Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians

Frances Young (exegete) and David F. Ford (theologian)

Ideas and materials for the introduction and occasional notes for exegesis

Introduction

A joint study by an exegete and a theologian concerned about the gap between the disciplines—the Scripture as simply “a vehicle for dogma” and “the text itself” as the only criterion of interpretation,” in place of the biblical critic being the one that would allow the Scriptures to “become the living Word of God” and

that Scripture has one true meaning and that the true meaning was its original meaning.” But “the historical-critical method, it is said, has not been able to yield any hermeneutic: it has simply produced a deep gulf between use of the Bible in the community of the Church, and specialist investigation into its background and language in the academic community.

Thus criticisms abound and other techniques and approaches tried. Though “the whole ‘post-critical movement has something to reach us, . . . it is often over-belligerent and less than honest about its debt to criticism” (2).

The importance of the historico critical method, even its theological import, dare not be sacrificed. Yet the “philological method [etc.] . . .

turned exegesis into a kind of archaeological study . . . a kind of idolatry of the facts. . . . it ignored questions about the potential meaning and truth of the biblical text for readers in other cultures and historical periods – the possibility of transcendence; and it appeared to make the critic the judge and master of the text, with the authority to determine what it was about (3).

Although there is of course “an inevitable hermeneutical circle whereby we find in the text what we are looking for”; yet while “the interpretation of texts can only be provisional,” and while “the reader brings a good deal to the text,” the reader also takes away something.. . . There is an external world and an external text that impinges upon uis, and to which our models of understanding approximate” (4).

Therefore “we refuse to accept that disciplined search for the meaning intended or assume by the author is not the proper starting-point for exegesis, especially in the case of a text which is so clearly the product of a particular set of circumstances in the past as is 2 Corinthians.” With the “’hermeneutical gap’ . . . how can the Word of God in Scripture be appropriated.” There is a place after taking the philological method seriously for “the possibility of meaning beyond what the author intended.” This

is not to give free range to the subjectivity or vested interests of the interpreter(s). It is simply to acknowledge the possibility of latent meanings discernible only with a subsequent perspective, and to recognize the mutual interaction of worlds involved in reading and responding to a text (5).

Thus biblical scholar is impatient because “the theologian sometimes seems to sit very lightly to the foundation documents of the faith,” while theologian is impatient because the biblical scholar “is preoccupied with irrelevant details or to be immersed in unsettlable debates, reluctant to raise questions about the fundamental truths to be found in the text”—“no dependable results.” What is assured is that

the Scriptures are not a collection of theological statements in an eternally unchangeable and permanently valid form. . . . They are documents arising out of particular events and particular situations, then subject to the changes and chance of textual transmission, deeply affected at every point by the contribution of fallible human agents, their sins of commission and their sins of omission. . . . Has theology taken seriously enough the fact that God has submitted himself to the changes and chances of human history and the fallibilities of humanity, not just through the incarnation, but in the very mode of his self-revelation in Scripture? In our view it is precisely this discovery about the nature of God which is potentially theologically fruitful, and coherent both with Paul’s theology of the cross expressed in 2 Corinthians (6).

The introduction closes with a reference to Buber’s ‘I-It’ and ‘I-Thou’ with the aim of exegesis the latter, although not to the neglect of the former (7). These perspectives may help to set forth the nature of 2 Corinthians as Scripture and the importance or justification of eventually looking “beyond the text” for contemporary relevance and meaning.

1 Discerning the Thrust of the Text

After defining the problems facing exegesis/translation the reader is invited to join the enterprise of “reading 2 Corinthians,” and while they are only giving a translation and not the commentary they created in the process, “every interpreter needs to create their own, and in doing so every interpreter will be dependent upon all other interpreters, both for what they borrow and for what they reject and react against” (11).

1 WHAT THE LETTER IS ABOUT

The letter is about the glory of God and the reputation of Paul, two closely related things, for the Greek word doxa means both. But Paul uses it for “reputation” only in 6:8 (dia doxēs kai atimias) They relate it to the Old Testament kabōd and its main occurrences in cc. 3-4 (no appearances of doxa after c. 8), but kauchēsis and kauchēma appear (12-13). The latter is used mostly positive in the first part but in the latter part becomes sensitive to their negative possibilities (cf. 10:17). But he nuances any distinctions.

Just precisely who the opponents were and their charges against him are difficult to ascertain, but for sure “there is a deep crisis of confidence in the relationship between Paul and his converts in Corinth.” To deal with this “Paul’s way of going about things had a certain idiosyncrasy, and did not conform to the norms in contemporary society. He did not seek patronage, or offer teaching for money. On the other hand, he was now trying to get money out of them for one thing and another, and his extreme caution about not handling the cash himself (8:20) suggest that suspicions surrounded this.” (14).

As they read and reread the text the authors became more convinced of the letter’s unity as making the better sense of the text:

There is a coherence of theme and vocabulary, of circumstanc3s presumed, of fundasmental aim that demands to be taken seriously. . . . Throughout, Paul’s fundamental aim, in the face of suspicions of his double-dealing, is to assert his utter transparency and openness and his single-mined commitment to his vocation. The focus is on the God who empowers him, as he tries to play down any powers of his own. Human wisdom and God’s grace are contrasted over and over again as Paul ranges from appeal to cajoling, warning, anguish, anger, love and longing in his efforts to get across to his perverse children. At one level he is indulging in an emotional self-justification; at another he is proclaiming a high theology of the cross – for God’s glory and power there supremely revealed in weakness, and it provides the models for his own pattern of ministry. In the end it is not a case of justifying himself, but of pleading with them not to forgo the salvation they received through his ministry –everything is for their said, and their future is at stake if they refuse to be reconciled with the spokesman of God, in other words, Paul. Over the whole letter hovers a sense of urgency arising from the reality of God’s final judgment. Then the truth will out. But what Paul is most anxious to achieve is mutual support and recognition when it comes to that appearance before God. The real sign of his apostleship is the community of the new covenant which he has formed. So he depends on them, just as they depend on him. A web of partnership, collaboration and interdependence is both affirmed and threatened in this letter, and it is this which makes the emotional tone both intense and (15) alternating. Crises of confidence are most painful when they arise within the most intimate relationships. . . . Paul’s reputation is at stake, and yet ‘everything is for your sake, so that grace abounding through more and more (of you) may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God’ (4:15). In this way the theology and circumstances cohere: the response of the community is important both for the reputation of Paul and for the glory of God, two things which are themselves indissolubly linked (16).

