Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians 9781474266369, 9781474230902, 9780567304018

Citation preview

library of new testament studies

Identifying Paul’s Opponents The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians

Jerry L. Sumney

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

40

Executive Editor, Supplement Series David Hill

Publishing Editor David E Orton

JSOT Press Sheffield

IDENTIFYING PAUL'S OPPONENTS The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians Jerry L. Sumney

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 40

Copyright © 1990 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Sumney, Jerry L. Identifying Paul's opponents : the question of method in 2 Corinthians. 1. Bible. N.T. Corinthians, 2nd—Critical studies I. Title II. Series 227'.306 EISBN 9781850752349

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

PARTI A SURVEY OF THE METHODS USED TO IDENTIFY PAUL'S OPPONENTS Introduction

13

Chapter 2 JUDAIZERS

15

Chapter 3 GNOSTICS

43

Chapter 4 DIVINE MEN

49

Chapter 5 PNEUMATICS

63

Chapter 6 CONCLUSION TO PART I

69

PART II PROPOSAL OF A SOUND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING OPPONENTS Introduction

75

Chapter 7 HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS

77

Chapter 8. SOURCES OTHER THAN THE PRIMARY TEXT

87

Chapter 9 ASSESSING PASSAGES WITHIN THE PRIMARY TEXT

95

Chapter 10 CONCLUSION TO PART II

115

PART III APPLYING THE METHOD TO 2 CORINTHIANS Introduction

121

Chapter 11 THE INTEGRITY OF 2 CORINTHIANS

123

Chapter 12 2 CORINTHIANS 1-9

127

Chapter 13 2 CORINTHIANS 10-13

149

Chapter 14 CONCLUSION TO PART III

181

Chapter 15 RESULTS

187

Notes Select Bibliography Index of Biblical References Index of Authors

193 241 251 255

PREFACE This book is a revision of my doctoral dissertation which was accepted by Southern Methodist University in 1987. I owe a profound debt of gratitude to Professor Victor Paul Furnish who was my dissertation advisor and my advisor through most of my time in the Graduate Program in Religious Studies at S.M.U. His patience with me during the dissertation process was great. He encouraged me, helped me clarify and organize my thoughts, and helped me learn to express those thoughts with more clarity and efficiency. He was always readily available and always gave insightful and helpful responses. He has continued his interest and encouragement during my revisions for publication. I also want to thank the other members of my dissertation committee, Professors William S. Babcock and Joseph B. Tyson, for their thoughtful responses and criticisms. This committee made writing a dissertation an enjoyable (even though at times painful) project. The inadequacies of the finished work reflect only my inability or unwillingness to listen to and adequately respond to the criticisms the committee offered me. I also want to thank Professor Shubert Ogden for his comments during the oral defense of the dissertation. Thanks are also due to Dr Michael McCoy, a former colleague at Ferrum College who is now at Union College, for his good advice on editorial matters at the dissertation stage. I am also grateful to Dr O. Alan Weltzien of the English Department at Ferrum College who also spent a considerable amount of time reading and offering helpful suggestions on writing style. I also thank Dr David Hill, Editor of this series, for his comments and suggestions. I owe more than I can express to my wife, Diane Furlong Sumney.

8

Identifying Paul's Opponents

She sacrificed a great deal during my time in graduate school. She endured the tensions of a graduate student and continually managed to offer support. Throughout the writing and revision process she has constantly encouraged and urged progress. Sometimes this progress came through neglect of her. All of my time in graduate school was a joint venture. Likewise, this book is a joint venture. It is her accomplishment as much as mine. Jerry L. Sumney 28 July 1988 Ferrum, Virginia

