|
A particularly crucial issue is the treatment of this text
in arguments for X=Lost, as represented in the now classic commentary of
Prof. Furnish on 2 Corinthians. It is therefore worthwhile to offer an
analysis of the text, assuming either (i) that the X-Letter is lost, or (ii)
that the X-Letter is to be identified with H/10–13.
2 Corinthians 12:16-18
16Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you
say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit. 17Did I take
advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? 18I
urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Titus did not take
advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves with the same spirit?
Did we not take the same steps?
|
(i) Assuming X=Lost |
(ii) Assuming X=H/10-13 |
Rumors of fraud, as early as intermediate visit
|
Rumors of fraud, as early as intermediate visit
|
| Composition of the X-Letter (now lost), which so far as
we know does not respond to the rumors |
|
| |
Paul responds in H/10-13 (2 Cor
12:16-18),
challenging them to bring forward any evidence of fraud |
| Composition of R/1-9; Paul denies the rumors
(2 Cor 7:2)
|
Composition of R/1-9; to quiet any lingering
rumors, Paul denies that there has been any attempt to take advantage
of them (2 Cor 7:2 = part of post-reconciliation “setting the
record straight” defense) |
| Paul sends Titus with two brothers (2 Cor
8:16-24)
to revive the collection; the three person delegation will put to rest
any remaining doubts about the integrity of the process |
Paul sends Titus with two brothers (2 Cor
8:16-24)
to revive the collection; the three person delegation will put to rest
any remaining doubts about the integrity of the process |
| |
Titus’ mission is evidently successful; work on the
collection is resumed |
| The situation in Corinth turns ugly again (or turns
uglier than before); rumors and charges still persist, probably suggesting
that the collection is still in trouble, that Titus’ mission has
failed, and that the delegation has been ineffectual in quieting the
rumors |
|
| Paul responds again to the charges, in H/10-13
(2 Cor 12:16-18), challenging them to bring forward any evidence
of fraud |
|
| The next we hear, Paul is in Corinth, the collection is
completed, Paul is writing Romans, and he is soon on his way to
Jerusalem and Rome |
The next we hear, Paul is in Corinth, the collection is
completed, Paul is writing Romans, and he is soon on his way to
Jerusalem and Rome |
Summary observations on the chart: If we assume (i)
X=Lost, several problems emerge:
 |
Paul delays responding to the rumors, without denying
them in X=Lost; |
|
Paul plays his trump card to no effect: the obdurate
Corinthians continue in their suspicions despite the watchful eye of the
auditing committee; |
|
The success of the collection in Corinth following upon
the failure of Titus to revive the collection is unconvincing; and |
|
We would expect Paul to have asked in 2 Corinthians
12:16-18, “Did the brothers (plural instead of singular) accompanying
Titus discover any evidence of fraud?”—or are we to multiply
assumptions, not only that there is a second cycle of controversy, but
that one of the brothers fell sick and could not make the trip with
Titus? |
On the other hand, if we assume (ii) X=H/10-13, there
are few if any problems. Clearly then it is X=Lost that has problems with
2 Corinthians 12:16-18, not X=H/10-13.
Contrary Indicators?
The hypothesis that the X-Letter is
lost (X=Lost) would gain in credibility if X=H/10-13 might be shown
to have failed. We therefore identify those points at which supporters of X=Lost have generally sought to refute X=H/10-13
(the hypothesis which identifies H/10–13 as the X-Letter).
1. In the X-Letter, did Paul not cancel his
proposed visit to Corinth? It is doubtful that he did so, as we have
already tried to show (click on Next
Visit ). At the conclusion of the intermediate visit, the
Corinthians probably knew already that Paul had discarded the double visit
plan, i.e. Corinth/ Macedonia/ Corinth/ Jerusalem, and that on his return
to Ephesus the plan would be Ephesus/ Macedonia/ Corinth. Further, his
purpose in writing the X-Letter was to avoid making his next visit a
painful one, not the canceling of a visit. The touto auto of
2 Corinthians 2:3 is most likely referring back to the touto,
to of 2:1, a verse in which he is trying to make it clear that he
wished to avoid unpleasantness on his next visit.