2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE WHOLE TEXT

See Thrall’s article, fn. 4, on the textual variant in 1:12. A Sidebar has been suggested. Take a look at Paul’s use of parakalō and paraklēsis and his choice of “encourage” as the best translation (17), which had been done through 6:1. A early Sidebar on this in 2 Cor. is suggested.

Follow through on his translation of 1:17b which he says no English translation “has correctly construed” (18; see pp. 35, 50. 56, 100-104, 212, 225. Think I did some). Check out his denial that ”there is an inexplicable hiatus in the narrative – 2:13 being taken up again in 7:6.” Keep in mind their statement that “there is an indissoluble link between responding to Paul and responding to God” (19). This was done 11/7/07.

But the nub of Paul’s argument concerns what true glory is. By implication he rejects the glory sought by most traveling preachers, the glory accorded by popularity and patronage. . . . . Paul suggests that the veil was to conceal the fact that it was fading, reading the idea into the text of Exodus 34. It was fading because it pointed beyond itself and would therefore become obsolete (we would suggest that telos in 3:13 is ambiguous and means both ‘end’ and ‘fulfillment’; we translate ‘outcome’). But this outcome, the real glory of God, is still veiled when Moses is read, and it is only when people turn to the Lord (. . .) that the veil is removed. Paul interprets that turning to the Lord as receiving the covenant of the Spirit imparted through Jesus Christ. Then the veil is removed, and complete openness is possible (20).

“Two things are at the heart of Paul’s intentions: the salvation of the Corinthians themselves (. . .), and the glory of God (4:15).” They live at two levels, the struggles of earthly existence and recreation for “quite another future” for which their life in the Spirit is the down payment. In 4:4 the apistoi are the “faithful who become unfaithful” rather than the “unbelievers” (21). Examined and rejected!

Paul is careful to avoid actually handling the money (8:16ff.). As he goes into cc. 10-13:

Now as he reaches the climax of his appeal Paul pulls out all the emotional stops. It remains an appeal for their response rather than an assertion of authority, and the word is parakalō. . . . [Get frequency] He reasserts the position he has taken all along: his campaign is God’s campaign, and that means he cannot be expected to use normal human techniques. Nor will they find him weak if he is forced to exert his authority, for everything is to be brought under the obedience of Christ. It really is Christ who speaks in him, whatever they think (cf. 13:1-3) (23). Pages 24-26 kind of trace Paul’s thought through chs 10-13.

2 Paul’s Case for the Defence

From the ‘instinct’ that the letter is to be read as a whole against prevailing critical opinion their argument for the unity of the letter takes the form a “search for the proper genre of this letter.” They see the law-court metaphor pervading Paul’s dealings with the Corinthians. So the conclusion of the chapter will be “that 2 Corinthians is to be construed as Paul’s apology in the quasi-technical sense of a ‘speech for the defence’, an apologia in absentia for Paul’s style of mission.” Suggested by this is “an overall structure which demonstrates the unity of the epistle” (27).

1 ARE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE UNITY OF THIS LETTER COGENT?

In this section he examines the arguments against the unity in terms cc. 10-13 against which “the only serious argument is the psychological one” (28-31), 6:14—7:1, 2:14—7:4, and cc. 8 & 9 (27-36).

2 WHAT IS THE GENRE OF 2 CORINTHIANS?

Here they begin to state a positive case for the unity of the letter ”based on a theory as to its genre” (36). The appeal is first to an apologetic speech in epistolary from purporting to be written by Demosthenes (Ep. 2), “a superb little example of the standard form of forensic speech in epistolary form” whose structural outline has contemporary documentation. The common structure outline was

Introduction or exordium (prooimion) to get attention, remove prejudices, self-presentation of speaker, but no direct appeal. The narrative (diēgēsis) gives an account of the events in view with witnesses. The proof(s) (pistis) consists of the meat of the speech backed up by witnesses and including refutations, etc. The peroration being the conclusion with recapitulation geared more emotions than the exordium. The authors suggest that “2 Corinthians as a unity has essentially this structure . . . (they proceed to sketch its contents in that light). 2 Corinthians, we suggest, is an apologetic letter, and as a whole conforms to the structure that such a letter would be expected to take, provided we accept its unity (37-40).

3 CAN OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY BE MET

Again the use of ancient rhetoric (according to John Chrysostom, George Kennedy, and Betz in their use of ancient rhetoric, but not the author’s full application) to make the above case “that 2 Corinthians was self-consciously conceived as an apology according to the norms of the day” and thus “confirms the generally accepted view that the letter was written to defend Paul’s apostleship” (40-44).

4 WHAT WAS THE SITUATION WHICH GAVE RISE TO THIS APOLOGY?

We are ignorant of much and should admit it. Lays out “the intimate connections of theme and language between the two Corinthian epistles [see his appendix to the chapter].” Mentions the theory of Cephas (Peter) perhaps being Paul’s main antagonist (44-49. Continues to discuss nature of Paul’s apostleship and lay out tentative conclusions (thin!) suggesting that our two letters is all that Paul wrote, “yet even this minimal attempt to reconstruct the situation has left us with most matters unsettled. . . . Which questions really matter?” In outline (reread) they were probably Jews, perhaps from Palestine, may have known Jesus, may have been following gospel mission instructions as found in Didache, and not aligned with any particular doctrine or anti-Pauline Judaizing movement (44-53).

5 WHAT CRITICAL CONCLUSIONS MATTER IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE TEXT?

All we need to know about Paul’s opponents is “what Paul thought of them.” The one critical conclusion that matters is that “the purport of the text is enshrined in its ‘genre’.” It is possible that Paul misjudged his audience and that they did not hear as he intended, but it is “possible to recognize Paul’s fundamental intention. He wishes to persuade the Corinthians that their doubts about him are unfounded, that he really is an apostle called of God, and that their reaction to him is of life and death significance.” And he can be heard differently by us, a spokesman for God, arrogant, or mad? Again they conclude “that there is much we cannot know definitely about the occasion of 2 Corinthians, but that the thrust of Paul’s argument is clear, provided we take the text as a unity, and understand its genre as that of an apologetic letter” (54-55).

Chapter concludes with an APPENDIX: THEMATIC AND VERBAL ANTICIPATIONS OF 2 CORINTHIANS IN 1 CORINTHIANS.