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Ferdinand Christian Baur's important study, 'Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der altesten Kirche, der Apostel Paulus in Rom',1 raised the question of the identity of the opponents in view in Paul's letters. This issue has been a matter of much discussion and debate since that time. It is important because, as most scholars recognize, the more we know about Paul's opponents, the more we know about the historical context of his letters, and therefore, about the meaning of those letters. There is, however, no consensus about the identity of those opponents. Interpreters disagree about the identity of the opponents of every Pauline letter. For example, W. Schmithals finds Gnostics in most of Paul's letters,2 while F.C. Baur finds Judaizers in the same letters.3 In the case of Galatians, some interpreters—including Baur, Iightfoot, and Burton—find Judaizers,4 while Ropes5 detects antinomian Pneumatics and Schmithals sees Gnostics.6 As for 2 Corinthians, Gunther catalogs no fewer than thirteen different proposals for the identity of the opponents of 2 Corinthians,7 while E.P. Sanders states that he has found fourteen different hypotheses about them.8 Again, Gunther cites no fewer than eighteen different proposals for the identity of the opponents in view in Philippians 3.9 The number of hypotheses itself suggests that interpreters have given insufficient attention to issues of method and demonstrates the need for a clear and consistent method for identifying Paul's opponents. Although many have tried to identify Paul's opponents, remarkably few have attempted to deal systematically with proper methods for identifying relevant types of data and assessing the significance of those various types. Most who have written on Paul's opponents

10

Identifying Paul's Opponents

either do not mention or give only a passing glance to issues of method. Gunther, for example, has produced an entire monograph on Paul's opponents and devotes less than two pages to method.10 Several scholars do call attention to the importance of issues of method. Nils Dahl,11 CJ.A. Hickling,12 R.McL. Wilson,13 and Klaus Berger14 criticize many of the techniques and methods often used to identify Paul's opponents. Hickling and Wilson concentrate their criticisms on a few techniques. Berger gives an extensive critique of methods used in studies of the opponents in various New Testament writings, and offers some suggestions about proper procedures. However, he does not propose a method.15 Dahl is one of the few to offer a coherent method.16 Dahl makes several important points and suggestions. However, he often provides no explicit justification for his positions and does not go into sufficient detail. Furthermore, those who try to identify Paul's opponents have virtually ignored this helpful article. Therefore, there is a need for a major study on the question of the proper method for identifying Paul's opponents. It seems certain that no substantial progress can be made on the question of the identity of Paul's opponents until interpreters give serious attention to issues of method. This study will examine the issues, develop a sound method for identifying Paul's opponents, and demonstrate the method with 2 Corinthians. Any serious proposal for a method must conform to the rules with which all historians are expected to operate. This means that the procedures prescribed in such a method must spring from accepted canons of critical historical research. Thus, we will attempt to develop a method which is in accord with these canons. In Part I of this study we will examine the relevant works of major representatives of the various hypotheses about the opponents of 2 Corinthians, exposing the procedures they use to identify the opponents. 2 Corinthians is an apt choice to focus on because there has been a good deal of debate, including entire monographs,17 about its opponents. Part I will not include detailed assessment of the procedures these studies use, but will only expose those procedures. In Part II we will offer a critique of the methods used by those surveyed in Part I. We will try to determine whether their methods conform to the canons of critical historical research. At the same time, we will set out and defend the various points of our method. Parts I and II will demonstrate further that, up to now, interpreters

1. Introduction

11

have given insufficient attention to questions of method when identifying Paul's opponents. In Part III the method proposed in Part II will be applied to 2 Corinthians. To be useful, a method must be both sound and applicable to the intended material. Therefore, we must test the method on a Pauline letter. Applying it to a Pauline letter is also important because such a method must produce, or be shown capable of producing, a relatively clear and precise hypothesis. If New Testament scholarship is able to arrive at a method which is widely accepted, genuine progress can be made toward a consensus about the identity of Paul's opponents. A sound method will enable us to identify Paul's opponents more securely. This will, of course, help us to understand more clearly the historical context of his letters, and hence to understand those letters themselves, Paul's ministry, and indeed, the history of the early church.

