Jewish ‘vice lists’ in 12:19-21. Such behavior contrasts with how a true believer should behave—indeed, it is characteristic of non-believers.
    • Thus, in each instance, as part of his appeal regarding his apostolic status (and relationship to the Corinthians), Paul includes a warning to the Corinthians that they not behave like unbelievers—acting in a divisive and (potentially) immoral way. There should be unity among believers, which involves preserving the divinely ordained relationship between a true apostle (Paul) and the congregations he helped to found. The restoration/preservation of this relationship was essential for the completion of the fundraising mission for Jerusalem, but ultimately points to deeper issues as well—regarding Christian identity and how believers ought to think and act in relation to one another.

While these critical studies do not resolve all of the questions surrounding 6:14-7:1, nor of 2 Corinthians as a whole, I hope they have served to demonstrate ways that critical methods and approaches can elucidate a Scripture passage. By confronting serious critical questions head on, without glossing them over or brushing them aside, it only strengthens our understanding of the Scriptures, giving us, I believe, more insight into the inspired text and how it came to be produced. The purpose of these Saturday Studies is to introduce any and all interested readers to the techniques and methods of Biblical Criticism, and how they may be applied to our study of Scripture. Next week, we will shift are attention to an entirely different area of the Scriptures. I hope you will join me for this new study!

Saturday Series: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (part 4)

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, continued

In last week’s study, we examined 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 from the standpoint of the critical theory that the passage is an interpolation, i.e. a secondary addition to the text. In particular, the apparent non-Pauline features—those considered unusual or atypical of Paul—were discussed (following the prior examination of the vocabulary and other details in Parts 1 and 2). This study came under the heading of redaction criticism—that is, the passage as included in the text by an editor/redactor, a view often related to the theory that 2 Corinthians as a whole represents a compilation of two or more letters by Paul (for more on this, see below).

Composition Criticism

This week, we will be considering 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 from the standpoint of Pauline authorship; our discussion now falls under the heading of composition criticism—i.e. how the passage came to be authored (or composed) in the context of the letter as we have it. The study will be divided into four sections:

    1. The structure and content of 2:14-7:4 and the (current) location of 6:14-7:1
    2. Pauline authorship of 6:14-7:1 and how it might relate to 2:14-7:4
    3. The overall context of 1:1-7:16 as a unified composition (and how 6:14-7:1 fits in)
    4. Questions regarding the letter as a whole (including chaps. 8-9 and 10-13)
1. The Structure and Content of 2 Cor 2:14-7:4

Nearly all commentators (even those who view 2 Corinthians as a compilation) consider 2:14-7:4 (excluding 6:14-7:1) to be a unified composition and part of a single letter. It is for this reason, as we discussed last week, that the inclusion of our passage in the middle of this section—i.e. after 6:13 instead of 7:4—is so problematic for any interpolation/compilation theory. It will be useful now to examine briefly the structure and content of 2:14-7:4 as a whole. Most commentators and New Testament scholars today recognize that Paul, in his letters, makes use of common rhetorical (and epistolary) techniques in presenting his arguments and exhorting his readers, etc. I will be discussing the structure of 2 Corinthians in this light in the sections below. Generally we may describe the rhetorical thrust of 2:14-7:4 as deliberative, centered on two interrelated themes: (1) Paul’s relation to the Corinthians as an apostle, and (2) the importance of this relationship being maintained and/or restored. Here is how I would divide this section as a whole:

    • 2:14-17—Basic proposition: Paul and his colleagues as apostles who are honest and sincere in their ministry
    • 3:1-18—Issue/Argument #1: On letters of recommendation (for apostles/ministers)
      • Illustration: The written tablets of the Old Covenant, in relation to the New (homiletic exposition)—letter vs. Spirit (vv. 3, 7-18)
    • 4:1-6—Issue/Argument #2: On the honesty/sincerity of true apostles (such as Paul) in the preaching and ministry
      • Illustration: Light vs. Darkness (blindness), alluding to the Mosaic veil in the prior illustration (vv. 3-6)
    • 4:7-5:10—Issue/Argument #3: On the (physical) suffering of apostles such as Paul for the sake of the Gospel
      • Illustration 1: The death and resurrection of Jesus—the participation of believers in it (4:10-15)
      • Illustration 2: The inner vs. outer nature of the human being (esp. the believer) (4:16-18)
      • Illustration 3: The body as a house or tent (i.e. clothing) that perishes, to be replaced by one that is imperishable (at the resurrection) (5:1-5)
      • Illustration 4: At home vs. away from home—i.e. believers in the present world (of suffering) vs. the future life in Heaven (5:6-10)
    • 5:11-6:10—Exhortation/Appeal to the Corinthians, regarding Paul’s role as Apostle
      • 5:11-15—His ministry is centered on proclamation of the Gospel
      • 5:16-21—Effect of the Gospel: The life of believers is new in Christ, and does not depend on the ‘old’ standards of the world; as an apostle, his ministry serves this dynamic of making things new.
      • 6:1-10—The Corinthians must receive, realize, and act according to this new identity in Christ (vv. 1-2), which includes recognizing Paul’s relation to them as an Apostle (vv. 4-10)
    • 6:11-7:4—Personal Appeal by Paul
      • 6:11-13—First statement (“make wide [your hearts] to us”)
      • 6:14-7:1—Illustration (?) from Scripture (Lev 19:19)—Homiletic exposition/exhortation {disputed passage}
      • 7:2-4—Second(?) statement (“make space for us”)

This outline shows that 2:14-7:4 admirably forms the torso of a letter with a deliberative rhetorical thrust (i.e. seeking to persuade/exhort the reader with regard to current/future action):

Unfortunately, the situation is more complicated when 2:14-7:4 is considered in the context of 1:1-7:16 (on this, see below). How exactly does 6:14-7:1 relate to this outline for 2:14-7:4? It appears to have little, if anything, to do with the specific matters being addressed—of Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians. As most commentators recognize, the transition from 6:13 to 6:14ff is sudden, appearing to interrupt the line of thought most abruptly. Nothing in 2:14-6:13 would prepare us for the style and tone (and subject matter) of 6:14-7:1. As I mentioned last week, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 seems to have much more in common with Paul’s discussion(s) in 1 Corinthians (e.g. 5:6-8; 6:19; and 10:6-13) than anything we find in 2 Corinthians.

Perhaps a clue is to be found in the immediate context. In the letter as we have it, 6:14-7:1 is bracketed by two similar, and more or less synonymous, exhortations by Paul:

    • “make wide (your hearts) also to us” [platýnth¢te kai hymeís] (end of 6:13)
    • “make space [i.e. in your hearts] for us” [chœr¢¡sate hymás] (beginning of 7:2)

As commentators have noted, removing 6:14-7:1 yields a relatively smooth and consistent statement by Paul; for example, I translate with the temporary join indicated by italics and a vertical bar:

“Our mouth has been opened up toward you, Korinthians, our heart has been made wide; you are not in a narrow space in us, but you have (only) a narrow space in your inner organs (for us)! But (to give us) the (same) wage (back) in exchange, as (my dear) offspring, I say to you—make wide (your hearts) also to us, | make space for us! We treated no one unjustly, we corrupted no one, we (desir)ed to seize much from no one. …”

At the same time, it must be admitted that 6:11-7:4 represents the climax of the composition (defined here as 2:14-7:4), and, if such a dramatic piece of exposition as 6:14-7:1 belongs anywhere in this work, it would be just where it is currently located, in the middle of the climactic appeal. But does it truly belong there? To make a fair determination, let us now consider what Paul, as author, might have intended with this passage, and possible arguments for its inclusion at the point where we have it (between 6:13 and 7:2).

2. Pauline authorship of 6:14-7:1 and its current location

We have already examined some of the apparent “non-Pauline” features of this passage—words, expressions, style and points of emphasis that would seem to be unusual or atypical of Paul. These are significant enough to raise legitimate questions regarding authorship, and cannot simply be brushed aside. However, we have also seen enough genuine Pauline features to establish the possibility that he is ultimately responsible for the passage. A reasonable solution would be that Paul is here making use of traditional Jewish Christian material—in style and tone, if nothing else—adapting a piece homiletic exposition (on Lev 19:19), and applying it to his Corinthian audience. While this seems fair enough, and is more or less the explanation I would adopt, there is at least one serious challenge to Pauline authorship/use that must be addressed. This is the strong idiom of ritual purity in 6:14-7:1, with the corresponding emphasis on the need for believers to separate from non-believers. According to some commentators, this line of thought and mode of expression runs contrary to Paul’s own, based on evidence from his other (undisputed) letters. I addressed this argument in the previous study (see also the separate article on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls), but is worth outlining again here the most relevant passages where Paul draws on the idea of (ritual) purity from the Pentateuch/Torah, and uses it in a similar context of exhorting believers to avoid close association with immorality and/or ‘idolatry’. The passages are:

    • Rom 6:12-13, 19—there is perhaps a faint allusion to the purity of sacrificial offerings (i.e. service at the altar) in the idea of believers presenting themselves before (vb paríst¢mi, lit. “[make] stand alongside”) God (cf. also the quasi-ritual context of the image in 2 Cor 11:2); it is noteworthy that v. 19 contains the same juxtaposition of dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness”) and anomía (“lawlessness”) that we find in 2 Cor 6:14 (see below).
    • 1 Cor 5:6-8—Passover imagery (esp. that of unleavened bread) is applied to believers, exhorting them not to associate with persons engaged in sexual immorality (vv. 1-2, 9-13f); the main difference with 2 Cor 6:14ff is that here it directed specifically against believers engaged in sinful behavior and not non-believers.
    • 1 Cor 6:19—the bodies of believers are identified (symbolically) with the Temple, which had to be kept ceremonially pure (a primary concern of the Torah purity laws); here we find perhaps the closest example of ritual purity meant to symbolize believers separating themselves from the immorality of the surrounding society (vv. 9ff, 13-18).
    • 1 Cor 10:6-13—the application of the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32; note the implicit context of ceremonial purity in 19:10-15) to the very matter addressed in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, namely, believers separating from the idolatrous culture around them (vv. 7-8, 14ff).

The last two examples from 1 Corinthians, in particular, are reasonably close to the basic message of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, and serve to demonstrate, I think, that Paul was capable of addressing believers (and especially the Corinthians) in such a manner. However, if 6:14-7:1 genuinely comes from Paul (even if as an adaptation of traditional material), can any sense be made of its use at the current location in the letter? Why would Paul address his audience this way, at this point?

Much depends on the nature of the problems existing between Paul and at least some in the Corinthian congregations. The extent to which he emphasizes both (a) his role as an apostle, and (b) the sort of relationship the Corinthians ought to have with him, in 2:14-7:4, strongly suggests that there has been a breach in the relationship, to some extent. The wording he uses in the climactic appeal at 7:2 raises the possibility that there had been accusations of wrongdoing and, perhaps, misuse of his apostolic authority. He strings together three verbal phrases, forming a three-fold denial of any such wrongdoing on his part; each beginning with an emphatic oudeís (oudéna), “no one”:

    • oudéna ¢dik¢¡samen, “we treated no one unjustly”
    • oudéna ephtheíramen, “we corrupted no one”
    • oudéna epleonekt¢samen, “we (wish)ed to take more (from) no one” (i.e., acting greedily, etc)

It is possible—and admittedly, it is only a possibility—that the digression in 6:14-7:1 is connected in some way to these ‘charges’. The initial verb used in 7:2 (adikéœ, “act without justice, act/treat unjustly, injure”) is related to the initial noun (adikía, “[being] without justice, injustice”) that establishes the contrast (between believer and non-believer) in 6:14ff. Perhaps the point Paul is making, by utilizing the homiletic of 6:14ff, is: believers are not to be closely joined with non-believers, but should not separate from other believers (unless they behave like non-believers, cf. 1 Cor 5:9ff); how much more, then, should the Corinthians remain closely joined with an apostle and minister like Paul, who has not acted wrongly toward them, but has honestly and faithfully preached the Gospel that led to their experience of new life in Christ. This could also explain Paul’s wording in 7:3: “I do not say (this) toward bringing down judgment (on you)”, i.e. I am not saying you are acting like this (i.e. like unbelievers, 6:14ff), nor that you are making such charges against me (7:2), which would be wrong. If 6:14-7:1 is actually targeting immorality or idolatrous associations among the Corinthians, such as are mentioned in 1 Corinthians, then it would, indeed, seem to be out of place in its current location. But, if the point, by drawing the contrast between believer and non-believer, is meant to enhance and emphasize the unity and bond between believers (and between minister and congregation), then the inclusion of 6:14-7:1 here could perhaps be explained. We will take this up again in the concluding study next week.

3. The context of 1:1-7:16 (as a unified composition)

Even a casual reader will notice that, after the long discussion in 2:14-7:4, the following section (7:5-16) picks up where 2:13 left off. This has led some commentators to posit that two letters have been spliced together: (1) 1:1-2:13 + 7:5-16, and (2) 2:14-7:4. I must say that I find little evidence to support such a theory; in which case, it would be more plausible to view 1:1-7:16 as (part of) a unified composition. However, this does complicate the structure of the letter considerably, since 1:8-2:13 + 7:5-16 appears to serve as the narration (narratio) portion of the letter—i.e. narrating the facts and historical circumstances, etc, related to the matter being discussed. Normally this section precedes the main proposition (propositio), presentation of arguments (probatio), and exhortation (exhortatio); for a clear example of this order, following the tenets of classical rhetoric and epistolary form, see esp. the outline of Galatians. As I noted above, 2:14-7:4 appears to have the character of the main body of the letter—propositio, probatio, exhortatio—but, if 1:1-7:16 is a single composition, then 2:14-7:4 instead functions as a (lengthy) digression in the middle of the narratio. It also would seem to require additional material to make up the body of the letter; such material, of course, would be at hand with chapters 8-9ff of 2 Corinthians as we have it. Thus, it will be useful, at the close of this part of our study, to consider the structure of the entire letter (our current 2 Corinthians), to see how 6:14-7:1 might relate to it.