3 The Biblical Roots of Paul’s Perceptions2

The authors are interested in Paul’s self-understanding. Having explored the contribution of Hellenistic rhetorical structures and social norms they now move to the Jewish contribution (60-61). Already mentioned has been Jewish liturgical berakah and the terms oiktirmōn and paraklēsis reminiscent of the lament Psalms [Include in a sidebar, if at all? See 62-64]. They go on to speak of Paul’s “biblical spirituality,” personal self-understanding provided him by “the Psalms, prophets, and the Wisdom literature, possible to a greater extent than even Paul himself was aware” (62). Due to the works of W. D. Davies, A. T. Hanson, and E. P. Sanders “Paul has come to be seen as a converted Rabbi whose use of Scripture belongs to the rabbinic tradition.” They are concerned

To share the insight that Paul’s self-understanding and his perception of what was going on in Corinth were grounded in a deep assimilation of certain parts of Scripture and certain scriptural models. Paul is illuminated by the observation that he has ‘lived in the Bible’ to the point where the Bible has formed his whole outlook on how the world is and what his place in it might be (63).

1 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PSALMS

Paul’s constant theme is found in 4:7ff. In the light of this his confidence is first on the surface of the text in the resurrection, and second in the clue given by his quotation in 4:13 (see 9:9) from the Psalms: “the quotation from the Psalm proves to be the clue to the hjidden dynamic at work. . . . the language of the Psalms seems to have got into his bloodstream, and putting the Greek texts side by side makes this evident” (64). This they proceed to do exploring numerous allusions in 2 Corinthians to the Psalms. Particularly Psalms 110-118 have a bearing on what Paul is saying. Psalms 112-117 “are the Hallel Psalms traditionally used in the synagogue on the occasion of great festivals” suggesting that at least Paul was profoundly dependent on the Psalter in his life of faith, worship and mission. They conclude:

If we were to range more widely over the Psalter, we would find more hints that this gives as quite fundamental insight into the basis of Paul’s assurance. Throughout the Psalter we find the language of hope, trust and confidence in the midst of affliction. . . . Finally the Psalmist prays to be led in God’s way, anticipating Paul’s insistence that he follows where God leads. If, as is very probably, the Psalms were his lifelong prayerbook and hymnbook, it is scarcely surprising that they almost unconsciously moulded his spirituality, and as his focus shifted from Pharisaic ideology to apostolic vocation, so the words of the Psalms came to carry new meaning and significance for his life of faith (64-69).

2 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROPHETS

Significant first was the call of Jeremiah “out of the womb” (see Gal 1:15; 2 Cor 10:8; 13:10; 12:19 allude to Jer 38:22-28LXX; 24:6; 51:34), and then that in relation to his proclamation of covenant (31:31; LXX 38). See especially on 1:24 (71). Then to Paul’s use of “boasting” in relation to Jeremiah, the latter’s words being “deeply written into Paul’s self-understanding.” “Paul’s key text on the subject of ‘boasting’ comes from Jeremiah rather than the Psalms” (2 Cor 10:17; Jer 9:23ff. LXX) (72-74). The fact that both Hosea and Ezekiel are explicitly quoted is significant with Ezekiel (6:16; see Ezek 37:6-28) being clearly important for Paul in relation to Spirit, resurrection, and covenant especially as a covenant of death and condemnation (74-75). Their view of Paul’s thorn in the flesh appears related to McCant’s views Ezek 28:24; Num 33:55) (76). Isaiah, especially the Servant Songs, even Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah have suggestive material (76-78). They conclude

Surely, that Paul had assimilated much of the prophets, and his dependence upon them goes far beyond the specific quotations and allusions that he makes. From them he found the terms and ideas in which to interpret his vocation and role. From them he learned to discern what was going on in the disturbed church at Corinth. From them he learned what his message had to be, a message of encouragement, and yet also coming with the tones of warning and appeal (78).

3 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WISDOM LITERATURE

Themes like boast, singleness of heart, trust, counsel, and the aroma of wisdom are illustrated. 2 Corinthians 3:18 may reflect wisdom being described as a mirror in that Paul identified Christ with the wisdom of God. And Proverbs is quoted in cc. 8 and 9 with possible allusions elsewhere (78-80).

4 PAUL AND THE SCRIPTURES

The case they have been documenting is that

Paul had ‘lived’ in his Bible, used it in study, devotion and prayer, to the point where certain features of the scriptural material had come to mould his self-understanding and his discernment of what was going on in the conflict between himself and the church at Corinth (80).

Especially in the case of 2 Corinthians 3 was Paul’s clue provided by the prophets and his view of Torah. For the “covenant mediated by Moses had brought about destruction, death and the exile,” an effect continuing into the present, the solution to which was a new covenant, written not on stone tables, but on the heart, a “re-creation of sinful humanity in the image of God, to be as it was intended to be, to be obedient to God’s will without conflict or distraction.” But this did not mean that Moses’ covenant was not God’s covenant, lacking God’s glory. Therefore “even more than Jeremiah, Moses is the figure on which Paul’s ministry is modeled; for like Moses he is God’s delegate, the spokesman sent with a covenant.” He is the ‘type’ or ‘model’ of Paul’s role, and so Paul’s parrhēsia (81-82). Again the roots of Paul self-understanding in his deep assimilation of Scripture is touched.

It seems to us unlikely that in 2 Cor 3 Paul is answering claims sor arguments of his opponents. It seems that here again we touch the roots of Paul’s self-understanding in his deep assimilation of the Scriptures. The sense that the Word of God had begun to be fulfilled in Christ set, loose a flood of creative insight, as Paul saw himself caught up in the fulfillment process. The Scripture were about whast was going on, they were his guide and they gave him his prayers.

But since Paul’s use of Scripture is often illuminated by rabbinic parallels and the methods of midrash, typology and allegory does not mean with the ‘liberal’ critics who feel that we are not to be tied to Paul’s use of Scripture, or like the conservative interpreters who feel that Paul ‘free’ use of Scripture according to the ‘spirit’ and not the ‘letter’ was justified then when the radical newness of Christ had to be worked out, but cannot be justified now. Rather Paul leads us to a dynamic hermeneutic where Scripture has

such a creative bearing on the lives of believers in different ages, cultures and situations, not though some kind of search for mechanical correspondence, but by a two-way process of bringing a situation to bear on reading their Bible, and letting the language of the Bible provide a language for expressing and even discerning what is going on the present. For Paul everything was to be made captive to Christ. In a similar way, text needs to be tested against text, and all needs to be subject to the Spirit of Christ. But the Spirit means freedom. The use of critical method, liberation from literalism, can make possible a more dynamic ‘living in the Bible’; for the new covenant is not based on the letter but on the Spirit (83-84).

