Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:00:21.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

C. K. Barrett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The continuing stream of hypotheses with regard to the Corinthian opposition to Paul will serve as a reminder that this opposition constitutes one of the crucial questions for the understanding of the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. It is not too much to say that a full understanding both of New Testament history and of New Testament theology waits on the right answering of this question. We can see pretty clearly that the development of Christianity in the first three decades after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus moved about two poles: on the one hand, the church of Jerusalem, some at least of whose leaders could probably look back to their association with Jesus during his ministry in Palestine, and, on the other, Paul, apostle as he himself but by no means all his contemporaries believed him to be, and the churches he founded in the non-Jewish world. How were these two groups related to each other? Did they act in concert or in opposition? These alternatives are far too simply put, and fail to do justice to the complexity of the facts; but the facts to which justice must be done include the data of II Corinthians, where Paul appears to be confronted by a rival apostolate.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , April 1971 , pp. 233 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 233 note 1 They can hardly have manifested less concern than paul for the tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus; we probably owe to them part at least of the synoptic tradition.

page 233 note 2 ‘Die Legitimität des Apostels’, Z.N.T.W. XLI (1942), 33–71Google Scholar; reprinted separately, Darmstadt, 1956. In references to this work the pages in Z.N.T.W. will be given first, then those of the reprint.

page 234 note 1 ‘Christianity at Corinth’, B.J.R.L. XLVI (1964), 269–97, especially 286–97.Google Scholar

page 234 note 2 For further material see the compressed yet lucid survey in Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), pp. 208–11Google Scholar, and the same authorˇs bibliography in Lietzmann, H. and Kümmel, W. G., An die Korinther (H.N.T. IX)5 (Tübingen, 1969).Google Scholar

page 234 note 3 W.M.A.N.T. XI (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964).Google Scholar

page 235 note 1 ‘Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief’, in Abraham unser Vater, Festschrift für Otto Michel (A.G.S.U. v), edited by Betz, O., Hengel, M., and Schmidt, P., (Leiden/Köln, 1963), pp. 181–215.Google Scholar This article appeared shortly before the lecture ‘Christianity at Corinth’ was given, and was not dealt with as fully as it deserves.

page 235 note 2 Friedrich, , p. 195Google Scholar, referring to Bornkamm, G., ‘Die Vorgeschichte des sogenannten Zweiten Korintherbriefes’, S.H.A.W. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1961; 2.Google Scholar

page 235 note 3 Yet in the end Friedrich comes near to accepting the theory. On p. 196 he writes, ‘Daß [die Gegner] aber mit dem Anspruch auftraten, göttliche Sendboten nach Art der griechischen Umwelt zu sein, ist kaum anzunehmen’, but on p. 212, ‘Weil die Stephanusleute es zugeben, als θεīΟς άν betrachtet zu werden, darum ist Paulus so scharf gegen sie’.

page 235 note 4 See Gutbrod, W., in T.W.N.T. III, 393Google Scholar; also Lietzmann-Kümmel, , pp. 150, 211.Google Scholar

page 236 note 1 Die Gnosis in Korinth (F.R.L.A.N.T. N.F. XLVIII) (Göttingen, 1956).Google Scholar

page 236 note 2 See materisl referenced to in note 2, p.234.

page 237 note 1 The transitions from ii. 13 to ii. 14 and from vii. 4 to vii. 5 are perhaps capable of explanation; and see note 25 (p. 9) in my ‘Titus’, in Neotestamentica et Semitica, Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, edited by Eills, E. E. and Wilcox, M. (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

page 237 note 2 Cf. ‘Christianity at Corinth’, pp. 294 ff.Google Scholar

page 237 note 3 E.g. Georgi, , Friedrich, , Kümmel, see the summary material referred to in note 2, p. 234.Google Scholar

page 237 note 4 Bultmann, R., Exegetische Problems des Zweiten Korintherbriefes (S.B.U. ix) (Uppsala, 1947).Google Scholar

page 237 note 5 See pp. 242ff.

page 237 note 6 See ‘Christianity at Corinth’, pp. 291–4.

page 238 note 1 See ‘ψΕγΔΑπΟΣΤΟΛΟΙ (II Cor, . xi. 13Google Scholar)’, in Mélanges Bibliques en bommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux, edited by Descamps, A. and de Halleux, A. (Gembloux, 1970), pp. 377–96.Google Scholar

page 238 note 2 See ‘Titus’, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 238 note 3 See pp. 245 f.; and the frequent indications (pp. 241 ff., 244c, 248f., 251 f.) that the Corinthians were applying tests to their apostles.

page 239 note 1 Héring, J., La seconde Épître Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament VIII) (Neuchâtel and Paris, 1958), p. 79.Google Scholar

page 239 note 2 See Delling, G. in T.W.N.T. VI, 296.Google Scholar

page 239 note 3 See Schrenk, G. in T.W.N.T. II, 441.Google Scholar

page 239 note 4 For the evidence see, for example, Lietzmann, —Kümmel, ad locGoogle Scholar.