4. The letter as a whole (including chaps. 8-9 and 10-13)

Upon examining chapters 8-9 and 10-13 we find two very distinct kinds of material: (a) instruction relating to the charitable collection for the Christians of Jerusalem (chaps. 8-9), and (b) a lengthy discussion on Paul’s status as an apostle, similar in some respects to that of 2:14-7:4, only much more pointed and harsher in tone, directed at specific opponents (and similar in style and manner of argument to Galatians). Thus, it is possible to isolate two structural lines, or strands, which make up the letter as we have it:

    1. A practical, and relatively straightforward letter, dealing primarily with the collection for Jerusalem, and
    2. Two lengthy treatments regarding Paul’s role and status as an apostle, and his relationship, as such, to the Corinthian churches

At first glance, these two strands seem to have little to do with each other; in particular, the harsh polemic of chaps. 10-13 appear at odds with the rest of the letter, which is why many scholars (including more traditional-conservative commentators) hold that chaps. 10-13 represent a separate letter from chaps. 1-9. If we were to remove 2:14-7:4 and chs. 10-13, temporarily, from the letter, a rather simple and straightforward outline emerges:

    • Greeting (Epistolary Prescript)—1:1-2
    • Introduction (Exordium)—1:3-11
    • Statement of the reason/purpose for writing (Causa)—1:12-14
    • Narration (Narratio)—1:15-2:13 + 7:5-16
    • Proposition (Propositio) [regarding the Collection]—8:1-7
    • Arguments/Instruction (regarding the Collection)—8:8-9:5
    • Exhortation (Exhortatio) [regarding the Collection]—9:6-15
    • Conclusion / Epistolary Postscript (?) cf. 13:11-14

The core of this letter relates to the Jerusalem Collection (chaps. 8-9). There have been some prior difficulties between Paul and the Corinthians, as he narrates (1:15-2:4); but, as was subsequently reported to him by Titus (7:5-16), to some extent at least, these seem to have been resolved. Now, following the preparatory work by Titus (8:6ff), Paul urges the Corinthians to complete their part in the Collection. How does 2:14-7:4 (much less chaps. 10-13) fit into this outline? As I have previously noted, a good number of commentators believe that 2 Corinthians represents a compilation of different letters from Paul’s Corinthian correspondence. Such theories, while interesting, and not entirely implausible, remain highly speculative, with little hard evidence to support them. Ultimately, though not without difficulties, it is easier to explain 2 Corinthians, as we have it, as a single letter. Assuming this, for the moment, how would 6:14-7:1 relate to the overall structure of this letter? The lengthy excursions regarding Paul’s role as an apostle, which clearly are of prime importance to the letter, at the same time distort the rhetorical picture. Commentators who accept the integrity of the entire letter, outline this complex picture in various ways. Here is a tentative outline on my part:

  • 1:1-2—Greeting (epistolary prescript)
  • 1:3-11—Introduction (exordium)
  • 1:12-14—Reason/purpose for writing (causa)
  • 1:15-7:16—Extended Narration (narratio)
    • 1:15-2:13—Initial narration: On the prior troubles between he and the Corinthians
    • 2:14-7:4—Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians
      • Basic proposition (2:14-17)
      • Issue 1: On Ministers and letters of recommendation (3:1-18)
      • Issue 2: On the honesty/sincerity of true apostles (such as Paul) in the preaching and ministry (4:1-6)
      • Issue 3: On the (physical) suffering of apostles such as Paul for the sake of the Gospel (4:7-5:10)
      • Exhortation/Appeal to the Corinthians, regarding Paul’s role as Apostle (5:11-6:10)
      • Personal (Concluding) Appeal by Paul (6:11-7:4)
    • 7:5-16—Concluding narration: On the expected resolution of troubles between he and the Corinthians
  • 8:1-7—Main Proposition (propositio), regarding the Collection for Jerusalem
  • 8:8-9:15—Arguments (probatio), in support of the Corinthians faithfully completing the Collection
  • 10:1-13:4—Extended Exhortation (exhortatio): Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians
    • Initial Appeal and Statement (10:1-6)
    • Issue 1: The nature of Paul’s (apostolic) authority—theme of boasting introduced (10:7-18)
    • Issue 2: Comparison between Paul and other would-be Apostles who are influencing(?) the Corinthians (11:1-12:13)
    • Issue 3: Paul’s apostolic authority—exercise of discipline (12:14-21)
    • Closing appeal (13:1-4)
  • 13:5-10—Concluding Argument and Appeal (peroratio)
  • 13:11-14—Closing/Benediction (epistolary postscript)

The (possible) relation of 6:14-7:1 to this outline will be considered carefully in next week’s study, which will bring our discussion of this provocative passage to a close. I hope to see you here next Saturday.

Saturday Series: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (part 3)

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, continued

Literary Criticism

This is the third of five planned Saturday Series studies on 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, a passage thought by many commentators to be a (non-Pauline) interpolation. The evidence and arguments for this are significant, and worth pursuing as a way of demonstrating the importance (and value) of a thorough critical treatment of Scripture. The first study introduced the passage and looked at it from the standpoint of textual criticism; the second study examined it in terms of source criticism and form/genre criticism. Today, we will approach the passage through the eyes of literary criticism—that is, examining how it was authored and/or included in the letter of 2 Corinthians as a whole. This approach touches upon the style, circumstances, and purpose of the passage, as a section in the larger literary work. However, because of the serious questions regarding authorship and integrity of the passage—especially the thought that it may be a secondary addition (interpolation)—questions justified, at least in part, by the evidence we have considered so far, it is necessary to focus our study here in two ways. These reflect two other aspects of Biblical criticism:

    • Redaction Criticism—Here we will specifically consider the hypothesis that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation, added to, or included in, the letter by an editor or compiler (i.e. redactor).
    • Composition Criticism—The focus shifts to explanations of the passage as the work of the author (i.e. Paul) of the letter.

Redaction Criticism

As mentioned previously, there are three different theories regarding 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an interpolation (i.e., a passage added secondarily to the letter): (a) Pauline, (b) non-Pauline, and (c) anti-Pauline. I will deal with these in reverse order:

Anti-Pauline theory

Some commentators feel that the unusual vocabulary, style and points of religious/theological emphasis, some of which we have already examined, are not only unusual to Paul, but actually run contrary to his way of thinking as expressed elsewhere in his letters. One prominent scholar who takes this position is Hans Dieter Betz, who discussed the matter in an article (“2 Cor 6:14-7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” Journal of Biblical Literature 92:88-108 [1973]), and again (as an appendix) in his outstanding critical commentary on Galatians (Hermeneia series [Fortress Press: 1979], pp. 329-30). He holds that the emphasis on the Torah, ritual purity, separation (from the ungodly/non-believer) in the passage, along with the strong dualistic manner of expression, better reflects the viewpoint of Paul’s Jewish Christian opponents (in Galatians, etc) than that of Paul himself. This seems rather to overstate the case, and on the whole I do not agree with such analysis; however, there is at least one supposition that needs to be examined seriously: whether the strong emphasis on separation from non-believers, so central to the passage, is foreign to Paul, or is in accord with his thought. In particular, this separationist teaching appears to run contrary to Paul’s specific instruction elsewhere to the Corinthian believers at three points: (1) the statement in 1 Cor 5:10, (2) the teaching regarding mixed marriage (1 Cor 7:12-16), and (3) relating to the issue of eating food that had been offered in a pagan religious setting (1 Cor 8-10, esp. 8:4-10; 10:23-30). It is worth considering each of these briefly.

In 1 Cor 5:1-12, Paul addresses the issue of a believer known to be engaged in improper sexual relations, and stresses that others in the congregation(s) should not associate with those involved in such behavior. The main difference with 2 Cor 6:14ff is that here the injunction to separate from immoral/ungodly people relates to believers, not the non-believer. Indeed, Paul seems to suggest the opposite of 2 Cor 6:14ff when he remarks, regarding this separation, that he is referring

“not (at) all (to) the ‘prostitutes’ [i.e. sexually immoral] of this world, or th(ose) looking to hold more [i.e. the greedy] and (who are) seizing (from others), or (to) the (one)s serving images [i.e. idols], (for) then you ought to go out of the world (completely)” (v. 10)

In other words, Paul is not telling them to separate (physically) from all the non-believers in the society at large, but, rather, to keep their distance from (lit. not to “mix together with”, vb sunanamígnymi) anyone claiming to be a believer (lit. “being named [a] brother”) who behaves in an openly immoral way (v. 11). In my view, the assumption that this instruction contradicts 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, while perhaps understandable, is misplaced. The same can be said of the other two instances mentioned above, even though, in many ways, those passages relate more directly to the teaching in 2 Cor 6:14ff.

In 1 Cor 7:12-16, as a part of wider teaching regarding marriage among believers in chap. 7, Paul specifically advises a man or woman, married to an unbeliever (lit. one “without trust”, ápistos), to remain together and not to separate, in the hopes that the unbelieving spouse might be converted. Following this, in chapters 8-10, Paul gives a most thorough and complex treatment on the question of whether believers should eat food that had been offered beforehand in a pagan religious setting (lit. food [meat] “slaughtered to [an] image”, eidwlóqyton, 8:1). This lengthy, nuanced instruction appears at odds with the stark contrast (and prohibition) given in 2 Cor 6:14ff. Paul, it seems, would permit believers to eat any such food as long as the act (and example) of doing so was not detrimental to others (those ‘weaker’ in faith). These two instances are notable, in relation to 2 Cor 6:14ff, in that they appear to be directly on point in several respects:

    • The same contrast between believer and non-believer (lit one “without trust”, ápistos) is made in both 1 Cor 7:12ff and 2 Cor 6:14ff. If, in the latter, the author (assuming it to be Paul) instructs a believer not to be “joined together” with a non-believer, how can he, in the former instance, tell them to remain ‘joined together’ in the marriage bond? Indeed, the very Scripture (Lev 19:19) upon which the homiletic in 2 Cor 6:14ff is based implies the sexual joining (i.e. breeding) of two different kinds of animals.
    • In 2 Cor 6:16 it is certainly implied that believers (as the “shrine of God”) should have nothing at all to do with the “images” (shorthand for the idolatrous deities) associated with Greco-Roman (polytheistic) religion. How, then, could Paul, if he is the author of the former passage, permit believers, under any circumstances, to eat food that had been offered beforehand to such ‘idols’ (cf. 8:4-10; 10:23-30)?

Does Paul’s teaching in these passages truly run counter to the exhortation in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (and vice versa)? In answer to this question, I would make several points related to each passage:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16—In 1 Cor 7:12-16, Paul is dealing with a very specific situation: instances where one spouse came to faith in Christ while the other did not, or has not yet, remaining a ‘pagan’ non-believer. In other words, the two were already married when the one spouse became a believer. This must have been a relatively common occurrence in the early years when the Gospel took root in a particular region of the Greco-Roman world (i.e., in a city like Corinth). Paul’s hope (and expectation) in his instruction to the believing spouse within a ‘mixed’ marriage clearly is evangelistic—that the non-believing spouse will be converted. This situational advice should not be mistaken for a general teaching regarding marriages between believers and non-believers. If a believer, upon coming to faith, were then to consider marrying a (pagan) non-believer, I am quite certain that Paul’s exhortation (and warning) would be very much akin to that of 2 Cor 6:14: “You must not come to be joined with (one who is) different, (one) without trust!”

1 Corinthians 8-10—The teaching in 1 Cor 8-10, regarding the issue of food (meat) that had been offered to “images”, also deals with a very specific situation, and ought not to be taken as a general principle, as some in Corinth may have done—e.g., if an idol is “not anything (real)” (8:4), then why should we be concerned about food that has been offered to it? I suspect that Paul, if left to his own opinion on the matter, would have been inclined to give a blunt prohibition along the lines of 2 Cor 6:16 (cf. also Acts 15:20, 29, and the context of Rev 2:14, 20). However, he seeks to balance two equally important concerns—(1) the freedom believers have in Christ, and (2) the need to avoid immorality and evil (associated with idolatry), etc. As such, 1 Cor 8-10 is a masterpiece of Christian homiletic, though admittedly different in scope and style from 2 Cor 6:14ff. Ultimately, Paul’s exhortation (10:14-22) comes very close to 2 Cor 6:16ff, though with the caveat of the sort of special instruction in 10:23-30 that is absent from the latter passage. This instruction is important to keep in mind, because it marks the distinction, and particular situation, Paul is addressing. Meat purchased in the marketplace, and thus presented at meals, often would have come from a sacrificial setting, as the byproduct of offerings made to deities. If such an association is clearly evident, then believers ought not to partake of such food (in accordance with 2 Cor 6:16); only when there is no public or known association with pagan religion, are believers free to eat, without worrying about the food’s origins.

1 Corinthians 5:10—The notice in 1 Cor 5:10 should also be viewed in terms of the specific circumstances of Paul’s instruction, and not as a principle to follow on its own. Paul is telling believers not to associate with another believer (or one calling himself/herself such) who is known to be involved in immoral behavior. This involved a real distancing, or separation, since living and meeting in close proximity was a sign of religious identity and (spiritual) union. This does not apply to other non-believers in society at large (“the world”), since there is no such union involved, and physical proximity per se had no intrinsic meaning. As such, there was no need for believers to avoid passing contact with non-believers; indeed, as Paul makes clear, to do so would require that they virtually “go out of the world”. Some might say that this is just the idea suggested by the citation of Isa 52:11 in 2 Cor 6:17—of a strict separation from the world. However, the language in 2 Cor 6:14-16 indicates a close joining rather than casual contact. If a believer were tempted to join together closely or intimately with pagan non-believers, Paul might well use similar language as in 2 Cor 6:14ff.

It is hard to see how the theory that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is anti-Pauline can be maintained. Even more decisive is that it is virtually impossible to explain how such an anti-Pauline fragment was ever included as part of a Pauline letter (on this, see below).

Non-Pauline theory

Even if it is not anti-Pauline, that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 may not have been authored by Paul himself (i.e. non-Pauline) still remains a possibility, given the evidence that we considered in the previous studies. The passage is to be characterized as a Jewish-Christian homiletic treatment of Leviticus 19:19, comprised of a poetic exposition (in Semitic style, parallelistic couplets) with a chain (catena) of Scripture citations. The poetic style, and reliance upon Scriptural passages, may explain the apparent non-Pauline features, at least in part. A fairer judge concerning authorship, I think, would be any unusual or atypical details in the concluding exhortation (7:1). I discuss these in a separate, supplemental note.