Will this chapter contribute to the Introduction? Yes. Should there be a paragraph/essay on Paul and the significance and impact of his scriptural understanding in the “theology” section of the Introduction? His hermeneutical comments are especially relevant. Do it in summary form and document Y & F and others?

4 Determining the Meaning of the Text

The chapter argues against interpretation always involving circularity and subjectivity and begins with some common sense observations about meaning (85-89).

1 DETERMINING THE MEANING OF WORDS

As he works through the various problems of determining the meaning of words he gives helpful illustrations that are worth checking out for the commentary interpretation.

HOW DO WE DISCSS MEANING WHEN THE ORIGINAL SENSE OF A WORD IS UNKNOWN OR DISPUTABLE? See discussion of 3:18: “Despite the weight of evidence about Greek usage, there are good reasons for thinking that Paul intended to suggest not merely beholding, but reflecting” (90-94). Re-read my exegesis. See his use of John Chrysostom for “double meaning.” Concludes:

The thrust of the whole passage 2:17—4:6 concerns the appropriate glory of the minister of the new covenant, a glory received from God, not sought from men. The word chosen suggests a living metaphor which enhances that overall theme, and seems more appropriately rendered ‘reflect’ than ‘behold’, though certainly implying the latter also”(93). (ii) HOW DO WE DEAL WITH WORDS WHERE GREEK AND ENGLISH LACK PRECISE EQUIVALENTS?

Discusses parrhēsia in 3:12 (and elsewhere?) which he links to the “unveiling” (94-96), charis (96-98), dokimē in chs 2, 8, 9; 10:18, and ch 13 (98-100).

` As Betz saw, the issue of dokimē , who needs to be ‘proved’, and the criteria by which this ‘proving’ is to be carried out, is at the heart of the argument of this epistle. Whether the Corinthians are dokimoi or not depends on whether they concede dokimē to Paul or to his opponents. So this untranslatable word lies at the heart of Paul’s apology, while also enabling him to turn the tables on his critics; because in the end, they cannot put him on trial’; the final judgment in the heavenly court hovers over them all. Their mutual dependence when that final judgment comes, because they depend on the ambassador for their membership of the new covenant community, and he depends on them for proof of his faithful service in response to the vocation of God, means that the issue of their relationship is the real dokimē – the testing and the proof – by which they will all be judged (99). Next paragraph significant for ch 13.

2 CONSTRUING SENTENCES

The author again discusses 2 Corinthians 1:17b in which “all English translations and standard commentaries have construed the Greek incorrectly.” (100-104). Check this out again.

3 TRACING THE SEQUENCE OF THOUGHT

Check out the highlighted issues (105-109).

4 DISCERNING THE REFERENCE OF THE TEXT

(i) REFERENCE TO MATTERS OF FACT

Touched are the situation in Corinth and the thorn in the flesh (109-111),

(ii) CROSS-REFERENCE

Deals with aphormē in 11:12 (111-112).

(iii) REFERENCE TO TRANSCDENDENT REALITIES

Check him on 3:17, but more importantly on 1:22 on the reference of the twofold “we” (114-115). No one seems to agree, Our “us . . . us” interpreted as inclusive.

Very important to consider is his case for God rather than Satan being meant in “god of this age” (115-118). Sidebar has been suggested. 5 DETERMINING IMPLICIT PRESUPPOSITIONS

After discussing possible Gnostic background, his discussion/presentation of how apocalyptic was a part of Paul’s world view, both what he used and what he did not use is useful; “The cross is for him the secret plan of God, . . .” (124) See his application to 1:5ff. especially on p. 126 “the secret power of the cross” (118-127). Be alert to use this language. These pages of use if an apocalyptic sidebar is written?

6 EXPOUNDING THE MEANING OF THE TEXT

As a sample he expounds 4:7-5:10 that deserves a careful read (127-134) along with a re-read of my exposition: “Paul’s language about affliction and God’s power anticipates 12:9-10: God’s grace is sufficient, power is perfected in weakness, and weaknesses are what Paul boasts of (exults in)” (129). Do sometime!

7 THE TEXT AND THE INTERPRETER

This summary essay partaking of personal confession (136) will be very helpful for “theology” and “hermeneutical” sections. Some statements:

In fact, responsible exegesis creates a ‘spiral’ of understanding. One need not be trapped in a circle (134).

However objective the research, the researcher needs to be inspired by a passionate need to discover the truth, and by an appreciaton of the beauty of new discoveries (134).

This does not mean that relativity rules, but that subjectivity, objectivity and community have to be kept in balance, . . .” (135).

Personal confession and application 135-136 provides a most helpful hermeneutical statement: It is not just that the interpreter’s perceptions and experiences have influenced the interpretation of Paul, but also that Paul has moulded the interpreter’s perceptions” (136).

Concluding statement on page 137:

Personal insight and judgment must be informed and critically tested against the insight and judgment of other informed interpretation. Given this dimension, progress in understanding is a real experience. Meaning is in principle determinable, even if in practice we have to live with large areas of uncertainty, and even if we refuse to restrict it to authorial intention. Debates about meaning are not always settable, but they are debates about objective realities. There is a difference between eisegesis and exegesis, and the more informed we are, the more it is possible to sense where the line is to be drawn (137).

5 Hermeneutics and 2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians is a fascinating focus for hermeneutics, the art and theory of interpretation (139).

2 Corinthians is a text that challenges one’s way of living, so that issue is built into the task of more adequate reading (140).

1 HOW IS HERMENEUTICAL THEORY RELEVANT TO 2 CORINTHIANS?

2 OF WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IS IT THAT 2 CORINTHIANS IS CONSTITUTED BY LANGUAGE?

One of the most interesting features of hermeneutics is that it undercuts the split between theory and practice. . . .

There is no ‘innocent’ perception of self for world. Our experience comes through the categories, concepts, symbols and whole worlds of meaning which we have internalized. These in turn are inseparable from our culture, our behavior, our values, hopes and fears. And all of this is the product of a long history still in process. We never start from scratch, and language is the most intimate form of our involvement with history and society.