2. Did the X-Letter not contain a demand for the punishment of the
offender? As we discussed earlier (click on Affair
of the Offender), it is not clear why Paul would need to have
mentioned this obligation in the letter; it would be sufficient to put in
place procedures for due process, as he in fact did, in H/10–13
(2 Corinthians 13:1). There were other means besides a letter to
remind them of their duty. The disciplinary
procedures announced in 2 Corinthians 13:1 have perhaps been
underestimated as an authoritative gesture demanding action in the affair
of the offender. What blatant offense required punishment, if not that
of the offender? Who was to weigh the evidence and calibrate the
punishment, if not the community? Who would administer justice as the
court of last resort in case the community did not act, if not Paul—“.
. . if I come again, I will not be lenient [ou pheisomai]”
(2 Corinthians 13:2)? As it was, the community did take action,
and Paul could be lenient! 3. Does Paul’s
boasting to Titus (2 Corinthians 7:14) not require us to believe that
Titus had not previously been in Corinth? Not so. Such a claim comes
into direct collision with the proenêrxato of 2 Corinthians 8:6. One might more likely conclude that, given the difficulties which
Titus would be facing in Corinth, Paul was boasting about the Corinthians
to give him encouragement.23 It was what Titus knew, not
how he knew it, that counted. Whether or not he had previously been
in Corinth is immaterial: either way, he was by no means shielded from
information about the congregation and its problems.
4. Are we not to conclude that the X-Letter was delivered by some else
than Titus, so that by the time Titus arrived the Corinthians had
experienced a change of heart and received him with fear and trembling
(2 Corinthians 7:15)? Such an inference is possible, but the text by
no means excludes Titus’ delivering and even interpreting the letter
himself, and thus assisting in their change of attitude towards Paul.
5. Does not Paul’s sending of Titus and the brother
(2 Corinthians 12:16-18) refer back to a previous letter, R/1-9,
in which Paul is sending Titus and the two brothers (2 Corinthians 8:16-24)? There are two problems with this proposal.
| It rests on an improbable reading of 2 Corinthians
7:14, as
previously noted. |
| Our confidence in the proposed order of events is not enhanced by
the fact that 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 mentions Titus and two
brothers, while 2 Corinthians 12:18 refers to Titus and one
brother. This inconsistency then calls for further hypotheses or
assumptions, none of which is convincing, especially when we consider
that both brothers are messengers, or apostoloi, of the
churches, and that Paul sends both of them (2 Corinthians 8:22-23). |
In the case of Titus’ visit in 12:16-18, it is probably to be
identified instead with the visit he made to begin the collection in
Corinth (proenêrxato, 8:6; i.e. visit #1 of 3).24
Thus it appears that 2 Corinthians 12:16-18 is quite compatible
indeed with the hypothesis which identifies the X-Letter with H/10-13
(click on The
X-Letter and 2 Corinthians 12:16-18 ).
Found, not Lost
One could wish for better data in deciding between the two hypotheses:
X=H/10-13 (that the X-Letter is to be identified with H/10-13);
and X=Lost (that the X-Letter is lost). We have only fragmentary
retrospective allusions for reconstructing
the X-Letter (click here). As a practical consequence, we will need to
exercise caution, however we decide between these alternatives, and make
the best of the data which we do have. This much can be said:
1. We are entitled to give due weight to the common pattern of concerns
which is evident between the
X-Letter and H/10-13, a pattern which is not shared with Letter L
(1 Corinthians) or with R/1-9. The similarities do count for something—how
else would one establish or refute X=H/10-13? Windisch (93) is quite
straightforward in acknowledging these similarities, even if he leaves
them unaccounted for. So long as this pattern of similarities is not
otherwise accounted for, the risk of redundancy between the two letters
persists (click on note 10).