If the passage was, indeed, not composed at all by Paul himself, what are its origins and how did it come to be included as part of 2 Corinthians? One critical theory is that it represents early Jewish Christian (homiletic) material that was, presumably, mistakenly identified (by an editor/compiler of the letter) as coming from Paul. There are three notable details or points of emphasis that, in large measure, appear to be foreign to Paul, and, at the same time, may have more in common with other Jewish (and Jewish Christian) writings of the period. I highlight these as:

    1. The emphasis on ritual purity, and, with it, the idea of believers separating from the non-believers.
    2. A strong dualism in thought and expression, as a way of contrasting believer vs. non-believer.
    3. Use of the name Belíal.

In particular, on these three points, many commentators point out the parallels in certain of the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls); I address these in some detail in a supplemental article which you may want to consult as part of this study. I will be discussing these ‘non-Pauline’ features, and whether, or to what extent, they may be compatible with Paul’s actual style, thought, and mode of expression, in the section on “Composition Criticism” (see below).

One problem faced by proponents of the theory that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is a non-Pauline interpolation, is the question of just how it ever came to be included as part of 2 Corinthians. It would seem to require two basic suppositions: (1) it was mistakenly attributed to Paul by an editor or compiler, and (2) 2 Corinthians is a composite work, made up of more than one letter by Paul. On the second point, I mentioned this possibility in a prior study, pointing out the variety of theories advanced by scholars, perhaps the most common being: 2-document (chaps. 1-9 + 10-13), 3 document (chaps. 1-8 + 9 + 10-13); and 5-document (1:1-2:13 + 2:14-6:13, 7:2-16 + chap. 8 + 9 + 10-13). In general, these theories would apply just as well if 6:14-7:1 was authored by Paul, or was itself part of a genuine letter; this will be discussed briefly below. However, both of these suppositions (1 & 2 above) remain highly questionable, and to require both makes the theory, my view, rather implausible.

A Pauline interpolation?

Finally, we must consider the theory that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is Pauline, at least in the sense that it comes from an authentic letter by Paul, perhaps as part of his Corinthian correspondence. From the New Testament evidence itself, we know that Paul wrote at least four letters to Corinth—1 & 2 Corinthians, and the two letters referenced in 1 Cor 5:9 and 2 Cor 2:3-4. Indeed, it is quite natural that Paul would have written to believers there any number of times. Internal considerations regarding shifts of style, tone, and subject matter, have prompted many commentators to consider 2 Corinthians, as we have it, as representing several different letters (or parts of letters) that Paul wrote. In terms of 6:14-7:1 itself, the tone and theme of separation (between believer and non-believer) has led a fair number of scholars to identify it with the letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9, since it seems to relate to the sort of thing Paul is addressing there in 5:1-12 (see above). Indeed, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 appears to have much more in common with the language and subject matter of 1 Corinthians (see esp. 5:6-8; 6:19; and 10:6-13, and my discussion in the supplemental article [on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls]) than anything we find throughout 2 Corinthians.

However, any interpolation theory, based on the idea of 2 Corinthians as a compilation, founders for lack of any explanation as to why 6:14-7:1 was included where it is now, since virtually all commentators agree that 2:14-6:13 + 7:2-4, at the very least, belong to the same letter. It would have made considerably more sense to place the passage (as a fragment from another letter) after 7:4 rather than 6:13, or even at a different location altogether. It would have been an extremely clumsy and/or inattentive editor (or copyist), indeed, who left 6:14-7:1 in its current location. No one has yet provided anything like a satisfactory explanation for the passage being included where it is located today.

If we were to summarize the evidence and analysis provided thus far (and above), I believe it would be fair to make two basic points:

    • There is strong evidence characterizing 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as Jewish Christian homiletic material with features that are, in part at least, unusual or atypical of Paul.
    • At the same time, any theory treating the passage as an interpolation, even one based on a theory of 2 Corinthians as a composite compilation, rests on rather slim and questionable evidence, and is difficult to maintain.

Do you agree with either or both of these conclusions? Why or why not? Think over and examine carefully what I have presented in the studies thus far. How would you explain some of the curious or apparently ‘non-Pauline’ details in the passage, and way it seems to interrupt the flow between 6:13 and 7:2? In the next study, we will turn our attention to the supposition that Paul is the author of 6:14-7:1, in the sense that it is a genuine part of 2 Corinthians (or at least 2:14-7:16) as it has come down to us. This discussion will take place under the heading of Composition Criticism (see above), looking at 6:14-7:1, within the context of the letter as a whole, in terms of Paul’s style, mode of expression, rhetorical thrust, and ultimate purpose. I hope to see you here for this exciting study…next Saturday.

Note on 2 Corinthians 7:1

2 Corinthians 7:1

This note is supplement to the current Saturday Series studies on 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, a passage many commentators consider to be a non-Pauline interpolation. In the prior studies, I presented some of the key evidence of vocabulary, stylistic details, and points of emphasis that appear to be unusual or atypical of Paul in his other (undisputed) letters (see esp. Study 1 and the article on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls). However, in so doing, it also was made clear, I think, that the unusual vocabulary could be at least partly explained by the reliance upon certain Old Testament passages, as well as the poetic format, used in vv. 14-18 (see Study 2). Therefore, it would seem that a fairer judge of authorship would be the concluding exhortation in 7:1, which is more likely to be a direct product of the author’s own thought and manner of expression. I felt it worth devoting a detailed note to the analysis of the words, phrases, and stylistic devices in 7:1, to see whether, or to what extent, they conform to Pauline usage. I will touch upon these in order of occurrence in the verse.

oún échontes (ou@n e&xonte$)… . The exhortation begins, “(So) then, holding these (thing)s…”, followed by a hortatory subjunctive “we should cleanse [katharísœmen] ourselves”, i.e., “let us cleanse ourselves”. This syntax here is homiletical in nature, and accords with the overall character of 6:14-7:1 as a Jewish Christian homily. This particular format is found in Hebrews (4:14; 10:19, cf. also 12:1), a work which reads more like an extended sermon than a standard letter or epistle. It does not occur precisely so elsewhere in the Pauline letters, though Galatians 6:10 is reasonably close:

“(So) then [oún], as we hold [échomen] (the) time [i.e. have opportunity], we should work [i.e. let us work] (for) the good…”

Paul opens similarly with échontes oún in 2 Cor 3:12 (cf. also 4:1), but not followed by a (hortatory) subjunctive.

tás epangelías (ta\$ e)paggeli/a$). The noun epangelía literally means a message about something, or on a certain point, sometimes with the more forceful connotation of a declaration or announcement. The related verb (epangéllœ) always occurs in the middle voice in the New Testament, often with the sense of a message about oneself, i.e. about what a person will do. The noun is frequently used in the New Testament in reference to what God will do, that is, what he has promised to do, and thus is typically translated as “promise”. The word is used, both in the singular and plural (as here), by Paul 19 times in the undisputed letters, almost all in Romans and Galatians (Romans 4:13-14, 16, 20; 9:4, 8-9; Galatians 3:14, 6-18, 21-22, 29; 4:23, 28), in connection with his arguments regarding the Law (Torah) and the covenant promises of God, as applied to believers in Christ. It also occurs 6 times in Ephesians and the Pastorals (1:13; 2:12; 3:6; 6:2; 1 Tim 4:8; 2 Tim 1:1). The only other occurrence in the Corinthian letters is 2 Cor 1:20:

“For as (many) promises [epangelíai] of God as (there are), in him [i.e. in Jesus Christ] (is) the ‘yes’ (to them)…”

This reflects the Pauline teaching that all the promises made by God (in the Law and Prophets) to His people (Israel) have been fulfilled for believers in the person and work of Christ. There is no reason to think that this is not the same meaning in 7:1; however, it is worth noting that the closest parallel to the specific expression “holding [échonta] the promises” is found in Hebrews (7:6; but see also 1 Tim 4:8).

agap¢toí (a)gaphtoi/), “(be)loved (one)s”. This manner of address, to fellow believers as “beloved”, appears to have been common among early Christians. It occurs frequently in Paul’s letters, the closest parallels to the plural form, as it is used here, would be Rom 12:19; 1 Cor 10:4; 15:58; 2 Cor 12:19; Phil 2:12; 4:1. However, it is even more common in the non-Pauline letters of the New Testament (19 times in Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude).

katharísœmen heautoús (kaqari/swmen e(autou\$), “we should cleanse ourselves”, “let us cleanse ourselves”. The verb katharízœ (“make clean, cleanse”) occurs 31 times in the New Testament, but would appear to be extremely rare for Paul, occurring nowhere else in the undisputed letters, and only twice at all in the corpus (Eph 5:26; Titus 2:14). As many commentators have noted, the idea of believers cleansing themselves seems foreign, not only to Paul’s thought, but to the thought-world of the New Testament as a whole. We need only point to Eph 5:26 and Tit 2:14, the only other Pauline occurrences of the verb—in these passages it is Christ who cleanses believers, through his sacrificial and redeeming work. Even in the context of the baptism ritual, it is still God and Christ (and the Spirit) that does the cleansing, not believers themselves. In many ways the idea of believers making themselves clean, through obedience to God, etc, is closer to the manner of thinking of the Qumran Community (see, for example, 1QS 3:8-9), than that of the New Testament.

apo pantós molysmoú (a)po\ panto\$ molusmou=), “from all stain”. The noun molysmós, “stain, soil(ing)”, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is extremely rare in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as well (Jer 23:15; also 1 Esdras 8:80; 2 Macc 5:27). The related verb molýnœ, is more frequent, though still rare in the New Testament (3 times), but is used by Paul in 1 Cor 8:7, in a context (the eating of food previous offered to ‘idols’) not too dissimilar from that of 2 Cor 6:14ff. His argument is that if believers are seen eating food (i.e. meat) that is known (or thought) to have been slaughtered in a pagan religious setting it could harm a fellow believer who is ‘weaker’ in understanding; if this ‘weaker’ believer, influenced the example of the ‘stronger’, is encouraged to eat such food, against his/her own conscience, he/she is then “stained” (molýnetai) by it. In Rev 3:4, the verb generally refers to immorality and/or improper religious behavior, but may relate to the same context of eating food offered to ‘idols’ (cf. 2:14, 20); in Rev 14:4, it refers to sexual intercourse, and marriage/relations between believer and (pagan) non-believer may also be in view in 2 Cor 6:14ff.

It should be noted that a much more common word for Paul to express the idea of impurity is akatharsía, “uncleanness” (2 Cor 12:21; Rom 1:24; 6:19; Gal 5:19; 1 Thess 2:3; 4:7). Conceivably, a different word (molysmós) was chosen here, for variety, since the cognate verb katharízœ was already used in the verse.

sarkós kai pneúmatos (sarko\$ kai\ pneu/mato$), “of flesh and spirit”. Paul frequently uses both words sárx (“flesh”) and pneúma (“spirit”), but the latter almost always refers to the Holy Spirit (or Spirit of God/Christ), and rarely in the general sense of the human “spirit” or “soul”. When he does use pneúma this way, i.e. in the anthropological sense, it is combined with the word sœ¡ma (“body”), not sárx (1 Cor 7:34; 1 Thess 5:23). Normally Paul juxtaposes sárx and pneúma quite differently, as a dualistic contrast between human beings (“flesh”) governed/driven by sin and the “Spirit” of God and Christ (Gal 5:16ff et al). The idea of the human “spirit” being defiled is unusual, but perhaps something along the lines of what Paul expresses in 1 Cor 6:15-20 is intended. Certainly the emphasis here is on the entire person becoming stained by impurity.

epiteloúntes hagiœsýn¢ (e)pitelou=nte$ a(giwsu/nh), “making holiness complete”. The verb epiteléœ, an (intensive) compound form of teléœ (“[make] complete”), is used by Paul 6 other times in his letters, including three times more in 2 Corinthians (8:6, 11 [twice]). Generally the emphasis is on completing something which has already begun, though without necessarily any special theological significance (Rom 15:28). In Phil 1:6, the context is eschatological, expressing confidence that God will complete His good work (that He is currently doing) in and among believers, when Christ appears again on earth. In Galatians 3:3, the focus is rather different—believers are completing things themselves (middle voice of the verb), and in the wrong direction, moving from the Gospel of trust in Christ to a view of Christianity that would include (and/or require) observance of the Torah regulations (such as circumcision). Here, too, in 2 Cor 7:1, it is believers who are to do the completing, but in the positive direction, by avoiding the impurity that comes from involvement with the surrounding (pagan) religious-cultural environment.

The noun hagiœsýn¢ (“holiness”) is actually quite rare in the Pauline letters; indeed, it occurs only two other times in the New Testament, but these are both in Paul’s letters. Romans 1:4 is generally thought to represent part of a credal formula or (Christological) hymn which Paul is adapting. The use in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 is closer in tone and meaning to 2 Cor 7:1, part of a prayer-wish for the Lord Jesus

“to make your hearts firm, without blame [ámemptos], in holiness [en hagiœsýn¢], in front of our God and Father…”

The eschatological setting of this statement is close to that of Phil 1:6 (see above).

en phóbœ theoú (e)n fo/bw| qeou=), “in (the) fear of God”. The expression “fear of God” is traditional, referring to the proper reverence (i.e. fear/awe) due to God, with strong roots in the Old Testament. It would have been relatively common among Jews and Christians of the period, even though the specific expression “(the) fear of God” ([ho] phóbos [tou] theoú) itself is rare in the New Testament. Paul uses the word phóbos (“fear”) at least a dozen times, but “fear of God” only occurs in Rom 3:18 (citing Psalm 36:1), while the synonymous “fear of the Lord” is used in 2 Cor 5:11 (see also Col 3:22). In Eph 5:21, we also have “fear of Christ”, which some MSS read as (or correct to) “fear of God”; in its variant form, the expression is exactly that of 2 Cor 7:1—”in the fear of God” (en phóbœ qeoú).

The title “(one) fearing God” ([ho] phoboúmenos ton theón) was specifically used of Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel, or who otherwise lived upright lives, were devout, and/or sympathetic to Israelite religion. There are several important occurrences in the book of Acts, especially regarding Cornelius (10:2, cf. also 10:35), and in Paul’s speech at Antioch (13:16, 26).

Conclusion

The evidence for 2 Cor 7:1, like that of 6:14-7:1 as a whole, is mixed. There are peculiar features, but also others well in accord with Paul’s style and manner of expression. The unusual or atypical details permit genuine questions regarding Pauline authorship of the passage, and yet can by no means exclude it as the work of Paul. The central clause of the exhortation (“let us cleanse ourselves of all stain of flesh and spirit”) remains problematic, for two reasons: (1) the strong idiom of ritual purity, with the idea of believers cleansing themselves, and (2) the atypical joining of “flesh” and “spirit”.