Language is not just a convenient labeling of the ‘real’ world. Rather it is itself a unique, pervasive constituent of our reality, and is dynamic and even creative as it mediates our relationship with each other, the world and ourselves. How far does our interpretation of 2 Corinthians reflect this (142)? The answer is” very far indeed (143).

2 Corinthians reflects this nature of language thoroughly.

3 WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FACT THAT 2 CORINTHIANS IS A WRITTEN TEXT?

It can be said that Paul’s letters are ‘a substitute for his presence’, but what is the particular nature of this substitute?

It can be misunderstood and misused Such are the dangers of writing. It is an action whose consequences can go far beyond the intentions of the agent. But all this points to the role of interpretation, especially of an ‘occasional’ wrting such as 2 Corinthians, in attempting to make the distancing productive. One opinion in Corinth was that Paul was more powerful in letters than in person (10:10), in church history it is arguable that he has been more powerful in other ages than in his own (144).

4 WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GENRE OF 2 CORINTHIANS?

We See it as a letter primarily akin to the common ancient genre of the written legal defence.

However, the genre of writing is not always the same as the genre of reading. Some view it as “canon” and some as a “historical document” (146). Justice must be done to both in interpretation.

5 HOW RELEVANT TO THE MEANING OF 2 CORINTHIANS IS PAUL’S OWN INTENTION?

By intention we mean the probable original sense of the words and construction of 2 Corinthians when understood in relation to whatever else we know of Paul, his language and his environment (147).

But going beyond it is only justifiable on condition that the original intention is always present in informing and confronting the further meaning that emerges. . . . In short, the aim is only to go beyond Paul’s meaning by going through it; or, better, by taking it along as a constant partner to be questioned, listened to and criticized (148).

6 HOW IMPORTANT FOR ITS INTERPRETATION IS THE CONTEXT OF 2 CORINTHIANS?

Two contexts: (1) the rest of the letter and (2) the rest of Paul’s letters and the whole first century, environment and history. The process of contextualization can be infinite, and there is a ‘hermeneutical circle,’ but the extremes of the autonomy of the text and dissolving the text into its context by explaining it completely in those terms are unsatisfactory. Rather “context and content interact with each other and the result is not a circle but a hermeneutical spiral” (150).

7 CAN THE ‘HERMENEUTICAL GAP’BETWEEN OURSELVES AND 2 CORINTHIANS BE OVERCOME?

Use is made of Gadamer’s two horizons which must be united “in such a way that justice is done to the text’s integrity and otherness while it is also allowed to question and expand our understanding” (151).

Gadamer’s ‘fusion of horizons’ also insists the text’s claim to truth being taken seriously. . . . The past is not a closed circle with a periphery, and neither is the present. They are both part of a continuous history mediated by language. . . . Our horizon today has been formed partly by 2 Corinthians and the tradition in which it has participated. . . . ‘Gap’ is therefore a misleading image, suggesting some neutral buffer zone separating us from the past (152).

8 HOW SUBJECTIVE IS OUR INTERPRETATION OF 2 CORINTHIANS?

Subjectivity cannot be eliminated so the task is to become critically aware of it and to discipline it in ways appropriate to the text (153).

Biblical commentators are often so caught in the conventions of a falsely ‘scientific’ idea of their task that they fail to take the risks needed to help readers appreciate an explosive subject matter that stretches our imagination as well as other capacities.

The ‘ethical’ dimension is introduced as well as the fact of the interpretation of the text “for all its concern with texts of the past it is an activity in the present oriented to the future.” 2 Corinthians has to do with the risen Christ who will judge us, etc. So “the interpreter of this theological text must be prepared to face the questions of God and the gospel as they affect his or her own horizon” (154-155).

9 WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF 2 CORINTHIANS?

They attempt to find the best way of describing the interpretive process as appropriate to 2 Corinthians. They lay out their approach to truth in several theses (155-156) with a summary conclusion following:

We all understand ourselves, implicitly and partly explicitly, as part of a story with a past, present and future. Reading 2 Corinthians is an event in that story that has the possibility of opening a different future. So the truth of the letter is an event of meaning inviting a response in terms of our whole understanding and way of being. This conception of truth is in line with the content of the letter. Its prime orientation is to Go and his future for the world. This is mediated by the gospel and dynamically worked out by the Spirit as seen as the realizer of God’s future. The main events of its overarching story as created by God, Israel’s history with God, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ understood as the “Yes’ to God’s promises and the inauguration of a ‘new creation’ in the midst of the old, the present time of conflict between old and new, and the future judgment and consummation. In all this the urgent stress is on the future being opened up and the implications of this good news. So any view of the truth of the letter which fails to face its challenge to our most fundamental orientation is inadequate (157).

They ask, “Is this really true?” as they proceed to discuss the challenge of relativism (157-158):

The most we can do is to make assessments in line with our best efforts at understanding and explanation, trying to be as honest and self-critical as possible. Our unavoidable relatives should (if we are responsible interpreters) be constantly opening up to better understanding, explanation and assessment, but that by no means rules out claims to truth now. Out final chapter is such an affirmation about the theological content. of 2 Corinthians (158).

10 HOW SHOULD THE ‘HERMENEUTICS OF SUSPICION’ BE APPLIED TO 2 CORINTHIANS?

The ‘hermeneutics of retrieval’ and the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ (anti-tradition) cannot be synthesized in one integrated perspective, yet both are needed. Contrary to the master of suspicion, the tradition of Paul is worth retrieving, though not uncritically. Paul’s “appeal throughout is to the supreme critical instance, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is a drastic critique of all tradition and signifies a new freedom and the breaking in of a new and hopeful future. It is a ‘dangerous memory’, and its content forbids any past-oriented, antiquarian retrieval ” (158-159). The most fundament form of this ‘suspicion’ is directed at the content of Paul’s gospel. There is no synthesis for “the problem is that one’s whole horizon is at stake, so the attempt to answer them involves a complete programme of interpretation and theology, not to mention one’s values and way of living. . . . One fundamental issue is the demand for self-certainty and human autonomy. For Paul this would be a clear instance of living ‘at the human level’ (kata sarka), whereas living by grace in faith (kata pneuma) comes from a securith placed inChrist” (160).

