As a letter that is mostly likely a collection of letters compiled into one book within the New Testament, 2 Corinthians features Paul covering a range of topics, based on at least one prior visit, or possibly two prior visits, to Corinth.
This paper will explain the occasion for 2 Corinthians (‘2 Cor’), an overview of the letter’s contents, the key reasons why 2 Cor appears to contain multiple letters, and the various perspectives on how the main topics in the letter should be ordered. In addition, and based on the theories proposed about 2 Cor’s structure, this paper concludes that the ‘reversal theory’ proposed by multiple scholars appears to be the most credible.
To begin, Paul, a Hellenized Jew who was well-versed in the Septuagint and made strong distinctions between Jewish ritual law and moral law (Soards 20; Sanders 99), built his entire ministry on his experience with the risen Christ in or near Damascus (Sanders 10). His teachings on negating circumcision and avoiding other ritual laws, established under the Mosaic Covenant, were directed at several of the communities he evangelized, including the Corinthians. In his first letter to the Corinthians, which was most likely his second letter (Meeks 45), Paul helps the Corinthians sort out their internal struggles regarding living out the Christian sacramental life, the differences between moral law and ritual law, and how to separate Christian life from pagan practices (Sanders 99, 11; Soards 74, 75).
After Paul had written 1 Cor and then settled in Ephesus for a period of time, Corinth was still close enough in distance where Paul could make return trips, as necessary. During what seems to be his second visit, Paul has a ‘painful’ experience with some of the locals, may have had a run-in with evangelists whom he refers to as “super apostles,” and is treated very much like an outcast (2:1-3, 7:12, 11:5; Soards 82). Paul leaves Corinth, sends a frustration-filled response to the Corinthians (possibly 2 Cor 10-13), tracks down Titus to discuss his intervention on Paul’s behalf, subsequently writes a follow- letter of reconciliation (possibly 2 Cor 7:5-16), and then wraps up his interaction with a final letter regarding collections for the poor in Jerusalem (Soards 82, 83; Meeks 44, 45; 2 Cor 8-9).
While the above occasion gives a preview of the ‘reversal theory’, which is one of the partition theories later described in this paper, it is first important to cover 2 Cor’s contents in a bit more detail. This not only helps with the overall flow of 2 Cor, but it is also a necessary lead-in to the partition theories. Here is a short synopsis, based on Soard’s summaries on pages 88 – 92:
1:1 – 2:13; 7:5-16 — Paul discusses his reconciliation with the Corinthian.
2:14 – 7:4 — Paul defends his apostolic work and authority; contrasts his humble relationship with Christ versus the super-apostles grandstanding their powers and ‘flashy’ abilities; and emphasizes the only power that matters is God’s saving power, manifested through suffering service and living as a new creation in Christ.
6:14 – 7:1 — Considered by scholars as an odd break in the overall flow of 2 Cor, Paul here admonishes the Christian Corinthians not to mix unrighteous behaviors or pagan-influenced beliefs with God’s righteousness.
8 and 9 — Paul discusses the importance of collections for the poor; that giving is a model for living a selfless-life, just as Christ did; and to remember that God will meet their spiritual needs in return.
10 – 13 — Laced with bits of sarcasm, Paul gives a lengthy diatribe against the “super-apostles / false prophets” who have not only dazzled the Corinthians with their oratory skills and boasts about their Jewish roots, but also make Paul out to be an inarticulate, feeble-minded simp. Paul rebukes the ‘super-apostles’ by delineating the many hardships, he has physically and mentally endured while traveling throughout the Mediterranean and sharing the Gospel.
In general, throughout 2 Cor, Paul repeatedly points out the problems with forging a spiritual life based on the flesh, what it means to be a new creation in Christ, and why figures such as the ‘super-apostles’ are the epitome of self-worship and other un-Christ-like behaviors (Soards 93; Meeks 46).
Although the prior breakdown of 2 Cor’s contents is mostly in chapter order, the subject break in 6:14 – 7:1, as well as the clear separation of topics discussed through 2 Cor, indicates multiple letters patched together as one. And though it is widely agreed that Chapters 1 – 9 and 10 – 13 were written at separate times (Saint Leo Module 2, Slide 15), the question remains about which chapters, particularly between 1 and 9, were written at what periods of time after Paul’s second visits to Corinth.
This leads to how to understand the overall structure or unity within 2 Cor. While Barrett claims that 1 – 9 and 10 – 13 do not involved the same rift with the Corinthians, and that a later editor had merged the two separate letters into one (Soards 85), Connick, Spivey, Smith, and possibly Meeks, use a similar ‘two letter’ theory but put it in reverse order (the ‘reversal theory’), with chapters 10 – 13 being the first letter, and 1 – 9 being the second. Among all scholars who subscribe to this theory, their lingering question is about whether the ‘Jewish Christian’ outsiders and ‘super apostles’ were exactly one-and-the-same, and if the identified discontinuities qualify as interpolations (Soards 85, 86).
Moreover, Meeks points out that the ‘super-apostles’ are not mentioned in what would be the ‘second letter’ — yet given that chapter 1 – 7 are clearly about Paul’s sorrow and reconciliation efforts, it would make sense for this section to be a response to chapter 10 – 13. Furthermore, as Meeks notes, Paul’s strikingly positive tone in 13:11-14, which is a rather dramatic shift from his earlier brash tone, seems like a section more in line with his words of reconciliation in chapters 1 – 7 (45, 46).
Nevertheless, one point to keep in mind about 2 Cor, as well as all other books in the Bible, is that the chapter and verse structure was not created until the Middle Ages (Saint Leo Module 2, Slide 14). However, with or without chapters and verses, the combined letters in 2 Cor seem to point to a singular situation that Paul had to address in resolve.
Lastly, although the ‘reversal theory’ might have its own flaws, including not well accounting for the odd transitions in the 2 Cor, and that it could make one wonder why Paul would re-defend his apostolic mission in chapters 1 – 7, one answer could be that Paul is no stranger to repeating himself in his letters.
For example, in 1 Cor, Paul had already explained in great detail the meaning of being a new creation in Christ (15:1), yet he revisits the same explanation in 2 Cor 5:17. Or consider that, in Phillipians, Paul repeatedly proclaims to ‘rejoice in the Lord’ (1:18, 2:2, 3:1, 4:1); and he repeatedly warns of ‘evil doers’ and ‘false brethren” (1:15, 2:15, 3:2). Therefore, any repetition within or among Paul’s letters could simply be a case of making a point abundantly clear. That said, the ‘reversal theory’ remains a quite plausible and compelling one.
Works Cited
Meeks Wayne A. and Fitzgerald, John T. The Writings of St. Paul, 2d Edition. 2007.
Saint Leo University. Module 2 Lecture Slides. THY-532. 2024.
Sanders, E.P. Paul: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teaching. Paulist Press, 1986.