Even so, strong arguments can be made for Pauline authorship, or, at least, that he himself made use of traditional material in authoring his letter (specifically 2:14-7:16). This will be discussed, in some detail, in next week’s Saturday Series study.

Saturday Series: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (part 2)

This study continues our discussion last week on 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, a passage that is often regarded as an interpolation, due to: (a) the way that it apparently disrupts the flow of the letter between 6:13 and 7:2, and (b) the significant number of unusual words, expressions and concepts present in the section, many of which are rare or not otherwise found in Paul’s letters. I outlined five approaches or theories regarding the passage:

    • It is Pauline (i.e. authored by Paul) and in its proper place as part of single unified letter—whether defined as 2:14-7:4, all of 2 Corinthians, or something in between  [View #1]
    • It is non-Pauline, but used by Paul and in its proper location [View #2]
    • It is Pauline, but from a separate letter or writing, and has been inserted into its current location secondarily (i.e. an interpolation) [View #3]
    • It is non-Pauline, and an interpolation [View #4]
    • It is anti-Pauline (i.e. contrary to Paul’s own thought, in certain respects) and an interpolation [View #5]

The previous study examined 6:14-7:1 from the standpoint of textual criticism, especially noting 11 rare or unusual words which, taken together, make a serious argument against Pauline authorship. However, before this can be evaluated entirely, we must look at the passage from the standpoint of source criticism and form (or genre) criticism.

Source Criticism & Form/Genre Criticism

Source criticism primarily examines a passage in terms of whether it may be derived from a separate source (document) to be included within the larger literary work, and what the nature and characteristics of such a source might be. The high incidence of rare/unusual vocabulary increases the likelihood that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is, in some manner, derived from a separate source. This does not necessarily preclude Pauline authorship, since many commentators believe that Paul may have adapted previously existing material, using it for his own purposes—a possibility that will be discussed in due course.

The source-critical question is especially complicated, in the case of 2 Corinthians, since a good number of commentators hold that the letter itself, as we have it, is composite—a compilation of more than one letter, i.e. genuine letters (or parts of letters) written by Paul. These theories will not be discussed here (consult any reputable critical commentary for a survey), except to mention several representative views, which would divide the letter as follows:

    • 2-document—(1) chapters 1-9, and (2) chapters 10-13; this is the simplest such theory, and is held even by a number of more traditional-conservative commentators.
    • 3-document—(1) chapters 1-8; (2) chap. 9, a letter regarding the financial collection for Jerusalem; and (3) chaps. 10-13.
    • 5-document—(1) 1:1-2:13; (2) 2:14-6:13 + 7:2-16 (some would join 7:4-16 with 1:1-2:13); (3) chap. 8 and (4) chap. 9 as separate letters (perhaps sent at the same time) regarding the collection; and (5) chaps. 10-13.

Most commentators who hold the above theories (or a variation of them) regard 6:14-7:1 as a (non-Pauline) interpolation. However, before proceeding to an examination of source-critical theories, it is necessary to consider just what kind of material we are dealing with.

Form (Genre) Criticism

Form criticism analyses the shape and structure of a passage independently, as a unit, especially in terms of the common techniques, literary devices and approaches, style of writing, etc, used by authors of the time. This relates to what is called Genre criticism, analysis of the type or kind (genre) of writing represented by a particular section or passage, often expressed according to a set of standard categories. For example, a personal letter is itself a literary genre (and form), for which there have been identified a number of sub-genres. A sermon is another kind of genre, as is poetry, etc. Quite often a literary work, including letters/epistles—especially lengthier, complex letters such as Romans and 1-2 Corinthians—contain a variety of forms and genres utilized by the author.

Let us consider specifically the form of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; last week I provided an outline of the structure of this section:

    • Initial statement (injunction)—V. 14a
    • Poetic exposition, concluding in a Scripture citation—Vv. 14b-16
    • Catena (chain) of Scripture citations—Vv. 17-18
    • Concluding exhortation—Ch. 7:1

I noted how this gives it the character of a mini-sermon or homily. Specifically, it appears to be a homiletic treatment of a particular injunction from the Torah—the prohibition(s) against the joining together of different kinds of animals (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:10). Though neither Scripture is cited explicitly, the injunction in v. 14a clearly implies the former, applying it to the life situation of believers:

You must not come to be yoked with (those who are) different, (to one)s without trust!
M¢ gínesthe heterozygoúntes apístois

The key word is the verb heterozygéœ (“join together with [something/someone] different”), one of the 11 rare/unusual words in the passage I noted last week. Almost certainly, it is drawn from the related adjective heterózygos in the Greek version (LXX) of Lev 19:19, and thus suggests that marriage and sexual intercourse (i.e. breeding of animals) is the principal association used in the application, rather than simply being under the same “yoke” (Deut 22:10). Clearly, however, the rare word heterozygéœ is fundamentally derived here from the (Greek) Old Testament. Similarly, three other rare/unusual words (all compound nouns) appear to have been introduced to express the same basic idea: (1) metoch¢¡ (“holding [something together] with [another]”), (2) sumfœ¡n¢sis (“giving voice together [i.e. agreement] with [another]”), and (3) sungkatáthesis (“setting down together with [another, i.e. in agreement]”). All three nouns essentially serve to expound/explain the idea contained in the verb heterozyg霗of being “joined together with (someone) different”.

Returning to the structure of the section, the exposition in vv. 14b-16 is unquestionably poetic, and really ought to be presented as such when the text is quoted or translated. It follows ancient and traditional conventions for Semitic (i.e. Hebrew and Aramaic) poetry, which utilizes a bicolon (couplet, 2-line) format, with consistent parallelism (i.e. the second line restates and reinforces the first). This poetic exposition in vv. 14b-16, though given in Greek (translation?), reflects this same basic pattern. There are three couplets (6 lines), concluding with a Scripture citation; to illustrate this, I give the first line of each couplet in bold:

“For what holding (is there) with [i.e. between] justice and lawlessness,
or what common (bond is there) with [i.e. between] light and darkness?
15And what voice (sounding) together (is there) of (the) Anointed (One) toward Belîal,
or what portion for (the one) trusting with (the one) without trust?
16And what setting down together (is there) for the shrine of God with images?
for you are the shrine of (the) living God, even as God said that
‘I will make (my) house among them and will walk about among (them),
and I will be their God and they will be my people.'”

As is readily apparent, the parallelism runs through all three couplets; but in the first two couplets the parallelism is specifically synonymous (i.e. second line restates the first), while in the third couplet it is synthetic (i.e. second line builds upon the first).

The Scripture citation in verse 16 leads into a chain (catena) of citations, such as we find frequently in Jewish (and Christian) writings of the period. It was a common technique, used in both preaching and teaching (and as a memory device), bringing together various Scripture passages seen as related to the subject at hand. Paul himself used this catena technique a number of times in the undisputed letters, especially in Romans (3:10-18; 9:25-29; 10:15-21; 11:8-10, 26, 34-35; 15:9-12). However, some would claim that the citation style here is foreign to Paul. The specific Scriptures cited appear to be:

Finally, we have the concluding exhortation in 7:1—a message by the preacher applying the exposition more directly to the life situation of believers. How does the form and genre of the section—a homiletic exposition using poetry and a Scripture chain (catena) device—relate to the question of source/authorship? I would make the following points:

    • The structure of the section fits that of a self-contained mini-sermon or homily, which does not obviously relate, either in language or theme, to the surrounding context. However, Paul was certainly capable of, and adept at, applying passages from the Pentateuch/Torah, in a homiletic (midrashic) fashion, to fit the circumstances of believers in Christ—see esp. the notable examples in 1 Cor 10:1-13 and Galatians 3:6-18; 4:21-31. These examples are more extensive (and obviously Pauline) than that of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1.
    • Much of the rare/unusual vocabulary is tied to author’s citations and allusions to the Old Testament Scriptures (Greek LXX), especially the verb heterozygéœ in the opening injunction (drawn from Lev 19:19), and the divine title Pantokrátœr in the citation of v. 16 (from 2 Sam 7:8ff). As noted above, three other rare compound nouns appear to have been introduced specifically to expound the verb heterozygéœ in the poetic section of vv. 14b-16. As a point of information, it may be noted that Paul does not make use of any of these particular Scriptures elsewhere in his letters.
    • The unusual vocabulary and manner of expression is also due to the poetic character of the exposition in vv. 14b-16, which continues, in part, into the Scripture chain of vv. 17-18. Paul typically does not write in poetry, and, where it does occur in his letters, it would seem to be largely due to: (1) quotation and allusion to Scriptural poetry, or (2) inclusion of pre-existing (early Christian) hymn or creedal forms. The last point may be debated, but it is the view of many commentators regarding, for example, the Christological statements in Romans 1:3-4 and Philippians 2:6-11 (see also Col 2:15-20; 1 Tim 3:16).
    • Moreover, the style of poetic, comparative expression in vv. 14b-16 is traditional, examples of which can be seen in a number of Jewish writings of the period. An interesting parallel may be seen in the deutero-canonical book of Sirach 13:2, 17ff:
      “What common (bond) does an earthen (pot) share toward a (metal) basin?” (v. 2, cp. 2 Cor 6:14c)
      “What common (bond) does a wolf share with a lamb?…” (v. 17)
      “What peace (is there for) a hyena toward a dog?…” (v. 18)
      On parallels in the Qumran texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see below.

With this in mind, let us turn again to the question of 6:14-7:1 as deriving from a separate (non-Pauline) source.

Source Criticism

Considered on its own merits, what we can say about 6:14-7:1 is that it represents an early Jewish-Christian homiletic exposition of a command from the Torah. It was written/composed by someone familiar with Jewish preaching/teaching techniques and devices, and the conventions of Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) poetry. It is not entirely certain whether it was originally composed in Hebrew/Aramaic (and subsequently translated), or in Greek, the latter being more likely. Even for a native Greek speaker, the conventions of Semitic poetry could be learned through familiarity with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Old Testament. When we come to examine the literary style and content of the section more closely, it will become even more clear that the orientation of 6:14-7:1 is fundamentally Jewish—i.e. Jewish Christian. The theme of ritual purity in the section confirms this, and is one of the aspects that makes commentators question authorship by Paul. However, in most respects, Paul, as author/composer of the section, would fit the criteria indicated above. Thus, we can consider the following source-critical theories:

    1. 6:14-7:1 represents traditional Jewish (Jewish Christian) homiletical material adapted and included by Paul in his letter (either 2 Corinthians itself or a separate letter of which it is comprised).
    2. It is from an entirely separate (Jewish Christian) document, or literary work, which has been included as part of 2 Corinthians, presumably under the (mistaken) belief that it was part of his Corinthian correspondence.
    3. It is purely Paul’s own (inspired) composition and reflects no separate ‘source’ at all.

The last theory would be the standard traditional-conservative view, one held by very few critical commentators. Given the unusual vocabulary of the passage, its self-contained poetic-homiletic character, and other Jewish-Christian points of emphasis (to be examined in the next study [cf. below]) which seem at odds, to some extent, with Paul’s thought and manner of expression in his other letters, the existence of a distinct source seems more likely. For many scholars, there are extensive parallels to be found in other Jewish writings of the period—especially certain of the Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) texts, and a collection of writings known as the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”—and that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 evinces at least as close an affinity to these as it does to the letters of Paul. This evidence will be examined in the next study, as well as in a supplemental article. In preparation, I would ask you to consider carefully the following points (and questions):

    • The motif of ritual purity that runs through the section, and which is applied to the separation of believers from non-believers. It is expressed most directly in the closing exhortation of 7:1. Does this agree with what Paul teaches, and how he communicates it, in his other letters? Why or why not?
    • This separation/purity theme is part of a strongly dualistic (Christian) worldview. To what extent does this fit Paul’s own view and manner of expression? In particular, does the use of the contrasting nouns dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness, justice”) and anomía (“lawlessness”) here accord with Paul’s thought and theology?
    • The name Belíal (here in the variant spelling Belíar) is not used anywhere else by Paul in his letters (nor anywhere in the New Testament at all), even in similar contexts where he might have had occasion to use it; but it does occur frequently in Jewish writings of the period, such as the Qumran texts and the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (for more on this, read my supplemental article). If 6:14-7:1 comes from Paul, how is this to be explained?

2 Cor 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls

This article is meant to supplement the discussion on 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 in the current Saturday Series studies, especially with regard to the source-critical question—whether, or in what manner, the passage may derive from a separate early Jewish-Christian source. The most recent study addresses the evidence regarding the Jewish-Christian character of the passage. In some ways, this must be considered separately from the question of Pauline authorship, since Paul himself certainly could have made use of pre-existing material in his letter. However, many commentators consider 6:14-7:1 to have more affinity with other Jewish writings of the period than to the other (undisputed) Pauline letters. In particular, parallels have been pointed out with the Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) texts. This article will briefly examine this in relation to three specific areas:

    1. The thematic/conceptual framework of ritual purity, and its importance for religious identity in terms of separation from non-believers
    2. The strong dualism of the passage, especially as applied to the contrast between dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness, justice”) and anomía (“lawlessness”)
    3. Use of the name Belíal

As the last of these is simplest to address, I will discuss it first.

The name Belíal

The word Belíal (Beli/al), here in the variant spelling Belíar (Beli/ar), is never used by Paul elsewhere in his letters, even in situations where he may have had occasion to; in fact, it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament at all. It is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew lu^Y^l!B= (b®liyya±al), a (proper) noun occurring 27 times in the Old Testament. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version, it is always translated, rather than transliterated, except in the A-text of Judges 20:13. Unfortunately the exact meaning and derivation of the word remains uncertain; two theories have been the most popular:

    • As a compound of: (1) the verbal form b®lî (yl!B=), “be(com)ing old, worn”, used as an adverb/particle of negation (i.e., “not, without”), together with (2) a (verbal) form of the root y±l (lu^y`), “(be of) benefit”. Thus the word would mean something like “(of) no benefit, worthless(ness)”.
    • A noun from the root b¹la± (ul^B*), with the fundamental meaning “swallow”, presumably relating to the ancient image of Death/Sheol as a devouring power with a ravenous appetite (and wide gulping mouth), or to the consumption/decay associated with death and grave generally.