Besides the suspicion aimed at the content of the letter “is another, related suspicion directed at the communicational process of which the letter has been and is a part, Should we take the rhetoric of 2 Corinthians at face value?” This leads to a host of questions (161).

11 HOW CAN 2 CORINTHIANS BE APPROPRIATED AND APPLIED BY READERS?

The possibility requires a freedom to let the worlds of objective historical meaning and subjective experiential meaning “play together, experimenting to find and construct the right fusion without confusion,” for “the Bible has suffered terribly from the extremes of subjectivism and objectivism.” So the call is for a properly qualified subjectivism and objectivism--“a responsible reading” (162).

CONCLUSION

With “the grandfather of hermeneutical theory, Aristotle, it is the search for phronēsis, that wisdom which has to do with the contingencies and particularities of life and of text as part of life” (163). The quote from Matthew Lamb is interesting.

6 The Economy of God: Exploring a Metaphor

1 ASPECTS OF METAPHOR

The chapter opens with a definition and discussion of metaphor (footnotes are useful) having already touched upon it in chapter four. The metaphor chosen, economy permeates 2 Corinthians so the authors’ aim is “to explore the whole letter in terms of the basic metaphor of ‘economy of God’” (166-170). This is set in the background of the Hellentistic and Jewish economies of Paul’s day. Should anything be said about metaphor in the introduction?

2 PAUL AND ECONOMY

They demonstrate that Paul uses the metaphor of “economy of God” for “oikonomia wass a very fruitful metaphor om Christian expression” (170).

Their themes include “

3 GOD’S WORK, THE CENTRAL RESOURCE

4 THE ECONOMICS OF ABUNDANCE.

This is importance to consider throughout the letter, e.g., ‘grace’, for the background is the limitations of the secular economy, and Paul’s vision is opposite. The four main passages that make this abundance explicit are 1:3-11; cc. 3-4; cc. 8-9, and cc. 10-12 (171-174).

5 THE CHRISTIAN ECONOMY

“exchange is crucial to Paul’s argument.” Here the themes are ministry, reconciliation (money exchange background), and the final glorious state which begins in the now and completed in the final glorious state (174-176). Check use of “exchange” in my treatment of reconciliation.

6 GOD’S FINANCES

Contains helpful information and perspectives in relation to chs 8-9 perhaps especially for “from the text” (176-180). Dahl: “He expresses himself in a way which is impossible to translate” (176). 7 TWO SYSTEMS IN COMPETITION

Paul’s “two systems” language represented by kata sarx and kata pneuma may be of use, but not sure where.

Deals with the issue of missionary support and Paul as a tentmaker for which he was criticized:

Yet for Paul to work to support himself was controversial. Other missionaries saw it as part of their own legitimation that they trusted in God and the generosity of others. So Paul could be seen as evading both the command of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 9.14)) and the risk of charismatic poverty that it involved. His financial self-support could be interpreted as living kata sarka (at the human level (2 Cor. 10.2), trusting in his own efforts rather than in God (182).

His trade was an indication of his social status, see quote on 183 and how Paul transformed it all by conformity to the central reality of the death of Jesus in relation to his apostleship (183).

Brings theme into argument of chs 10-13 all leading to Paul’s “most vivid statement of life kata pneuma: ‘My grace is sufficient for you; for power is perfected in weakness’ (12:9). They conclude that Paul

Is clear that the highest stakes are at issue and he ties the local matters inextricably into the heart of his gospel. The use of metaphor is just one way in which he does this, but it does have a vital role both in taking up all of life into the movement of the gospel and in elucidating the meaning of the gospel itself (180-184).

7 Church and Society in Corinth

This chapter makes use of a major growth area in recent scholarship, the sociology or social world, of early Christianity. See Furnish and Meeks.

1 THE CHURCH AS PART OF CORINTHIAN SOCIETY

Sketches Corinth, its history and its people. Majors on the nature of its society and it works, status, honor and its relation to Paul’s boasting, the patron-client relationship in relation to Paul, and how an alien group such as the “body of Christ” would function in it:

When Paul uses the cross as his criterion for glory and ironically surpasses conventional grounds for boasting by placing his pride in his humiliations and weaknesses he is hitting at the heart of this culture – or, as he puts it, at ‘pride in achievements at the human level’ (11:18).

Judaism as part of that society and the nature of the household community are also areas to consider in the introduction and places in the commentary 186-197).

2 INSIDE THE COMMUNITY

If 12:19,

All along you’ve been thinking that I was making my apology to you. Before God we speak in Christ: everything has been for your building up, my beloved,

is taken seriously as a “statement of the main intention of the letter . . . then the sort of community that Paul was building up is central to grasping his meaning (197).

Examined are the nature of the Christian community in sociological terms, and its uniqueness and function in the larger community for “in Paul’s letter we see the signs of a new cultural and linguistic entity being formed through faith in the gospel.” Note its features (197-200).

3 THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL DESCRIPTION TO THE INTERPRETATION OF 2 CORINTHIANS

By it we are enabled to enter the “common sense” of the world of 2 Corinthians.

The relevance of 2 Corinthians may be in what he does with the letter, breaking with other Christian practice to establish Christianity in a new context. His preaching a gospel with the crucifixion at its heart makes for the possibility of that relevance (200-201).

Paul is preaching a gospel which in the crucifixion has at it heart a reality that radically criticizes attempts to live by ‘the letter’ or ‘the law’. This frees his letters to be more relevant. They may, of course, sometimes have direct lessons for modern situations, but there is not rule that they must. The problems of status distinctions in the church, of the boundaries of the church, of powerful elites which simply mirror the world’s way of running organizations, of authority outside the local congregation, of order and freedom in worship, of innovation in tradition, and much else are perennial 201).

So the social historical approach can be taken up into the larger project of theological retrieval. It can also fuel a hermeneutic of suspicion. This can take various forms (202),

Affinities with the Corinthian society “are neutral as regards fundamental conclusions about the truth of Paul’s gospel.” They may either be reductionistic or illustrate the incarnational nature of the gospel, always inextricable from particular conditional situations. But they certainly call in question some ways of using the letters in theology (203). He explains. Of use in “theology/hermenetics”?