PARTI A SURVEY OF THE METHODS USED TO IDENTIFY PAUL'S OPPONENTS Introduction Part I of this book does not offer an exhaustive account of the positions interpreters take on the identity of the opponents Paul faces in the letter(s) of 2 Corinthians. Rather, the discussion will focus on method. We will examine the work of important representatives of the major hypotheses to determine what techniques and procedures they use to identify the opponents of 2 Corinthians. Since few have given much attention to method, we must determine what methods they use by gathering scattered statements on method and analyzing the way they actually work with the text. We will not refute the various conclusions about the opponents, either by arguing point by point or debating the interpretation of texts. The purpose of this exercise is only to expose methods. The major hypotheses about the opponents in view in 2 Corinthians fall into four basic groups1: Judaizers, Gnostics, Divine Men, and Pneumatics.2 We will devote a chapter to each of these basic types. The primary issues of method that emerge can be grouped into three main categories: (1) issues that involve reconstructions of the history of early Christianity; (2) issues that involve the use of sources other than the primary text to identify the opponents; and (3) issues that involve assessing types of passages within the primary text when identifying opponents. There is some overlap among these categories, and responses to issues in one category often directly influence issues in another category. 1. The issues connected with reconstructions of early Christianity are: a.

What materials are valid as sources for constructing the history of a movement? The focus here is on the date of

14

Identifying Paul's Opponents

b.

c.

evidence relative to the situation being described. What is the proper function of a reconstruction when identifying the opponents in view in a particular letter? This issue includes the question of whether we can presuppose that Paul faces a single front of opposition in all of the churches to which he writes letters. What bearing does the possibility that Paul misunderstood his opponents have on the process of identifying those opponents from his letters?

2. The issues involving the use of sources other than the primary text are: a. b. c.

Should a given Pauline letter be analyzed individually or in conjunction with other Pauline letters? What are the valid ways to identify parallel passages in the Pauline corpus and in non-Pauline material? What is the legitimate use of parallels found in the Pauline corpus and in non-Pauline material.

3. The issues which involve assessing passages within the primary text are: a.

b.

Do some kinds of passages yield better information about the opponents than other types? For example, should explicit statements about opponents carry more weight than perceived allusions to them? This issue involves asking whether we should exclude some passages within the primary text when identifying the opponents of that text. What is the appropriate use of mirror exegesis (the technique by which one attributes characteristics to the opponents which are the opposite of Paul's statements)?

Chapter 2 JUDAIZERS The majority of interpreters conclude that the opponents of 2 Corinthians are Judaizers. Important representatives of this position who discuss the opponents' identity at length include F.C. Baur, D. Oostendorp, C.K. Barrett, JJ. Gunther, and G. Liidemann. F.C. Baur Baur's well-known position is that the opponents in every genuine letter of Paul are Judaizers.3 For Baur, the term 'Judaizers' designates Jewish Christians who demand continuing observance of the law of Moses. They contend that one is not saved by Paul's gospel and that the first step to Christian salvation must be circumcision.4 Baur was the first to make opponents central for understanding the occasion of Paul's letters.5 His work has significantly influenced all those who hold the Judaizer hypothesis. He did much to set the agenda for studies of Paul's opponents,6 in fact his work raises all but one of our issues of method. Some aspects of Baur's method are evident from the form of his major works on Paul and Paul's opponents. His method presupposes that a reconstruction of early Christianity can serve as a secure guide for identifying Paul's opponents. The first nine chapters of Baur's two-volume work on Paul set out his reconstruction, which focuses on the Jerusalem church and its legacy. The primary canonical source for this reconstruction is Acts, interpreted by means of Tendenz criticism. He sees the author of Acts as a Paulinist who tends to represent the differences between Paul and Peter as unessential and trifling.7 The need for harmony between the Judaizers, who were dominating Christianity when Acts was written,