Neither explanation is especially convincing, though it would seem that b®liyya±al is a compound noun/name, akin to ±¦z¹°z¢l (Lev 16:8ff), and perhaps formed according to a similar pattern. Ultimately, the meaning has to be determined by the context of its use in the Old Testament. The oldest usage would seem to be preserved in several examples of early poetry, especially in Psalm 18:5[4] (= 2 Sam 22:5), where it is synonymous with “Death” (m¹we¾) and “Sheol” (š®°ôl, see my recent article for more on this term). The expression “deadly (poison) of Beliyya’al” (d®»ar b®liyya±al) in Psalm 41:9[8] (also 101:3) likely stems from the same use of b®liyya±al as a name for Death.

Much more frequent is the expression “son/s of Beliyya’al”, ben / b®nê b®liyya±al (Deut 13:14; Judg 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 1 Kings 21:10, 13; 2 Chron 13:7), along with the parallel (and more or less equivalent) expression “man/men of Beliyya’al”, °îš / °anšê b®liyya±al (1 Sam 25:25; 30:22; 2 Sam 16:7; 20:1; 1 Kings 21:13; Prov 16:27), °¹¼¹m b®liyya±al (Prov 6:12); also “daughter [ba¾] of Beliyya’al” in 1 Sam 1:16. In Hebrew, the word ben (“son”) is often used in the sense of a person belonging to a particular group or category, i.e. possessing a set of certain characteristics in common, and so it must be understood in these instances. It refers to a Beliyya’al-like person, someone who “belongs” to Beliyya’al, with evidence (by his/her attitudes and behavior) of similar characteristics. The context of the passages cited above makes clear that a “son/man of Beliyya’al” essentially refers to a person who violates and disrupts the order of things—either in a specific social (or religious) setting, or within society at large. This relates more to the idea of hostility, chaos, and confusion (i.e. disorder), rather than the more direct association with Death in the (older?) poetic references mentioned above.

It is hard to say whether, in the expression “son/man of Beliyya’al”, the word b®liyya±al is used in an abstract sense, or as a proper noun (i.e. personal name). Both are possible, though the parallel with Death/Sheol in Psalm 18:5, etc, suggests that an ancient (mythological) personification of death (and the grave) informs the usage. This figurative association would naturally extend to encompass the idea of chaos, confusion, and destruction—all related to the realm of death and “non-existence”, i.e. the primal condition of the universe (as a dark, formless mass [see Gen 1:2 etc]) prior to the establishment of the created order by God. At the same time, b®liyya±al is clearly synonymous with the more abstract concepts of “evil” (r¹±), “wickedness” (reša±) and “trouble” (°¹wen), especially in the Wisdom writings (Prov 6:12; 16:27; 19:28; Job 34:18). Most likely, this is a secondary development, from the expression “son/man of Beliyya’al”, and the characteristic of a such a person as a wicked trouble-maker (see the generalized usage, where the expression is implied, in 2 Sam 23:6; Nahum 1:11; 2:1 [1:15]). A wicked/evil thought, expressed by d¹»¹r b®liyya±al (Deut 15:9; Psalm 101:3 [?]), may involve wordplay with an older poetic expression “deadly (poison) [dbr] of Beliyya’al” (Ps 41:9, cf. above).

We do not encounter the word/name Beliyya’al again until the first centuries B.C., when it appears in a number of surviving Jewish texts of the period. (e.g., Jubilees 1:20). Already in Greek texts (and translations) of the time, the variant spelling Belíar (instead of Belíal) is attested as a transliteration of the Hebrew word. Most notably, b®liyya±al occurs frequently in the Qumran texts, where it is used to refer to an evil figure opposed to God, personifying (and governing) the darkness and wickedness of the current (evil) Age. As such, the name is more or less synonymous (though not necessarily equivalent) with “(the) Sa‰an” or “Devil” (diabólos in Greek). This is a significant development from the earlier Hebrew expression “son(s) of Beliyya’al”. Now, those who ‘belong’ to Beliyya’al are defined in a most pronounced dualistic sense as the “sons of darkness”, opposed to God and the “sons of light” (i.e. the Qumran Community); and the wicked “sons of darkness” will be destroyed (along with Beliyya’al) by God’s end-time Judgment that is about to be ushered in. Not surprisingly, Beliyya’al features prominently in the War Scroll (1QM 1:1, 5, 13; 13:2, 4-5, 11); for other passages, I would note: the Community Rule [1QS] 1:18; 2:4-5, 19; the Damascus Document [CD/QD] 4:13ff; 5:18-19; 12:2; the Florilegium [4Q174] col. i. 8f and Testimonia [4Q175] 23.

There is even a closer parallel with 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 to be found in the so-called Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a collection of Jewish pseudepigraphic writings, inspired by Genesis 49. The underlying material and tradition is Jewish, but there are signs of subsequent Christian editing and adaptation as well. The name Beliyya’al occurs frequently in the Testaments—Greek form regularly Belíar, as in 2 Cor 6:15—nearly 30 times: Asher 1:8; 3:2; Benjamin 3:3, 5, 8; 6:1, 7; 7:1-2; Dan 1:7; 4:7; 5:1, 10-11; Issachar 6:1; 7:7; Joseph 7:4; 20:2; Judah 25:3; Levi 3:3; 18:12; 19:2; Naphtali 2:6; 3:2; Reuben 4:8, 11; 6:4; Simeon 5:3; Zebulun 9:8. There is also here a dualistic contrast between the Law of God and the “works of Beliar”, with an exhortation throughout for people to shun and flee (i.e. separate from) this wickedness of Beliar, especially in light of the Judgment about to come upon the world. The exhortation in Test. Levi 19:1-2 is perhaps the closest in form and substance to 2 Cor 6:14ff:

“…choose for yourselves light or darkness, the Law of the Lord or the works of Belial!”

As noted above, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word b®liyya±al is always translated, rather than transliterated, using a number of different Greek words, such as: loimós (“pest[ilence]”), paránomos (one who “[step]s alongside [i.e. violates] the law”), aseb¢¡s (“without [proper] reverence”), anomía (“without law, lawless[ness]”), hamartœlós (“erring, sinful”), and áphrœn (“without [good] sense”). Especially in the expression “son/man of Beliyya’al”, the word b®liyya±al indicates a violation or disruption of order in society, and thus suggests a semantic range reasonably close to anomía (“without law, lawlessness”) in Greek. As such, Belíal (or Belíar) is a fitting parallel to anomía in 2 Cor 6:14-15. It is possible that Paul has the Hebrew idiom in mind in 2 Thessalonians 2 (vv. 3, 8), when he uses the expressions “the lawless (one)” (ho ánomos), “the man of lawlessness” (ho ánthrœpos t¢s anomías), and “the son of ruin/destruction” (ho huiós t¢s apœleías); if so, he translates b®liyya±al for his Greek audience rather than using a transliterated form.

The Idea of Ritual Purity

In my view, the question of Pauline authorship of 6:14-7:1 ultimately hinges on the motif of ritual purity in the section, how it applied to believers, and whether (or not) this accords with Paul’s thought as expressed elsewhere in his letters. As it happens, 1 and 2 Corinthians are the most relevant writings, since they are by far the longest and most extensive letters written by Paul, to congregations with whom he was intimately familiar, and which address many practical ethical issues facing believers as they conduct their lives (and govern their congregations) within the wider Greco-Roman society. I will be discussing this aspect of 6:14-7:1 in considerable detail in the next Saturday Series study on the passage; here I will only summarize the evidence briefly, before turning to the Qumran texts.

As far as the regulations in the Torah relating to ritual purity, Paul’s view on the matter seems quite clear (for detailed studies on this, cf. my series “Paul’s View of the Law”). Believers are free from the Law, and the Torah regulations are no longer binding; this is as true of the various purity laws not mentioned by Paul as it is of circumcision and dietary laws (which he does discuss). His relationship with the apostolic “decree” from the Jerusalem Council is uncertain at best, since he never once refers to it in his letters, and may have been unaware of it at the time(s) of writing (despite the notice in Acts 16:4 [compare 21:25]). More important would be examples in his letters where Paul uses ideas or language related to ritual purity, applying it (figuratively) to believers. I would note the following:

    • Rom 6:12-13, 19—there is perhaps a faint allusion to the purity of sacrificial offerings (i.e. service at the altar) in the idea of believers presenting themselves before (vb paríst¢mi, lit. “[make] stand alongside”) God (cf. also the quasi-ritual context of the image in 2 Cor 11:2); it is noteworthy that v. 19 contains the same juxtaposition of dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness”) and anomía (“lawlessness”) that we find in 2 Cor 6:14 (see below).
    • 1 Cor 5:6-8—Passover imagery (esp. that of unleavened bread) is applied to believers, exhorting them not to associate with persons engaged in sexual immorality (vv. 1-2, 9-13f); the main difference with 2 Cor 6:14ff is that here it directed specifically against believers engaged in sinful behavior and not non-believers.
    • 1 Cor 6:19—the bodies of believers are identified (symbolically) with the Temple, which had to be kept ceremonially pure (a primary concern of the Torah purity laws); here we find perhaps the closest example of ritual purity meant to symbolize believers separating themselves from the immorality of the surrounding society (vv. 9ff, 13-18).
    • 1 Cor 10:6-13—the application of the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32; note the implicit context of ceremonial purity in 19:10-15) to the very matter addressed in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, namely, believers separating from the idolatrous culture around them (vv. 7-8, 14ff).

When we consider the situation in the Qumran texts, there is naturally a much greater emphasis on holiness in terms of ritual purity, since (a) the Community’s religious identity was based on strict observance of the Torah (including the purity regulations), and (b) it also identified itself with the Priestly line (“sons of Zadok”), including many priests who has separated from the ruling priesthood and Temple establishment, which itself was viewed as impure and corrupt. The very idea of the Community involved separation from the surrounding society—both the Greco-Roman world and other Israelites (“sons of darkness”, dominated by Belial [see above])—to join with the “sons of light”. This was a real separation, into a communalistic, sectarian organization, much moreso than was the case with early Christian congregations (though the initial Jerusalem community was perhaps closer to this model). The so-called “Community Rule” document (1QS) is perhaps the best source for the religious self-identity of the Qumran Community—e.g., 5:1f, 6, 13-20; 8:5ff; 9:5f, 8-9. Cf. also the Damascus Document [CD] 6:14-18; 12:19-20, and many other passages.

Dualism

For a definition and explanation of the term “dualism”, see my recent article on the subject. There is an especially strong dualistic outlook in 6:14-7:1, which, indeed, is central to the idea of separation within the religious-thematic framework of ritual purity (see the discussion above). This dualistic “separation” is expressed several ways, corresponding to the (poetic) parallelism of the passage:

    • Believer vs. Non-believer—pístos  vs. ápistos (lit. “trusting” and “without trust”) [v. 14a, 15b]
    • Dikaiosýn¢ vs. Anomía (“righteousness/justice” vs. “lawlessness”) [v. 14b]
    • Light (fœ¡s) vs. Darkness (skótos) [v. 14c]
    • Christ vs. Belial [v. 15a]
    • Shrine of God vs. (Pagan) Images [v. 16a]
    • Clean [implied] vs. Unclean (akáthartos) [v. 17a]
    • Stain/soiling (moslysmós) vs. Purity, i.e. holiness (hagiosýn¢) [7:1]

To be sure, Paul himself frequently makes use of a dualistic mode of expression in his letters; indeed certain of these contrasts (e.g. light/darkness) are practically universal in religious/ethical teaching (cf. 1 Thess 5:5; Rom 13:12, etc). However, it is the especially strong dualistic imagery here, informed by the idea of (ritual) purity, and aimed at religious-cultural separation, that many commentators feel is foreign to Paul’s thought in his letters.

In particular, the noun dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness, justice”), used frequently by Paul in the specific theological sense (and context) of human beings being justified (lit. “made right”) before God through the work of Jesus, here seems to have a rather different emphasis. In 6:14 it is used in the more conventional religious sense, so it would seem, of right behavior, i.e. in contrast with “lawlessness” (anomía, lit. being “without law”). While this latter word could refer specifically to the Torah, it often denoted generally the violation of social and religious standards, i.e. “sin, iniquity, immorality”, but could also connote flagrant opposition to religion and God himself. The noun occurs 6 other times in the Pauline letters (Rom 4:7 [citation]; 6:19 [twice]; 2 Thess 2:3, 7; also Tit 2:14), with the related adjective ánomos 6 times (1 Cor 9:21 [4 times]; 2 Thess 2:8; also 1 Tim 1:9), and the adverb anómœs twice (in Rom 2:12). Paul alternates between using these words in the literal sense of “without (the) Law [i.e. Gentiles without the Torah]”, and the general sense of “wickedness, etc”. The only other instance where Paul directly contrasts anomía (“lawlessness”) with dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness”) is Romans 6:19, an exhortation (for believers) that is reasonably close to the line of thought in 2 Cor 6:14ff (see above).

Some commentators, however, would find even closer parallels in the Qumran texts, especially the key sectarian writings that establish most clearly the Community’s religious identity. This was touched on above, in the section on ritual purity; however, it is worth noting the pervasive dualism with which this was expressed. While light vs. darkness is a common religious motif, for the Qumran Community it was absolutely a way of defining themselves—as “sons of light” vs. “sons of darkness”. All the other nations, as well as the wicked/unfaithful in Israel, belonged to the darkness (and under the domain of Belial, see above), while only the Community, the faithful ones, belonged to the light. Evidence of their belonging to the light was their strict adherence to the Torah, and to the inspired teaching/guidance of the Community. Of many passages, cf. 1QS [Community Rule] 1:9-11; 2:16-17; 3:3, 13, 19-20ff; 1QM [War Scroll] 1:1, 3, 9ff; 13:5-6, 9; 4QFlor [4Q174] col. i. 9.