8 The Authority of Paul

As a main issue between Paul and the Corinthians authority is important for the interpretation of 2 Corinthians, and thus for the rest of the New Testament. Also “recent centuries have seen a crisis of authority in Christianity and other spheres which has had fundamental and worldwide repercussions. .c.c. Authority can . . . be initially defined as a form of the exercise of power which involves the right to power” (207). It is not surprising that it was a contentious issue in the early church. He describes method of chapter on p. 208.

1 PAUL AND AUTHORITY IN 2 CORINTHIANS

Since “the whole letter can be seen as an example of Paul’s exercise of authority,” this section (and chapter?) needs to be carefully digested before treating chs 10-13.. Paul’s central appeal is to God, the vital medium is “the gospel of God,” and the relationship is triangular, the second aspect being Paul, the Corinthians, God (208-209).

Paul is different from others in relation to the Corinthians, the most contentious side of his authority. He founded the church and has a continuing responsibility for it. Although differentiated from the gospel as its servant and spokesman, his identification with the message is “union with the one who was poor, humble, weak, and dead,” and must involve a critique of other sorts of authority, and of all boasting and pride (210).

But the third aspect of the trianglar relationship focuses the authority issue in Corinth on the content of his apostleship. It consisted of three overlapping types—authoritative figures, that of status, and that which came with the gift of the Spirit including apostleship. This needs to be reread for the first mention of Paul’s apostleship in c. 1, and of course kept in mind all through the interpretation of the letter. See on Paul’s dilemma and the accusations against him as he comes to chs 10-13—all important for our treatment of these chapters (211-214).

2 WHAT SORT OF AUTHORITY IS THIS?

“Paul conceives his authority as being in the service of the new economy of God and, as part of that, enabling the building up of the church.” But what sort of authority is that? 1) Embodied, not idealist. (2) Not individualist or monarchical for source is God alone “through Christ, by having the gospel shared, by giving the Spirit” (215). (3) Vulnerable, a built in fragility that makes it what it is. (4) Crucial role of interpretation—relevance of letter’s whole content and form to its way of exercising authority. (5) Eschatological. (6) Pervasive feature of this authority is its appeal to God (216-217).

But when viewed with suspicion? Spins this out for two pages.

Our conclusion is that, far from being an oppressive authoritarian, Paul was working out, with some success, a pattern of authority that enabled a set of social relations through which there was new freedom energy and mutuality. . . . the picture as one ‘of a great fluidity, of a complex, multipolar, open-ended process of mutual discipline’.[Meeks] (217-220).

3 2 CORINTHIANS AND AUTHORITY IN THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION

(i) Ministry—Paul’s discussion a milestone on the road to church order or the institutionalization of the church. Lengthy discussion with central sentence being unpacked is that “the main challenge of Paul for a modern Christian understanding of authority is to work it through as thoroughly and in as intrinsic a relation to the gospel as he did.” For “it is clear that any fundamentalist attempt to reduplicate a first-century model is impossible and also contradicts Paul’s own theology of the Spirit.” The authors present six principles in question form for working out the form and content of church authority (220-225) This discussion may be useful in theology section. (ii) The Twofold Canon of Scripture: Use and contribution of Paul, and dangers of canon. Concludes with a very good paragraph on a post-critical understanding of the canon: many genres, gospel of Jesus Christ content, its testimony is its authority, and this testimony involves “God himself in the process of understanding and applying the Scriptures as knowledge of God; so the presence of God is, as Kelsey convincingly argues, intrinsic to the function of Scripture as Christian canon.” The role of 2 Corinthians in the canon is primarily “as witness to the God of Jesus Christ in the context of the rest of the canon” (225-230). Significant for Hermeneutics. 4 THE AUTHORITY OF PAUL TODAY Why? “because what Paul took seriously deserves to be taken seriously - the gospel, Jesus Christ, God.” Community, canon, and practical challenges—his interpretation distressing to liberal and conservatives alike—Paul’s vision, “a theological purification of authority through the gospel. Is it possible to have a specifically Christian concept of authority which, in community, unites the freedom ‘where the Spirit is’ (3:17) with ’the love of Christ constraining us’ (5.14 Only, Paul suggests, if the vision informing that is of the authority of God, his glory known ‘in the face of Christ’ (4:6.)” (230-231). 5 A CADENZA: THE FACE OF CHRIST The main features or Paul’s idea of authority can be related to the face of Christ. . . . Its authority is relational, interactive and non-coercive. It is both an embodiment of ultimate authority, the glory of God, and also is distributed, ‘shining in our hearts’. It is an interpretative authority, communicating knowledge, and is eschatological; a vision imperfectly grasped by faith until the final ’face to face’. To live in faith before this face is to have a criterion for all authority and a liberation from the idolatries of power. Above all it is live in freedom and love, in which the very issue of authority, which is always secondary for Paul, is swallowed up in the realty it serves, ‘transformation into that self-same image, from glory to glory’ (3:18). That is the Church being built up, which is the only purpose of Paul’s authority (232). 9 God and the Corinthians [This chapter is important to read before concluding “Theology” in the Introduction.] This chapter is a theological essay about God in an engagement with 2 Corinthians. The focus is of course Paul’s “gospel of God” which centers in Jesus Christ, the face of Christ as revealed in cross/resurrection. 1 THE TASK The climax of the task of reading 2 Corinthians must be to take Paul seriously as a theologian in the sense of one who speaks of God” (235).

Attempts to work out in a defining perspective how the unique nature as a letter, etc. of 2 Corinthians, relates to the nature and results of that task. The chief difficulty is the content of what Paul says (236-238).

2 POWER, CHRIST AND GOD

Running through the letter is the reconception of God in relational terms.

In 2 Corinthians, with its focus on authority, the leading concept is that of power. . . . Under the pressures of the challenge to his authority Paul says tings that change not only the notion of power, but also of the God who is the ultimate power. How does Paul give substance to this transformation? The answer is simple: by means of the gospel (239).

The discussion leads to the position that

that Paul’s gospel has led him to speak of God in relation to Jesus Christ and the events of his crucifixion and resurrection in such a way that his concept of God is transformed. God and Jesus Christ are spoken of as intrinsic to each other. Something ultimate has happened which will not allow either to be conceived without the other, and this goes to the hear of who each is. . . . There is no simple identification of Jesus with God, but the differentiation is that there is a unique, intrinsic relationship constitutive of who God is. To put it starkly, if Christ ‘is the image of God’ (4.4), and Christ was weak, poor, ‘made into sin’ (5:21), and dead, then we must try to think the almost unthinkable. The relationship of God’s very being and glory to weakness, poverty, sin and death must be rethought. The resistance to doing such thinking in the Christian (241) tradition has been immense.