2. Having reviewed claims of discrepancies between the X-Letter and
H/10-13, we have concluded that these discrepancies have not
been convincingly demonstrated, and hence that the weightiest arguments for X=Lost are refuted. In particular:
| It is doubtful whether the X-Letter mentioned the cancellation of a
visit. Instead, Paul in the X-Letter was preparing for his next visit,
to ensure that it was joyful and not painful. In any case, the
Corinthians probably already knew that he would not make the double
visit. |
| It is also doubtful that the offender was mentioned in the X-Letter,
much less that the letter contained an explicit demand for his
punishment. |
3. The claim that 2 Corinthians
12:16-18 is a retrospective reference to the sending of Titus in 8:16-24
is shown to be possible, but to be no more plausible than the
alternative, which is to read 12:16-18 as a reference to Titus’
beginning work on the collection (his first visit) as mentioned in 8:6.25
4. Having placed the controversy letter after the resolution letter,
the proponents of X=Lost are dependent upon speculative explanations
for the controversial tone of H/10-13: was it mis-reporting by
Titus, or the over-optimism of Paul, or a recent flare-up of
controversy?26
5. On the other hand, the case for
X=H/10-13 is supported not only by the impressive match between the
X-Letter and H/10-13, but by the coherent scenario which it
provides of Paul’s sometimes troubled relationships with Corinth during
the last months of his apostolic labors, especially in that:
| The scenario offers a plausible explanation for Paul’s changes of
travel plans, notably in the reasons for making the intermediate
visit, and thus relieves him of the suspicion of acting arbitrarily or
capriciously; and |
| It brings the Jerusalem collection to completion on the heels of
Titus’ renewal of work on the collection in Corinth, in the company
of the two brothers, instead of the completion of the collection
following in the wake of their failed work on the collection. |
In brief, with a good match between the X-Letter and H/10–13,
with freedom from discrepancies between them, and with a credible scenario
for X=H/10–13, it seems unnecessary to resort to the hypothesis
that the X-Letter is lost. We conclude that a substantial part of the
X-Letter is to be found in the Harsh Letter of 2 Corinthians 10–13.
23There
is evidence of quite a bit of boasting going on: boasting to Titus about
Corinth, to Corinth about Macedonia, to Macedonia about Corinth, not to
mention his boasting about himself. His confidence in Corinth (at
precisely the time he was boasting to Titus and dispatching the X-Letter
in his care) is clear from 2 Corinthians 2:3, “And I wrote as I did
[kai egrapsa touto auto], so that when I came, I might not suffer
pain [hina m] from those who should
have made me rejoice; for I am confident about all of you [pepoithôs
epi pantas humas], that my joy would be the joy of all of you.”
24There is a certain symmetry in Paul’s appointing the
one who initiated the collection to bring it to completion, epitelesêi
(8:6).
25We might wish that Paul had taken the trouble to
mention Titus’ companion on this first visit, but it is questionable to
build too much upon his silence here. By the same token, the mention of two
companions of Titus in 2 Corinthians 8:16-24 surely counts against
declaring the X-Letter lost.
26It is also conjectural to declare that a letter has
been lost. We wonder that Windisch (93) is prepared to accept the idea of
a lost letter in preference to the hypothesis of a lost part of a letter,
i.e. the hypothesis offered by certain proponents of X=H/10-13 that
the part of the Harsh Letter which referred specifically to the offender
was excised or is lost (“Damit erledigt sich auch die Auskunft, dass
der Teil des Briefs, auf den P. in K. 2 und 7 anspiele, verloren gegangen
sei (Hausr[ath]., Schm[iedel], u. a.). Ergebnis: der Zwbrf. [i.e. the X-Letter]
ist ohne Zweifel verloren gegangen.”). The rejection of a lost
part of a letter seems somewhat odd, since ex hypothesi those
who adopt the notion that we have two letter fragments in
2 Corinthians acknowledge that H/10–13 is already diminished
by the excision of its letter opening lines. Therefore one wonders why a
lost letter is less conjectural than a lost part of a letter.
|
|
Click Next
button below to continue, for Philippians and Ephesus (1)
|
|
  
|
|