This same dualism was expressed, naturally enough, by a contrast between “righteousness” (ƒ®d¹qâ  hdqx) and “iniquity” (±¹wel  lwu = “lawlessness”), as Paul does in Rom 6:19 etc; however, for the Qumran Community (and contrary to Paul), this was defined more precisely along the lines of (ritual) purity employed in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (cf. above). Again, many passages could be cited, among which I would note: 1QS 1:4-5; 5:1-4; 1QH [Hymns] VI [XIV]. 15-16; IX [I]. 26-27. It was adherence to the Law (Torah) and the Community’s teaching, etc, that constituted “righteousness”, demonstrating that a person was, indeed, “righteous”. And central to much of the Torah, and the Community, was the idea of separation—that is, religious separation (i.e. from non-believers, what is unclean, etc)—so clearly emphasized in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. The extent to which this is in accord (or not) with Paul’s own thought and teaching continues to be debated. I will be discussing the matter further in the next Saturday Series study.

Conclusion

To the evidence above, one might add that, according to some commentators, the manner of citing Scripture passages in 2 Cor 6:16-18 better fits the catena-format used at Qumran than Paul’s own style (a debatable point, to be sure). Also, while the Scriptural citations and allusions are not utilized elsewhere by Paul, we do find them in the Qumran texts—2 Sam 7:14 in 4QFlor i.11, and Ezek 20:34 (perhaps) in 1QM 1:2-3. These are minor points compared with the three areas discussed above, and even those, in and of themselves, are not especially strong arguments against Pauline authorship, with the possible exception of the use of the name Belial. It is the cumulative effect of the evidence that convinces many critical commentators. The parallels between 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 and the Qumran texts have even led some to declare that the former is “a Christian exhortation in the Essene [i.e., Qumran] tradition” or “a Christian reworking of an Essene paragraph” (cf. Furnish, p. 377, citing J. Gnilka and J. A. Fitzmyer). Few commentators today would go that far, the tendency now being to downplay considerably the idea of any direct influence on the New Testament from Qumran. Instead, most New Testament scholars today would speak in terms of the wider Jewish milieu, that both Qumran and early Christian Communities inherited many similar ideas, techniques, modes of interpretation, etc, within the Judaism of the period, and that this accounts for most, if not all, of the evident parallels.

The use of the name Belial remains perhaps the most notable ‘non-Pauline’ feature discussed above; its frequent occurrence in Jewish writings of the first centuries B.C./A.D., and, in particular, the usage in the (Christianized) Jewish material of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, offers us a window on the kind of Jewish-Christian homiletic we see in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. However, based on this evidence alone, one cannot simply exclude Pauline authorship of the section, though, at the very least, it does increase the likelihood that Paul may have made use of pre-existing (Jewish-Christian) material in his letter.

References above marked “Furnish” are to Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, Anchor Bible [AB] Vo. 32A (1984).
“Gnilka” refers to the study by J. Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14-7:1 in the light of the Qumran texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by J. Murphy O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth (Geoffrey Chapman Ltd.: 1968); originally published in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, Festschrift J. Schmid (1963).

Saturday Series: 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1

For the next few weeks these Saturday Series studies will explore 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, a most interesting (and much-debated) passage among Paul’s letters. New Testament scholars and commentators have long been aware of the difficulties surrounding this passage, which may be summarized by the following two points:

    • It appears out of place—in terms of style, tone, emphasis, and subject matter—with the surrounding portions of the letter. It seems to break the flow and thought abruptly at 6:13, which otherwise follows relatively smoothly with 7:2ff. There would appear to be no clear explanation of how the rest of the letter (specifically 2:14-6:13 + 7:2-4) relates to this section.
    • There are a considerable number of words and expressions which differ considerably from Paul’s language and vocabulary in the other letters. This has led an increasing number of commentators to question both the source and authorship of the section.

Consideration of both points has led many scholars to view 6:14-7:1 as an interpolation—that is to say, a (secondary) insertion into the text from another source. Actually, the question is parsed more finely; theories regarding the passage may be summarized as follows:

    • It is Pauline (i.e. authored by Paul) and in its proper place as part of single unified letter—whether defined as 2:14-7:4, all of 2 Corinthians, or something in between  [View #1]
    • It is non-Pauline, but used by Paul and in its proper location [View #2]
    • It is Pauline, but from a separate letter or writing, and has been inserted into its current location secondarily (i.e. an interpolation) [View #3]
    • It is non-Pauline, and an interpolation [View #4]
    • It is anti-Pauline (i.e. contrary to Paul’s own thought, in certain respects) and an interpolation [View #5]

This represents a remarkably wide range of opinions, and there is little consensus among commentators, other than general agreement that the current location of the passage creates significant difficulties for interpretation. In this regard, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 serves as a valuable test case for the application of the principles and methods of critical study. Such analysis is actually most valuable in situations where there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement surrounding a particular passage. In terms of the various areas and aspects of Biblical criticism, we must consider the following, in relation to 2 Cor 6:14-7:1:

    • Textual Criticism—(1) External evidence for the text, along with any variant reading; and (2) Internal evidence regarding the vocabulary and style of the passage
    • Source Criticism—Is there evidence that the text comes from a distinct source, compared with other portions of the book? If so, what are characteristics and features of this source? To this may be included Form- or Genre-criticism, especially in terms of the poetic and parenetic character of this particular passage.
    • Literary Criticism—Study of the features of the text, as a written (literary) work, and how it came to be written; here, we may specifically refer to a pair of related sub-categories:
      • Composition Criticism—How the text, within the work as a whole, came to be composed, i.e. by a particular author (or authors)
      • Redaction Criticism—Whether, or to what extent, the text was part of a process of editing or compiling (“redaction”), to form the final written work as we have it
    • Canonical Criticism—This relates primarily to the narrower question of, if 2 Corinthians represents a compilation from different sources (possibly including non-Pauline material), what effect (if any) does this have on the canonical status (inspiration, etc) of the letter?

Let us begin with a translation of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1:

14You must not come to be yoked with (those who are different), (to one)s without trust!

For what holding (is there) with [i.e. between] justice and lawlessness,
or what common (bond is there) with [i.e. between] light and darkness?
15And what voice (sounding) together (is there) of (the) Anointed (One) toward Belîal,
or what portion for (the one) trusting with (the one) without trust?
16And what setting down together (is there) for the shrine of God with images?—
for you are the shrine of (the) living God, even as God said that
‘I will make (my) house among them and will walk about among (them),
and I will be their God and they will be my people.’

17‘Therefore you must come out of the middle of them and mark (yourselves) off from (them),’ says the Lord,
‘and you must not attach (yourself) to an unclean (thing)’
‘and then I will take you in—
18and I will be a Father unto you, and you will be sons and daughters unto me’,
says the Lord Almighty.

7:1So (then), holding these messages about (what He will do), (my) beloved (one)s, we should cleanse ourselves from all soiling of flesh and spirit, completing holiness (fully) in (the) fear of God.”

I have tried to indicate the structure of the passage above, which may be outlined as follows:

    • Initial statement (injunction)—V. 14a
    • Poetic exposition, concluding in a Scripture citation—Vv. 14b-16
    • Catena (chain) of Scripture citations—Vv. 17-18
    • Concluding exhortation—Ch. 7:1

This has all the appearance of a mini-sermon or homily, a point which will be discussed, along with the poetic character of the passage, in the next study (dealing with Source- and Form-criticism). The first critical area to examine relates to the Greek text itself.

Textual Criticism

As discussed in prior studies, textual criticism primarily involves efforts to establish the most likely original form of the text, as far as this is possible. In the case of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as a textual unit, this involves the two-fold question outlined above: (a) whether the passage may be an interpolation (and thus not part of the original text), and (b) whether or not it is genuinely Pauline. Two kinds of evidence are used to address such questions: (1) External evidence (i.e. the actual Greek manuscripts and ancient versions, etc), and (2) Internal evidence (comparative examination of vocabulary, style, etc). For more on the terminology of Textual Criticism, see my 3-part article “Learning the Language”.

(1) External Evidence

Here it must be pointed out that there is not a single known Greek manuscript, nor ancient version, nor citation in the Church Fathers, which would indicate that 2 Corinthians was ever without 6:14-7:1. Further, there is not any indication that the passage was ever present in a different location in 2 Corinthians (or anywhere else in the Pauline corpus). Nor is there much evidence for any substantive textual variants (variant readings) in this passage. Thus, the external evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation. For this reason, theories of interpolation or non-Pauline authorship rest solely on internal evidence.

(2) Internal Evidence

Here we must consider two factors: (i) the disruption apparently caused by 6:14-7:1 in context, and (ii) instances of vocabulary, style, and thought which may be seen as foreign to Paul’s letters. The first factor is better addressed separately, as an aspect of literary (composition) criticism, in an upcoming study. Here I will consider only matters of vocabulary, style, etc, in relation to the question of Pauline authorship. Normally, such analysis based on vocabulary and style is rather precarious (due to the measure of subjectivity involved), but where there is a high incidence of unusual terms or expressions in a rather short space, the arguments become stronger and more reliable. This is the case, for example, with the Pastoral Letters (especially 1 Timothy), and also here with 2 Cor 6:14-7:1.

Rare and unusual vocabulary

For example, there are eight (8) words which do not occur elsewhere in Paul’s letters (including 7 which are not found anywhere else in the NT), as a well as several other words where occurrence is rare. Here are the unique words, in order:

    • heterozygéœ (e(terozuge/w) [v. 14]—a compound verb meaning “joined/yoked” (i.e. zygós, “yoke”) together with “(something/someone) different” (héteros); most likely this is taken from the Greek version of Leviticus 19:19, where the related adjective (heterózygos) is used. Paul does make use of the word sýzygos (“[one] joined together [with]”), possibly as a proper name (?), in Philippians 4:3.
    • metoch¢¡ (metoxh/) [v. 14]—a similar sort of (compound) noun, referring to someone who “holds” (vb. échœ) something in common “with” (metá) another. This occurs only here in the New Testament (and just twice in the Greek OT), but related the adjective métochos and verb metéchœ are more common. Paul uses the verb five times, in 1 Cor 9:10, 12; 10:17, 21, 30.
    • symphœ¡n¢sis (sumfw/nhsi$) [v. 15]—again, a compound noun meaning literarly a “voice [fœn¢¡] (sounding) together with [sun]” another; this noun occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (nor the Greek OT), but related words (symphœnéœ [vb], symphœnía [noun], sýmphonos [adj]) do occur. Paul uses the adjective sýmphonos in 1 Cor 7:5.
    • Belíar (Beli/ar) [v. 15]—this is a transliteration in Greek of the Hebrew term b®liyya±al (lu^Y~l!B=), with the variant spelling Belíar instead of Belíal. The meaning of this word, used here as a proper name (generally equivalent to “[the] Satan”, “Devil”), will be discussed when we explore the overall thought of the passage in an upcoming study. The Hebrew is always translated (rather than transliterated) in the Greek OT, except for the A-text of Judges 20:13 LXX.
    • sungkatáthesis (sugkata/qesi$) [v. 16]—a compound noun similar in form to symphœ¡n¢sis (above), meaning literally “(something) set down together with”, in the sense of an “agreement”, etc. The noun also occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (or Greek OT), though the related verb sungkatatíthemai is used once at Lk 23:51 (also Exod 23:1, 32 LXX).
    • emperipatéœ (e)mperipate/w) [v. 16]—a prefixed compound form of the verb peripatéœ (“walk about”) with the preposition en (“in, among”); here it is derived (and can be explained) from its use in the Greek version of Leviticus 26:12.
    • Pantokrátœr (Pantokra/twr) [v. 18]—a compound noun essentially meaning “might(iest) of all, mighty over all, all-mighty), commonly used in Greek as a divine title, and frequently so in the Septuagint (181 times). It occurs nine other times in the New Testament (all in the book of Revelation), but nowhere else in Paul.
    • molysmós (molusmo/$) [7:1]—this noun, derived from the verb molýnœ (“smear [i.e. with paint or dirt], stain, soil”), occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is also extremely rare in the Greek OT (cf. Jer 23:15 LXX); used in a ritual context, it connotes “pollution, defilement”.

It is to be noted how many of these are rare compound noun (or verb) forms, which seem uniquely suited to the poetic style of vv. 14b-18, allowing the author to express complex associations in the compact space of a poetic line. In addition to these eight words above, there are several others which seem rather unusual or rare for Paul:

    • merís (meri/$) [v. 15]—this noun, which fundamentally means “part, portion” is quite rare in the New Testament (occurring just 5 times); it is used just once in the Pauline corpus (Col 1:12).
    • katharízœ (kaqari/zw) [7:1]—this verb (“make clean, cleanse”) is relatively common in the New Testament (31 times), but occurs nowhere else in the undisputed Pauline letters (esp. nowhere in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians), only in Eph 5:26 and Titus 2:14. Moreover, the usage here, with the idea of believers cleansing themselves, does seem somewhat unusual for Paul.
    • hagiosýn¢ (a(giosu/nh) [7:1]—this noun (“holiness”, from hágios, “sacred, holy, pure”), is rare in the entire New Testament, occurring just three times; admittedly the other two instances are from the undisputed Pauline letters (Rom 1:4; 1 Thess 3:13), still the word is rare for Paul, and its occurrence in Rom 1:4 is often thought to come from an early creedal formula which Paul is adopting.

There are other aspects of style and wording/expression are perhaps unusual for Paul, many of which can be (and are) debated, and we will explore these as we proceed. However, those listed above are the most noteworthy as examples of rare vocabulary. The high number of these in such a short passage is striking, and makes an argument against Pauline authorship that must be taken seriously. At the same time, there are other areas of vocabulary and style in 6:14-7:1 which may be viewed as genuinely Pauline features. I would ask that you keep these 11 words (listed above) in mind as you continue to study the passage. How would you explain the incidence of these, and why so many are rare, both to Paul and even to the New Testament as a whole? How much does the poetic framework of this section, along with the use of so many quotations and allusions to the Old Testament, affect this data?

Next week, we will be exploring these (and other) questions as we examine the passage from the standpoint of source– and form-criticism.