At issue was God’s absoluteness now shown by the atheistic critique to be unchristian in nature. Attempts have been made historically which become “the horizon within which the interpretation of 2 Corinthians is situated. . . . an especially opportune time for that letter to be heard” (242).

Paul’s understanding of the knowledge of God in the gospel (5:14-15) “radically affects the idea of God’s transcendence” (243). Bonhoeffer, Jüngel, Moltmann (244-246):

Theology itself is always in danger of turning into an ideology that domesticates or manipulates God, or renders him as transcendent in false ways. The cross negates such developments. . . . What about the resurrection? . . . The danger is that the content of the resurrection, this crucified man, is separated from the event of the resurrection.

But that does not mean that God sets everything right from the outside, the ever prevalent danger of a sort of triumphalism. In 2 Corinthians

it is easy to see how the nature of God’s power is at stake in Paul’s authority, and how the main threat is to conceive power and success in terms that divorce the resurrection from the content of crucifixion. Resurrection is not (246) simply a reversal of death, leaving death behind it. . . . Christendom, Christianity triumphant, wants to start with the resurrection, and does not see that the resurrection is only reached through the cross. . . . The order of the gospel story is irreversible and its contents are cumulative. . . . It is the logic of this story that presses Christian theology towards the complex talk of unity and differentiation God that later developed. The story means that the reality of death has been relativized in this particular way. The general meaning of death (. . .) is challenged, and it is now defined (247) by its relationship to Jesus Christ ‘one died for all – so all died’ (514).

2 Corinthians 1:8-10 and 4:10-12

frame the section of the letter that is most helpful in showing Paul’s concept of transcendence in operation, and in that section we also find the most original contribution of the letter to theological thought. The abundance and overflow of God’s economy are represented through a historical transcendence that never ignores or bypasses the negativities. Paul brings it to a densely –packed climax in 4:6. Just as 4.5-7 was the most useful interpretative key to the letter’s approach to authority (above p. 212, 232), so now the central verse 4:6 condense the theology of God in the letter, while also offering the letter’s most distinctive idea of identifying God. It is no accident that the thrust of the letter on authority should converge with that on God, and it is of the utmost theological importance that should be recognized and thought through (248).

3 THE FACE OF CHRIST [I should re-read my exegesis in the light of this section].

“How does 4:6 summarize what we have been saying about God? (248). . . . The light that is given focuses on God through the particular face of Christ, and that embraces the whole gospel.

Most important is “the face of Christ,” the theological heart of the letter and a symbol for God: “Clearly the face of Christ is a symbol for the gospel.” What can we learn from this? (249). Language and insight added to the text.

The implications seem to be that this face is intrinsic to who God is, and that that revolutionizes our understanding of death and God and all reality. . . . Knowledge is given its true focus and criterion in this face. . . . In the light of this face the Christian meaning of contingency and freedom becomes clearer (50).

This discussion leads to the new creation and to “the secret of Paul’s ministry” (3:9-12) for “faith is living before the face of Christ in free thanks, prayer and praise, and ministry is this parrhēsia over death and life. So “if God’s glory in the face of Christ shows who God is, and if this glory is shared with us in a way that ‘transforms us into that self-made image, from glory to glory’ (3:18), usual notions of identity need to be transformed too” (251). So the face sums up the new identity, the face as “at once the mark of unique personality and the embodiment of receptivity to others.”

A new criterion of truth for the face of Christ is the clue to the idea of truth most appropriate to the letter’s theology. “More precisely, if the truth has a name and a face which belong to one who is living then the urgent thing is to make an introduction and allows the relationship to develop from there. The gospel is therefore testimony: “The testimony is irreducible: its content is this person who poses a challenge, but whose truth cannot be ultimately justified by any more general considerations” (252).

The authority of witness, a message about a person, so this “logic of Paul’s claim to truth . . . continues to be the logic of Christian truth. . . . So our approach to the truth of 2 Corinthians is primarily to elucidate the message in such a way that it can continue to confront readers with the face of Christ and all that is meant by that” (253). Discussing the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas ends up with the assertion that “God therefore represents, negatively, a critique of any understanding of reality (ontology) that unifies it by ignoring the ultimate pluralism of the face to face, and, positively, the priority of ethics over ontology” (254).

4 WHAT ABOUT THE TRINITY? [Re-read this whole discussion when totally alert!]

This section contains a helpful discussion the relation of Paul in 2 Corinthians to the classical doctrine of the trinity with such summary or indicative statements as “the rule is: never refer to God in one way without intending also each of the others,” and “the economic is to be identified with doxological Trinity, and there is not ‘hidden God’ different from Jesus Christ.” So the mystery of God is not eliminated for “who can comprehend Jesus Christ fully? But it does insist that the glory of God is none other than that in the face of Christ” (255-260).

5 CONCLUSION [Ponder for theology]

The Glory of God was our working title for this book because we see all the main themes and issues of the letter converging there. Gospel, Old Testament, Church and society, authority, ministry, eschatology and the whole economy of God are essentially related to and interpret the glory of God. It is also the criterion of the fundamental distinction running through the letter between living kata sarka, according to human or worldly standards, or kata pneuma, according to the Spirit. . . . We have taken the doctrine of God and his glory as the main area for more theological reflection. We might also have taken reconciliation through Christ or the doctrine of ministry or of the Church or of revelation, and the whole letter could have been explored from those standpoints. The sheer density and fruitfulness of the letter tempted us in many other directions too. But the glory of God seemed the right primary focus, as it points to the letter’s theological profundity as well as it practical purpose, and offers both the widest horizon and the central image at the heart of gospel, the face of Christ. In line with that combination of universality and particularity in the content of the letter, our interpretation has tried to elucidate both the meaning in its original context and its wider significance. As Paul says, ‘Who is adequate for these things?’ But the text by which would wish to be judged is whether the reader of 2 Corinthians finds the meaning and truth of the letter illuminated by our efforts. To encourage this experiment we conclude with our translation of the text (260).

10 Reading the Text: Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians

To cap their interpretative investigations the authors present their own translation which now should be read thoughtfully. This should be read with Greek in hand, especially before starting the exegesis of chs 10-13. Would not hurt to read it in light of our treatment of chs. 1-9.