16

Identifying Paul's Opponents

and the Paulinists necessitated this apologetic tendency. A purely historical interest dominates the first part of Acts to give the work a secure base of credibility with the Judaizers, but the apologetic aim leads the author to alter the events of Paul's career.8 Baur recognizes that the lack of explicit statements to support this reconstruction is a problem, and responds: Little though we can follow the course of these circumstances, we find it undeniable that such relations did exist, that they extended into the second century, and that they were powerful enough during that period... to produce other literary results of a similar tendency.9 The real starting point for Baur's reconstruction is the PseudoClementine Homilies, an extra-canonical, second century source.10 In the early essay, 'Die Christuspartei', Baur quotes at length from Homily 17.13ff.n This homily purports to recount an argument between Peter and Simon Magus over apostolic authority. According to Baur, Peter's argument excludes any means of becoming an apostle except being a disciple of the earthly Jesus. The true object of this polemic is the way that Paul, masked as Simon Magus, proves the authenticity of his apostleship.12 This polemic and James's commissioning of Peter to go to the Gentiles, which leaves no room for Paul, demonstrate a tendency against Paul in the Clementine Literature.13 From this starting point Baur looks to other secondcentury sources (including Papias, Irenaeus and Clement) to show the rivalry between Petrine and Pauline groups.14 Two issues surface when considering the real source of Baur's reconstruction. The first is the role the reconstruction plays in his identification of the opponents. Baur presupposes his reconstruction from the very beginning of 'Die Christuspartei' (i.e. the part that deals with the texts of 1 and 2 Corinthians), the early article which first lays out his scheme of early church history. Here he devotes nearly twice as much space to the later sources on which he bases his reconstruction as he does to the Corinthian letters. He asserts that the Gentile Christians at Corinth undoubtedly attached themselves to Paul and the Jewish Christians attached themselves to Peter.15 He does not justify these assertions, but simply presupposes them. Thus, the reconstruction is at least the starting point for his analysis of the Corinthian situation. Baur's use of the Clementine Homilies also raises the issue of identifying valid sources for a reconstruction. We must ask whether it

2. Judaizers

17

is legitimate to project a situation reflected in later texts back onto an earlier period. Working back from second-, and even third-, century texts and interpreting Acts in light of them, Baur draws the folowing portrait of earliest Christianity. The church was a unity before the martyrdom of Stephen. But after Stephen's death the Hebraic and Hellenistic parts of the church separated. The Jerusalem church became purely Hebraistic (i.e. it kept to a strictly Judaic character) and soon developed a 'strenuous opposition to the freer Hellenistic Christianity'.16 The mission of Peter and John to Samaria demonstrates that, even before this opposition became clear, the Jerusalem church tried to prevent the development of Hellenistic principles by bringing other, far away churches under its control. The belief that the messiah had come was all that separated the earliest Christian community of Jerusalem from the Jewish religion, as the Twelve's continuing adherence to temple worship exemplifies. The Hellenists, on the other hand, recognized no essential difference between Jew and Gentile.17 Paul exacerbated the growing schism between the Hellenists and Hebraists because he stood on the Hellenists' side. His missionary work necessitated the Apostolic Council, which Acts distorts. Galatians shows that the apostles themselves were Paul's real opponents in Jerusalem. The division of the mission field at the council amounted to dividing Christianity into two churches, one Jewish and the other Gentile. Thus, the agreement reached was not a reconciliation of views. So two systems (one with the Law, the other without it) co-existed without being harmonized.18 It cannot be doubted that the Jewish-Christians saw in the Apostle Paul only the opponent and enemy of the law, and of JewishChristianity as it depended on the continuance of the law, and that they sought to oppose him by all means at their disposal in all the Gentile-Christian churches.19 The issue of whether interpreters should presuppose a single front of opposition for all of Paul's letters arises here. Baur identifies the situation just described as the background for all of Paul's letters. Paul meets the Judaizing opponents, whom he would face in Corinth and Rome, for the first time in Galatia. The issue in Galatia is the practice of circumcision, which, for the opponents, is the unmistakable recognition of the law's value.20 Baur thinks that Galatians takes us to the center of the strife between Judaism and Christianity, to the