page 240 note 1 For the relation between the devil and the snake cf. Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2, and see commentaries on these verses; also S.-B. I, 138 f.

page 240 note 2 Cf. Dahl, N. A., in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, in Honour of Dodd, C. H., edited by Davies, W. D. and Daube, D. (Cambridge, 1956), p. 441Google Scholar: ‘There exists a real danger, that the deception of Eve shall also find an analogy within the Church, a satanic travesty of the correspondence between the first and the last things.’.

page 240 note 3 Cf. Bachmann, P., Der Zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament herausgegeben von Th. Zahn, VIII) (Leipsing, 1918), p. 365.Google Scholar

page 240 note 4 E.g. pp. 284 ff.

page 240 note 5 Georgi, , p. 285Google Scholar, rightly points out the exphatic position of κΎριος.

page 241 note 1 Cf. Kümmel, W. G., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (N.T.D. Ergänzungsreihe, III) (Göttingen, 1969), p. 219Google Scholar: ‘Paulus’ gebraucht ‘den Namen des Menschen Jesus in genau derselben Weise für den irdischen Jesus wie für den Auferstandenen.’.

page 241 note 2 Cf. the view set forth by K. Barth in his earlier commentary on Romans: ‘the faithfulness [of God] which abides in Jesus’. This is abandoned in the later commentary.

page 241 note 3 See my The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968), pp. 277–81.Google Scholar

page 242 note 1 On the text see Kümmel, in Lietzmann—Kümmel, ad heGoogle Scholar.

page 242 note 2 See p. 234 n. 2, and the summaries of the history of interpretation given by Georgi and Friedrich.

page 242 note 3 Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte (Acta Jutlandica, XXVI, I) (Aarhus, 1954), p. 171.Google Scholar Cf. riedrich, p. 188.

page 242 note 4 See p. 233 n. 2.

page 242 note 5 See p. 237 n. 4.

page 244 note 1 See Lietzmann–Kummel ad loc.

page 244 note 2 Op. cit. p. 155.Google Scholar

page 244 note 3 In Lietzmann–Kümmel, , p. 212.Google Scholar

page 245 note 1 Cf. p. 242.

page 245 note 2 For el; see Lietzmann ad loc.

page 245 note 3 Käsemann, , pp. 62 f.; 53Google Scholar; Kümmel, in Lietzmann-Kümmel, , p. 213Google Scholar; Schlatter, A., Paulus der Bote Jesu (Stuttgart, 1962), p. 670Google Scholar; Cf. Goppelt, L., Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (London, 1970), p. 38.Google Scholar

page 245 note 4 Cf. however Rom., xv. 19.Google Scholar

page 245 note 5 Lietzmann-Kümmel, , p. 213.Google Scholar

page 246 note 1 See p. 238.

page 247 note 1 For the meaning of this word see my The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1957), pp. 47 f.Google Scholar

page 247 note 2 See the discussions by Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief (Krit-exegetischer Kommentar über das NT) (Göttingen, 1924)Google Scholar, and Allo, E. B., Second Épître aux Corinthiens (Études Bibliques) (Paris, 1956), ad loc.Google Scholar

page 247 note 3 See ‘Titus’ (p. 237 n. I)Google Scholar, and ‘‘Ό’ΆΔΙΚθΣΑΣ (II Cor. vii. 12)’, in Verborum Veritas, Festschrift für Stählin, G., edited by Böcher, O. and Haacker, K. (Wuppertal, 1970), pp. 149–57.Google Scholar

page 247 note 4 Cf. Phil, . i. 12.Google Scholar Christ crucified is manifested in the humiliation of his servants.

page 248 note 1 Paul appears to allude to a Corinthian belief; see my Commentary (p. 241 n. 3), ad loc.

page 248 note 2 and occur 25 times in I Corinthians, 14 times in II Corinthians; more striking are and (28: 1), and the , , , group (13: 1). Cf. , , , , (15: 1).

page 248 note 3 For , ‘ t o w a r n ’, see Liddell-Scott, s.v.

page 249 note 1 Or his own; cf. I Cor. iv. 3 f.

page 249 note 2 Cf. , Rom. ix. 3.Google Scholar

page 250 note 1 See the accounts of the history of interpretation in Georgi, , pp. 7–16Google Scholar, and Friedrich, , pp. 191–6; also p. 234 n. 2.Google Scholar

page 250 note 2 See e.g. Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (Stuttgart, 1845), p. 294Google Scholar: ‘Da aber diese ψευαπόστολοι in Corinth sich namentlich auf die Auctorität des Apostels Petrus beriefen, aus Palästina nach Corinth gekommen waren, und ohne Zweifel mit den palästinensischen Judenaposteln in irgend einem Zusammenhang stunden, so sind wohl die ύπερλιαν άπόστολοι, die Apostel selbst, deren Schüler und Abgeordnete zu seyn, die ψευδαπόστολοı vorgaben.’ The whole discussion is still of great importance.