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:26ff, 43

In the recent Saturday studies, we have been exploring the great poem known as the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, using it was a way to consider, and demonstrate, how principles and methods of critical analysis apply to a particular passage (here, involving ancient Hebrew poetry). Last week, I discussed verses 15-25 in some detail; today, I wish to bring this exploration of the Song of Moses to a conclusion. There will be three parts to this study:

    • a survey/summary of verses 26-42
    • an examination of verse 43, and
    • a brief consideration of the poem in relation to verses 44ff that follow

Verses 26-42

First, a reminder of the structure of the bulk of the poem:

    • 4-18: God’s covenant with His people Israel, and their violation of the covenant
      —The Creator God (YHWH) as their Father (vv. 4-6)
      —His choice of Israel as His people, becoming their God (vv. 7-9)
      —His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14)
      —His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)
    • 19-42: God’s punishment of His people, and their subsequent deliverance
      —Punishment for violation of the covenant (vv. 19-25)
      —Concern for how this will be perceived by Israel’s enemies (vv. 26-31)
      —Plans to bring punishment on Israel’s enemies in turn (vv. 32-35)
      —Ultimate justice/deliverance for His people, and judgment on His enemies (vv. 36-41)

Verses 26-42 belong to this second division; vv. 19-25 (discussed last week) narrate the punishment to be brought on the people as a result of their violation of the covenant. That this punishment would be both severe and deadly is clear enough from the dramatic language and imagery used. However, it would not result in the complete destruction of the people, nor is their any hint of a future Exile. Instead, we see in verses 26ff a theme of deliverance emerge. It follows the same line of thought as in the Golden Calf narrative in Exodus 32ff—Israel will suffer a devastating punishment, ceasing to be God’s people in the way that they were under the covenant bond; at the same time, because of YHWH’s own goodness and mercy, and through the intercession of Moses, the people will not be cut off completely, but will be restored to YHWH as His people under the covenant. Just as Moses appealed to YHWH’s honor, referring to how this punishment on Israel would be perceived by the surrounding nations (Exod 33:13-16), so we find the same thought expressed emphatically in the Song; indeed, it is a theme that dominates vv. 26-42.

Central to the entire poem is the contrast between YHWH and the deities recognized by other nations; it is the same contrast that effectively separates Israel (as YHWH’s own people) from the other peoples (who ‘belong’ to other deities, see the discussion on verse 8). Because of this, YHWH (and His own honor) cannot allow the nations to triumph over Israel completely, though they may attack and inflict immense suffering and destruction on the people and land (vv. 23-25). This is expressed in the opening lines of this portion of the poem (vv. 26-27), and could (almost) be understood as reflecting a kind of personal insecurity on the part of YHWH:

I said “I shall split them to pieces,
stop (all) memory of them for man(kind)!”
were it not [i.e. except] that I feared provoking the enemy,
lest (those) oppressing them look at (this),
lest they say “Our hand is lifted high—
and YHWH did not make all this (happen)!”

The focus is on curbing the wicked/fleshly ambitions and aspirations of the surrounding nations. However, to understand the lines correctly in context, we must realize the true significance of this aspect. The success of the other nations (over Israel) might lead people everywhere to think that their deities were equal (or superior) to YHWH. Thus the rhetoric and mode of expression here is fundamentally theological. The declaration in verse 31, expressing the thought of the poet/people rather than YHWH’s own pronouncement in the prior lines, is a good example:

For not like our Rock is their ‘Rock’
nor (the one)s our enemies (trust as) guardians.

The precise meaning and syntax of the second line is uncertain, but poetic parallelism suggests that the plural noun (or participle) p®lîlîm should be related to Akkadian palilu used as an epithet of deities (JPS:Tigay, pp. 310, 404). “Rock” (‚ûr) of course is used as a divine name throughout the poem, parallel with °E~l (“Mighty [One]”, i.e. God). Another example of the same sort of contrast is seen in the taunt by YHWH in verse 37ff, part of the announcement of judgment on the nations that shapes the remaining lines:

He [i.e. YHWH] will say, “Where are their ‘Mighty Ones’,
the ‘Rock’ in whom they sought protection
…?”

This expresses again the principle that the deities worshiped by the nations are not “Mighty” (°¢l, i.e. God) in the same sense that YHWH is. Even more pointed is the declaration in verse 39a:

“See then that I—I am He
and there are no ‘Mighty Ones’ with me”

While it would be a mistake to read this as a statement of absolute monotheism, it does point in that direction. Certainly it reflects the principle expressed in the first command of the Decalogue, which is central to Israelite monotheism (Exod 20:2-3; Deut 5:6-7). It is never quite stated in Deuteronomy that the deities of the surrounding nations do not exist, only that they are not comparable to YHWH and do not have anything like the same power or nature (Deut 3:24, etc). God’s ultimate judgment on the surrounding nations is essentially a condemnation of their deities, and a demonstration of their weakness compared to YHWH. Indeed, it is clear from the second bicolon (and concluding colon) in verse 39 that only YHWH truly has the power to give life and take it away (i.e. through the disasters to come in time of Judgment):

(For) I bring death and give life,
I smashed (them) and I will heal

A final thought in the poem—a warning to all people—is that YHWH’s judgment is universal, it applies both to the nations and also to His own people Israel when they violate the covenant (v. 41b, see also v. 43 below):

I will return vengeance for the (one)s oppressing me,
and for the (one)s hating me I will complete (it in turn)

The idea of reciprocity is important, and is central, indeed, to the ancient covenant idea—punishment is made according to the nature and mode of the crime, the violation being “paid back” in kind. The closing bicola of verse 42 offer a final, graphic expression of the divine Judgment.

Verse 43

With regard to the textual situation surrounding the closing lines of the poem (v. 43), I discussed that in some detail in an earlier study, and will only summarize it here. The bicolon parallelism, used consistently throughout the poem, is largely missing from v. 43, which, in the Masoretic Text, consists of 2 bicola (4 lines). Yet there is parallelism overlapping in the second and third cola, suggesting that the text may be corrupt, with perhaps two lines missing (just prior and after):

Make a shout (then), (you) nations, (for) His people,
{missing line?}
For He will take vengeance (for) the blood of His servants,
and return vengeance for the (one)s oppressing Him.
{missing line?}
and will wipe away [i.e. cleanse] His people’s land!”

This would seem to be confirmed, rather decisively, I think, by the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutq, as well as in the Greek Septuagint version. The text of verse 43 in this Qumran MS has three bicola (6 lines), which much more accurately preserve the consistent parallelism of the poem (differences with MT indicated by italics):

Make a shout, O heavens, with Him!
Bow (down) to Him, all (you) Mighty Ones!
For he will take vengeance (for) the blood of His sons,
and return vengeance to the (one)s oppressing Him.
He will treat those who reject Him (as they deserve),
and will wipe away [i.e. cleanse] His people’s land

Based on the evidence from the Septuagint, it is possible that the original text read “sons of the Mightiest” (b®nê °E_lœhîm) rather than “Mighty Ones” (°§lœhîm). The reading of the Septuagint for the first bicolon actually appears to be a conflation of two variant Hebrew versions, one corresponding to a text like 4QDeutq, and the other a precursor of the MT—resulting in four lines:

Be of a good mind [i.e. rejoice], O heavens, at once with Him,
Kiss toward [i.e. worship] Him, all (you) sons of God!
Be of a good mind [i.e. rejoice], O nations, with His people,
and let all the Messengers of God strengthen themselves in Him!

Clearly, in the Qumran MS, divine/heavenly beings are being addressed, which makes a fitting parallel to the opening address of the poem (v. 1). In the MT, and the second part of the conflate Septuagint text, it is the nations, who ‘belong’ to those divine beings, who are being addressed. In terms of the overall message of the poem, both aspects go hand in hand. However, if we adopt the text of 4QDeutq, with its emphasis on the relationship of YHWH to the other ‘deities’ (an aspect that is mitigated in the MT), then the coda of verse 43 actually functions effectively as a kind of summary of the entire poem:

    • Bicolon 1: Address to the heavens and divine/heavenly beings
      • Parallel to the opening address (vv. 1-3) and first section(s) of the poem, which establish the contrast between YHWH and the deities of the other nations (vv. 4-9ff)
    • Bicolon 2: Promise to pay back the suffering inflicted upon Israel (by other peoples) during the time of judgment
      • Parallel to the central sections focusing on Israel’s violation of the covenant, judgment upon them, and subsequent restoration (vv. 15-25ff)
    • Bicolon 3: The declaration of universal judgment on those who reject YHWH, with a promise of restoration/vindication for Israel
      • Parallel to the closing sections of the poem (vv. 26-42, esp. verses 36-42)

Conclusion

Finally, it is worth noting the relationship of the poem to the narration that follows in verses 44-47ff. It picks up the Deuteronomic narrative from where it left off (at the end of chapter 31), continuing with the same line of thought. The purpose (and importance) of the poem is re-stated, setting it in context with the book of Deuteronomy as a whole. The “all these words” and “this Instruction” refer to everything recorded in the book of Deuteronomy—all of Moses’ discourses to the people, together with the poem of chapter 32—all of which is aimed at exhorting the people to be loyal to the covenant with YHWH, adhering to the terms of the covenant, outlined in the Instruction (tôrâ, Torah):

“…You should charge your sons [i.e. children] to watch [i.e. take care] to do all the words [i.e. everything as it is stated] in this Instruction.”

According to the ancient Near Eastern religious-cultural mindset, abiding by the terms of the covenant was of the utmost importance. Violation of them was thought to result (potentially) in terrible consequences, including death and destruction, suffering and disease, etc—the judgment of God (or the divine powers) released upon those who break the agreement. This is expressed most clearly in the vivid and graphic language of the poem (see above), but also in the closing words of the narrative here:

“For (indeed) it is not an empty word for you—it (is) your (very) life! and by this word you will lengthen (your) days upon the land which you are crossing over the Yarden {Jordan} there to possess.”

That is to say, if the people of Israel (and their descendants) will adhere faithfully to the Instruction, the terms of the covenant, then they will live long and secure in their Promised Land.

References marked “JPS:Tigay” above are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy <yrbd, commentary by Jeffrey H. Tigay (Jewish Publication Society: 1996).

* * * * * *

This concludes our study on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. Next week, I will begin exploring a particularly interesting (and difficult) passage from the letters of Paul—namely the excursus in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, long a focus for much scholarly debate regarding its origins, authorship, and purpose in 2 Corinthians. It should prove most valuable as a way of demonstrating how various critical theories and approaches to the text are vital to a sound examination and understanding of the Scriptures as we have them. I would ask that you read through the letter, paying close attention to the language Paul uses, and to the line of argument that runs through the main sections. Consider how 6:14-7:1 fits into the context of the letter. Does it seem at all out of place? Do the images and language differ noticeably from what Paul using elsewhere in the letter? Try skipping over the passage, reading from 6:13 to 7:2ff—what effect does this have of the line of thought and argument in these chapters? We will begin exploring these questions in detail here…next Saturday.

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:15-18ff

Deuteronomy 32:15-18ff

As we proceed through the Song of Moses (Deut 32), it is worth keeping in mind the structure of this great poem, as I have outlined it previously:

    • 1-3: Opening (exordium)—Call to Creation (heaven and earth)
    • 4-18: God’s covenant with His people Israel, and their violation of the covenant
      —The Creator God (YHWH) as their Father (vv. 4-6)
      —His choice of Israel as His people, becoming their God (vv. 7-9)
      —His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14)
      —His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)
    • 19-42: God’s punishment of His people, and their subsequent deliverance
      —Punishment for violation of the covenant (vv. 19-25)
      —Concern for how this will be perceived by Israel’s enemies (vv. 26-31)
      —Plans to bring punishment on Israel’s enemies in turn (vv. 32-35)
      —Ultimate justice/deliverance for His people, and judgment on His enemies (vv. 36-41)
    • 43: Conclusion—Call to the Nations

The bulk of the poem is made up of two sections,  each focusing on one side of the (religious) history of Israel and its covenant with YHWH. The first section (vv. 4-18, discussed in the recent studies) summarizes Israelite history through the people’s settlement in the Promised Land, together with their subsequent violation of the covenant (vv. 15-18). The second section (vv. 19-42) similarly summarizes the judgment that will come upon Israel for violating the covenant, along with its aftermath. The core of this narrative of covenant violation/punishment lies at the very center of the poem (vv. 15-25), and is likewise central, in terms of theme and theology, to the book of Deuteronomy as a whole. It also happens to be one of the most vivid and colorful portions of the text, full of many striking poetic details and devices, some of which we will be discussing below. However, when considering the post-settlement context of verses 15-18ff, we are immediately confronted by an important historical-critical issue with regard to both the poem and the book of Deuteronomy itself; even though this was touched upon in an earlier study, it is worth discussing it again briefly here.

From an historical-critical standpoint, there are three primary historical layers (or levels) that must be considered:

    • The Mosaic setting of the book, as presented in 1:1-5 and throughout, placed just before Moses’ own death and prior to the people crossing the Jordan into the Land of Promise proper. The Song of Moses is clearly set within this historical-narrative framework (see chap. 31).
    • The date of the poem, as established (as far as possible) by objective criteria and critical method, independent of the narrative framework and related traditions
    • The date of the book of Deuteronomy, i.e. its composition, which may cover multiple versions or editions of the book

For traditional-conservative commentators who accept the entire book, with little or no qualification, as representing the authentic words of Moses (and other genuine Mosaic traditions), these three layers essentially collapse into one—all of Deuteronomy, including the poem, more or less dates from the time of Moses. Critical commentators, however, tend to look at each layer on its own terms, which means considering the date and composition of the poem quite apart from its place within the Mosaic setting of the historical-narrative framework of Deuteronomy.

The results of such critical analysis—examination of vocabulary, poetic style and form, the imagery and religious-theological concepts used, etc—have generally pointed to a relatively early date for the poem, in the mind of most scholars. A number of features would, indeed, seem to be characteristic of the earliest poetry preserved in the Old Testament; certain parallels with the language and thought found in the narratives in the book of Judges (e.g., Judges 5:8; 10:14 etc), suggest a comparable time-frame for the poem, i.e. in the period of the Judges (11th century B.C.?). This would likely represent the latest date-range for the poem in its original form, and its old/archaic features could conceivably go back earlier, to the 12th or even 13th century.