18

Identifying Paul's Opponents

critical issue of whether or not Christianity was to be just a part of Judaism.21 Since Baur presupposes that Paul faces the same opponents in all of his churches, he assumes that we need not interpret Paul's letters individually. And since 1 and 2 Corinthians address the same situation, 1 Corinthians guides his interpretation of 2 Corinthians. Baur focuses on the parties at Corinth and, as we noted above, assumes that the Gentiles attached themseves to Paul (and his companion Apollos) and that the Jewish Christians attached themselves to Peter. The only real question, then, is about the 'Christ Party'. Baur holds that this party is composed of the radicals of the Cephas party, and is not really a separate party. And since there were no doctrinal differences between the Paul and Apollos parties, there were really only two parties. There appear to be more because Paul amassed and duplicated party names (1 Cor. 1.10-17) to depict the dominating party spirit.22 It is generally taken for granted'23 that the Cephas party is strongly Judaizing and that they oppose the Pauline teaching of freedom from the law.24 Indeed, 'the name of Peter naturally suggests an opposition to Paul'.25 Baur recognizes that 'really nothing' in 1 and 2 Corinthians suggests the presence of Judaizers and that Paul does not refute the principles promulgated by Judaizers. Only 2 Corinthians 3 shows that the opponents are Judaizers, and even there Paul discusses no specific issues. So we do not know the tendency of their Judaizing.26 Baur claims that in Corinth the opponents' main point has shifted from circumcision to the notion of apostolic authority. This shows only that we have moved to a new stage in the conflict, not that the opponents are not Judaizers. They changed their argument because they could not expect immediate reception of their Judaizing in this mostly Gentile church. So they attacked Paul's apostolic authority to gain a hearing for their Judaizing. The opposition between the Petrine and Pauline parties is based on the way the Petrine party defines those who are 'of Christ'.27 According to the Cephas/Christ party, the leading mark of true apostolic authority is a direct relationship with Christ, to have seen Jesus. The opponents reject Paul's apostolic authority and accept the Jerusalem apostles' because he is not 'of Christ' in this sense, and they are.28 Baur identifies the opponents almost solely on the basis of his reconstruction. He finds Judaizers at Corinth because there is no one

2. Judaizers

19

else to find within his scheme of history. The reconstruction determines his interpretation of 2 Corinthians and supports his presupposition of a single front, and thus his use of 1 Corinthians. After Baur set out his thesis about Paul's opponents in 'Die Christuspartei', he acknowledged that it was important to ground it 'as much as possible' on considerations from some principal passages from 1 and 2 Corinthians.29 We will look at the three passages from 2 Corinthians that are important for his thesis: 5.16; 10.7ff.; 11.4-23.30 Baur gives no reasons for designating these passages as the most important. This raises the issue of assessing passages for use in identifying opponents. Baur thinks that 2 Cor. 5.16 is particularly important. In 5.16, according to Baur, odp£ means a person's life as it is determined by natural descent; it is the connection with the nation to which a person belongs. 2dp£, then, stands in opposition to the new life; it is 'the old man', that is, Judaism. The sense of the passage is that Paul had rejected all that he had in Judaism for Christianity. With this meaning of adp£, the reference to Christ Kara odpKa points to the messiah ofJudaism, and secondarily includes valuing direct association with the earthly Jesus.31 Baur's reconstruction (or one similar to it) is the only justification for understanding odp£ as ancestry in 5.16.32 It is also the only thing that moves us from the eschatological categories of new life and 'old man' to Judaism. Sdp£ refers to Judaism because the reconstruction has already identified the opponents as Judaizers. Clearly, then, the reconstruction determines Baur's interpretation of the primary source. Paul's claim to be 'of Christ' in 2 Cor. 10.7, a defense of his apostolic authority, is important because the argument about its meaning encompasses all facets of Paul's controversy with these opponents. Baur holds that it is only natural to tie those who claim to be 'of Christ' to the Christ party in 1 Corinthians, and sees no reason to conclude that the two are different parties. In the verses that follow 10.7, Paul contends that his forfeiture of rights (especially the right of accepting support) for the good of the community makes him 'of Christ'.33 This interpretation of 2 Cor. 10.7 presupposes that Paul's letters should be interpreted in conjunction with one another. The 'of Christ' refers to the Christ party of 1 Corinthians because nothing proves otherwise. Baur also links the situations of 1 and 2 Corinthians with a parallel identified on the basis of verbal