page 250 note 3 Op. cit., especially p. 48; 30.Google Scholar

page 250 note 4 Paulus (p. 245 n. 3)Google Scholar; also Die korinthische Theologie (Gütersloh, 1914).Google Scholar

page 250 note 5 Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth (Gütersloh, 1908).Google Scholar

page 250 note 6 See p. 237 n. 4.

page 250 note 7 See p. 236 n. 1.

page 250 note 8 See p. 234 n. 3.

page 250 note 9 See p. 235 n. 1.

page 251 note 1 Friedrich, , p. 192Google Scholar: ‘Judaisten, wie sie z. B. in Galatien aufgetreten sind, sind die Gegner des Paulus in 2 Kor. auf keinen Fall. Es fehlen alle charakteristischen Merkmale dieser judenchristlichen Nomisten, die Beschneidung, Halten des Sabbats und kultische Reinheit fordern. Sie machen Paulus weder den Vorwurf der Gesetzlosigkeit, noch polemisiert Paulus gegen ihre Werkgerechtigkeit als Hauptmerkmal ihrer falschen Theologie.’

page 251 note 2 It was otherwise in Galatia, where the Judaizers were, it seems, able to state their own terms in their own way, and we have an example of ‘pure’ Judaizing. It is not easy to say how characteristic of hellenistic Christianity Corinth was; probably more so than the churches of Galatia.

page 252 note 1 See ‘’ (p. 238 n. 1), pp. 395 f.

page 252 note 2 Cf. pp. 237 ff.

page 252 note 3 Cf. Gal, . ii. 7–10.Google Scholar The fact that the Galatians (see p. 251 n. 2) took a less independent line than the Corinthians gives a different shape to Paul's argument in his letter to them.

page 252 note 4 Cf. pp. 238, 245 f.

page 252 note 5 ‘Christianity at Corinth’, B.J.R.L. XLVI (1964), 296 f.Google Scholar

page 252 note 6 See Josephus, , Antiquities, XX. 40–8.Google Scholar

page 252 note 7 Cf. ‘ ’ (p. 238 n. 1), p. 387.

page 252 note 8 See above, pp. 237, 242 ff.; also ‘Christianity at Corinth’, loc. cit. pp. 294 ff.Google Scholar

page 252 note 9 See Käsemann, , p. 46; 28Google Scholar: ‘Nach Gal. ii sind … die Urapostel mehr das repräsentierende Organ der durch die δοκούντες verkörperten Leitung der Urgemeinde. Eine Delegation ist schwerlich ohne ihr Mitwirken denkbar, braucht jedoch durch sie nicht mit konkreten Sonderaufträgen bedacht zu sein und hat zum mindesten keine auf ihren Namen lautende Vollmacht besessen.’ The distinctions drawn here seem to me somewhat too fine.

page 253 note 1 An example taken almost at random: ‘The Potidaeans were forced to make overtures for surrender to the Athenian generals…The generals were willing to listen to the proposals…The Athenians, however, blamed the generals for making the agreement without consulting the government at home (άνευ αύτών)…’ (Thucydides II. 70; translation by Warner, R., Penguin Classics, London, 1954).Google Scholar Note that the generals were acting in good faith; so, it may be, were the ψευδαπόστολοι.

page 253 note 2 Examples of misrepresentation in the New Testament: Acts xv. 24 (which should be taken with Gal. ii. 12, as well as ii. 4); II Cor. iv. 2; Phil. i. 17f.; II Thess. ii. 2 (a forged letter); II Peter, ii. 1Google Scholar; Rev. ii. 2.

page 253 note 3 a It should be remembered that the normal meaning of is not ‘missionary’ (the meaning Paul attached to it), but ‘agent’. This linguistic fact may account for some of the bitterness Paul felt about those who claimed apostolic status but did not do the work of pioneers.

page 253 note 4 In Baur's view, Peter and James were downright Judaizers. This they were not; but it is difficult to read Gal. ii and come to the conclusion that they saw eye to eye with Paul in all respects.

page 253 note 5 Peter himself may have been in Corinth; see ‘Cephas and Corinth’ in the Festschrift, Michel (p. 235 n. 1), pp. 1–12Google Scholar.

page 253 note 6 Cf. p. 238.

page 253 note 7 It is, I hope, clear that I am not using these terms in their modern sense, and would not presume to make any comment on movements within present-day Judaism.

page 253 note 8 See Gal. ii. 12, and the Decree of Acts xv. 20, 29. This seems to have been a compromise provision for making possible contacts between Jewish and gentile Christians.

page 254 note 1 That Judaizing Christian Jews thus accommodated themselves to the hellenistic criteria imposed by those who examined their claim to apostleship must have contributed to the development of gnosticism. It is unlikely that it happened only in Corinth. There is here an important field for further study.