By contrast, most critical scholars date the book of Deuteronomy as a whole to the Kingdom period. The soundest such critical theory would, I think, posit an earlier/original form of the book (10th/9th century?) which was subsequently modified under the influence of Josiah’s reforms (late 7th century), along with possible later additions as well. Thus, if we consider the three layers above, from a modern critical standpoint, a fairly reasonable dating would be:

    • The Mosaic setting of the book—presumably mid-late 13th century
    • The date of the poem—12th-11th century
    • The composition of Deuteronomy—10th-9th century, with subsequent revisions and additions (7th century and following)

Now, let us apply this critical analysis to the poem—in particular, to the post-settlement context of vv. 15-18ff. If we take the historical-narrative framework of Deuteronomy at face value (i.e., the time of Moses, generally prior to settlement), then these verses, along with similar portions elsewhere in the book (such as in chapter 31), reflect divine prophecy, God’s revelation (through Moses) of what will take place in the future. If, on the other hand, we were to adopt some form of the critical theory outlined above, then such passages would have to be read as representing an historical situation which had already occurred, and which has been projected back into the Mosaic setting of the book (i.e. as an ex eventu prophecy, after the fact). Interestingly, if we accept the relatively early date of the poem itself (for which there is strong evidence on objective grounds), then we find ourselves somewhere between these two approaches—i.e. the prophecy of Israel’s violation of the covenant would have to refer to events which would, apparently, have occurred during the period of the early Israelite confederacy documented in the book of Judges. Certainly, the book of Judges records the influence of Canaanite religious-cultural influence on Israel at a number of points, and is part of the narrative structure of the book (see 2:1-5, 11ff). Many of the details in the book of Judges appear to be quite authentic to the period, reflecting a time when Israelite monotheism (featuring exclusive worship of YHWH) was still trying to gain a strong foothold within the larger Canaanite (polytheistic) religious environment.

This, indeed, seems to be what the Song of Moses is describing—an initial turning away, under Canaanite (and other non-Israelite) religious influence, but not yet a development of the full-fledged syncretism we find during the Kingdom period. And, while this turning away was already prefigured in several traditional episodes from the Mosaic period (e.g., the Golden Calf and Baal-peor episodes, Exod 32; Num 25), it would not be fully realized until a somewhat later time. The history of Israel in Samuel-Kings, influenced by the book of Deuteronomy in this regard, adopts a similar framework, recording history from the standpoint of whether, or to what extent, Israel and its rulers were faithful to the covenant with YHWH or violated it by worshiping deities other than YHWH.

Verses 15-18

Let us now turn to consider verses 15-18 and 19-25 of the poem. It may help to see these together in translation; here I offer a rather literal (but reasonably poetic) rendering:

And (then) the straight (one) grew fat and kicked—
you became fat, swollen, filled (with food)—
and he left the Mighty (One who) made him,
and treated the Rock of his salvation like a fool!
They made him red(-faced) with strange (thing)s,
with disgusting things they provoked him;
they slaughtered to šedim (who are) not Mighty,
(but are) ‘Mighty Ones’ not known to them—
new (one)s (who) came from near(by),
(whom) your fathers did not recognize.
You forgot the Rock (who) gave birth to you,
and neglected the Mighty One writhing (in birth of) you!

And (so) YHWH saw (it) and spurned,
from (such) provocation, his sons and daughters—
and He said:
“I will hide my face from them,
let me see what follows (for) them!
For they (are) a circle (of) overturning—
sons (with) no firmness in them!
They made me red(-faced) with the non-Mighty,
provoked me with their puffs of breath;
and (now) I will turn them red with a non-People,
(and) provoke them with a nation of fool(s)!
For a fire has sparked in my nostril(s)
and burns until the depths of Še’ôl,
and it consumes the earth and its produce
and blazes (to) the base of the hills!
I will gather (up) evils upon them,
I will finish (all) my arrows on them—
hunger (that) sucks out,
and a burning (that) devours,
and a bitter dead(ly poi)son,
and (the) tooth of wild (beast)s will I send on them
with the heat of crawlers in the dust.
(In the street) outside the sword brings loss,
and terror (inside the) enclosed (room),
even (to) chosen (son) and virgin (daughter),
the suckling (child) with grey-haired man (together).

The language is rough and vivid throughout, something which is often lost in most English translations; I have tried to retain and capture this roughness (even harshness) of expression from the Hebrew. Such a mode of expression is altogether appropriate, from the standpoint of the subject matter—a description of Israel’s violation of the covenant, and the resulting judgment which YHWH will bring upon them. It is here that we turn again to form criticism and literary criticism, to see how the distinctive form and style of this poetry relates to the meaning and purpose of the text. Let us first examine verses 15-18, a sequence of 6 bicola (= 12 lines) which more or less follow the 3-beat (3+3) meter of the poem consistently, with clear use of parallelism (both synonymous and synthetic) throughout. The first bicolon is striking in the way that the address shifts suddenly from third person to second person:

And (then) the straight (one) grew fat and kicked—
you became fat, swollen, filled (with food)

This would be an example of a kind of synthetic parallelism, in which the second line builds dramatically on the first. The people are referenced by the descriptive title y®š¥rûn, presumably meaning something like “the straight (one)” or “the (up)right (one)”; y¹š¹r (“straight, right”) was used as a characteristic of YHWH in verse 4. In context, the title is used ironically, referring to what the people of Israel should have been—straight and loyal followers of the binding agreement (covenant) with God. Instead, they “grew fat” and “kicked” (like an unruly animal); this behavior is clearly related to the people’s feeding on the richness of the land (vv. 13-14), whether understood in a literal or symbolic sense. It is this aspect upon which the second line builds, with a repetitive staccato-like sequence of three verbs, which are almost impossible to translate accurately into English—

š¹mant¹ ±¹»ît¹ k¹´ît¹

literally, it would be something like: “you grew fat, you became swollen, you became full”. The precise meaning of the last verb (k¹´â) is uncertain, but most likely the three verbs are more or less synonymous, referring to the idea of Israel “becoming fat“. The shift to second person (“you”), something which occurs at several points in the poem, serves as an important reminder of the purpose of the poem, within the setting of Deuteronomy (chap. 31)—as a means of instructing all Israelites in future generations (“you”). The remaining 5 bicola (10 lines) essentially expound the first; the second and sixth (vv. 15b, 18) are similar and form an inclusio, framing the lines:

and he left the Mighty (One who) made him,
and treated the Rock of his salvation like a fool!
…..
You forgot the Rock (who) gave birth to you,
and neglected the Mighty One writhing (in birth of) you!

This repeats the central theme in the opening lines (vv. 4-6) of the section, that of YHWH as Creator and Father of humankind (and esp. of Israel). The title “Rock” (‚ûr) alternates with the Divine name/title “Mighty One” (°E~l / °E_lôah). The latter bicolon (v. 18) introduces the striking motif of YHWH as mother giving birth, i.e. writhing (vb. µyl) in labor pains. This makes all the more cruel the people’s abandonment of YHWH, who endured such pains in giving birth to them. In between, these six lines (3 bicola, vv. 16-17) give a summary description of Israel’s violation of the covenant, defined unmistakably in terms of worship of deities other than YHWH:

They made him red(-faced) with strange (thing)s,
with disgusting things they provoked him;
they slaughtered to šedim (who are) not Mighty,
(but are) ‘Mighty Ones’ not known to them—
new (one)s (who) came from near(by),
(whom) your fathers did not recognize.

The first bicolon is a clear example of synonymous parallelism, with the second line essentially re-stating the first, intensifying the image. The last two bicola are more complex, emphasizing two interrelated points: (1) these other deities are lesser than YHWH and not “God” (lit. Mighty One) in the same way, and (2) they are “new” and previously unknown to Israel, presumably meaning that they reflect the local religious environment in Canaan (i.e. “from near[by]”). I have left the noun š¢d (plural š¢dîm) untranslated above; it seems to refer to deities in a general sense, akin to the word daimœn in Greek. The derivation and meaning of the last verb (´¹±ar) is also uncertain; I have tentatively followed the Septuagint translation, relating it to the Semitic root š±r (“know, perceive”), which provides a parallel to the idea of the deities as “not known” among Israelites prior to their entry into Canaan.

Verses 19-25

As in the preceding section, the first bicolon (v. 19) sets the theme, and the remaining lines provide the exposition. Here this format is used for a dramatic narrative purpose: the expository lines represent the direct words of YHWH, introduced (in the poem as we have it) by an additional word (“and he said”) which disrupts the meter. The tension in these lines is reflected in the opening bicolon in which the matter of YHWH’s judgment on Israel is stated:

And (so) YHWH saw (it) and spurned,
from (such) provocation, his sons and daughters—

I have retained the structure of the bicolon—note the apparent awkwardness in the line division, something which is glossed over (and lost) in most translations in the attempt to provide more readable English. In the Hebrew as we have it, there is an emphasis on the word mika±as (“from [the] provocation”) which disrupts the poetic flow and injects a discordant tone into this section of the poem, entirely keeping with the ominous subject. In the first two bicola of YHWH’s declaration (v. 20) we have his own announcement of the judgment that is described in v. 19:

I will hide my face from them,
let me see what follows (for) them!
For they (are) a circle (of) overturning—
sons (with) no firmness in them!

The first couplet (bicolon) provides an extreme example of synthetic parallelism—the second line literally refers to the consequence and result of the first (God hiding his face), and almost reads like a taunt. The noun °aµ®rî¾ with suffix could also be translated “their end” (i.e., “let me see what their end [is]”); this would fit the actual syntax better, but risks losing the important idea that the terrible fate for the people follows (root °µr) as a direct result of the action of YHWH hiding his face from them. In the ancient religious mindset, this image of God “hiding his face” essentially means a removal of the divine power that protects and preserves the life of humankind on earth.

The second bicolon is a standard example of synonymous parallelism, with the noun dôr set parallel to b¹nîm (“sons”, i.e. the people as a whole). I have translated dôr according to its fundamental meaning (“circle”, i.e. circle of life), though it is usually rendered “generation” (“they are a generation of…”), but the phrase could also be translated (“thei[rs] is an Age of…”. The basic reference is to the people alive during a particular period of time, but also to their connectedness as a common people. The root h¹¸ak (“turn [over], overturn”), here as the substantive noun tahp¥kâ, connotes both the idea of perversion and destruction—i.e., the people both turned away from the truth and broke the covenant bond. This was an indication of their lack of true loyalty (lit. “firmness”, °¢mûn) to God and to the covenant.

The next two couplets (bicola) show a more complex parallelism, making use of wordplay that is difficult to capture in English:

They made me red(-faced) with the non-Mighty,
provoked me with their puffs of breath;
and (now) I will turn them red with a non-People,
(and) provoke them with a nation of fool(s)!

Here, again, the parallelism (of form and style) is used to convey a very specific message: the punishment for Israel matches their crime (an extension of the ancient lex talionis principle). The parallelism in this regard is exact, something which may easily be lost in English translation:

    • Verb 1 (q¹na°):
      they made me red [i.e. with jealousy]…” (and so)
      “…I will make them red [with jealousy]”
      • Modifier 1 (b®lœ°, “with no”):
        “with (the) non-Mighty [°¢l]”, i.e. what is not God (not YHWH)
        “with (a) non-People [±¹m]”, i.e. not the people of YHWH
    • Verb 2 (k¹±as):
      “they provoked me…” (and so)
      “…I will provoke them”
      • Modifier 2 (“with [] [things that are ’empty’]”):
        “with their puffs of breath [ha»lîm]”, a derisive term for the worship of other deities and associated ‘idolatry’
        “with a nation of fool[s]”, i.e. a foolish nation (that worships other deities)

What follows in the remaining lines (vv. 22-25) is a graphic description of the coming judgment. It begins with a powerful image of a wildfire, in a pair of bicola (4 lines) where each line builds—an example of how poetic form (here the synthetic parallelism of the bicolon format) serves to paint a visual picture (of a growing/spreading fire):

For a fire has sparked in my nostril(s)
and burns until the depths of Še’ôl,
and it consumes the earth and its produce
and blazes (to) the base of the hills!

The first couplet actually could be viewed as a kind of antithetic paralellism—i.e. from one extreme to its opposite. The first begins in the nostrils of YHWH, and reaches all the way to the deepest place under the earth (in š§°ôl, the realm of death and the dead). If this shows the fire’s spread vertically, from highest above to deepest below, the second couplet shows its horizontal spread—over the entire face of the land, covering it up to the base of the mountains. In verse 23, the imagery shifts from a natural disaster (wildfire) to that of a military attack—YHWH will shoot evils (i.e. misfortune, suffering, death, etc) upon the people like arrows, and so extensive will be the judgment that God will exhaust the entire complement of arrows:

I will gather (up) evils upon them,
I will finish (all) my arrows on them

These evils/arrows are presented in verses 24-25, with a descriptive sequence that strains and twists the poetic meter and rhythm; this is again an example of how a disruption of a common poetic format can be used to make a dramatic point. First in verse 24 there is a dual image of plague/disease and attack from deadly/poisonous animals:

hunger (that) sucks out,
and a burning (that) devours,
and a bitter dead(ly poi)son,
and (the) tooth of wild (beast)s will I send on them
with the heat of crawlers in the dust.

The removal of YHWH’s protection (“I will hide my face”, v. 20) means that the people are vulnerable to the dangerous elements of the natural world. Moreover, in the ancient religious mindset, disease and famine, etc, were often seen as the result of divine anger and punishment on humankind, and so we find the same expressed repeatedly in the Old Testament. Even when subsidiary divine (or semi-divine) beings were involved (pestilence personified, Reše¸), according to the tenets of Israelite monotheism, it was YHWH (in his anger) who is responsible for sending these evils (“I will send on them”). Along with this, Israel also can no longer rely on YHWH’s protection from human enemies, and verse 25 gives a capsule portrait of the people hiding in fear as enemy forces attack:

(In the street) outside the sword brings loss,
and terror (inside the) enclosed (room),
even (to) chosen (son) and virgin (daughter),
the suckling (child) with grey-haired man (together).

The historical narratives in both the book of Judges and the “Deuteronomic History” of Samuel–Kings are replete with numerous examples which illustrate this idea. Indeed, the primary vehicle for God’s judgment upon Israel were the various peoples around them, each of which could fit the description of a “non-People” or “nation of fools” in the sense that they operated from a polytheistic religious point of view, worshiping deities other than YHWH. This is fundamental to the message of the poem, and much of the book of Deuteronomy as well, as we have seen. Central to the binding agreement (covenant) between YHWH and Israel is the idea that they will remain loyal to Him, and will not violate the bond by turning aside to embrace the religious beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations.

I hope that the analysis above demonstrates the importance that different aspects of Biblical criticism an elucidate important details of the text, especially in the distinctive (and often difficult) area of Old Testament poetry. Next week, we will conclude this study on the Song of Moses, by looking briefly at the following lines of verses 26-42, before delving more deeply into the closing lines in verse 43.