20

Identifying Paul's Opponents

correspondence—Paul uses the name 'Christ' in both places. This parallel is the main support for his interpretation of 2 Cor. 10.7. 2 Cor. 11.4ff., where Paul mentions 'another gospel', is important for Baur because it has a parallel in Gal. 1.17, where Paul also mentions 'another gospel'. This correspondence in terminology provides a textual link to the Galatian situation. Questions about the law in Galatia led to the question of apostolic authority because Paul was the only apostle who had turned his back on the Mosaic law. So the Galatian opponents combined an attack on Paul's apostleship with Judaizing demands. Paul responds to the attacks at Galatia and Corinth in two related ways. In the earlier response (Gal. 1; 2). Paul contends that he owes neither his Christian belief nor the content of his teaching to the other apostles. At Corinth Paul asserts that he received his apostleship by a direct divine working, even if the working differed from that of the other apostles. The Corinthian opponents, therefore, came from Jerusalem because that is the origin of the opposition Paul describes in Gal. 2.12.34 Baur identifies the 'super-apostles' of 2 Cor. 11.5 with the Jerusalem apostles and argues that they are not the same persons Paul calls 'false apostles' in v. 13. The false apostles are opponents at Corinth who call on Peter's authority against Paul. Although Paul does not refer explicitly to Peter, the issue of support draws him into the picture implicitly because Paul mentions him in this connection in 1 Corinthians 9. Furthermore, the expression 'super-apostle' is the same kind of ironic expression as 'those reputed to be pillars' in Gal. 2.9, where it refers to Peter, James, and John. Thus, the irony of 2 Cor. 11.5 must refer to these same apostles. Baur concludes that the Twelve taught and commissioned the apostles who came to Corinth.35 According to Baur, 2 Cor. 11.20ff. confirms the opponents' Palestinian origin because they claim to be 'Hebrews', 'Israelites', and 'Seed of Abraham'. This claim of descent shows incontestably that they belong to the Petrine party and assert the authority of Peter for themselves, Since 'servant of Christ', the other title found here, corresponds to being 'of Christ' in 1 Corinthians and 'apostles of Christ' in 2 Cor. 11.13, these Judaizers must be members of the Petrine or Christ party.36 Baur also employs parallels as a primary guide for interpreting 11.4ff. This allows him to claim that the same, or a very similar, situation stands behind passages of different letters which have similar words or phrases. In the case of 11.13 ('apostles of Christ'), he

2. Judaizers

21

uses parallels to show that 1 and 2 Corinthians address the same group of opponents. The parallels to 2 Cor. 11.4 and 5 in Galatians 2 show that 2 Corinthians and Galatians address the same opponents. Thus, on the basis of verbal similarities, Baur assigns issues to the Corinthian situation that Paul addresses only in Galatians. Since Judaizers question Paul's apostolic authority in Galatians, a problem with apostolic authority in 2 Corinthians shows that there are Judaizers at Corinth.37 The parallel of 11.5 shows that Baur uses even similar types of statements to tie situations together.38 Baur's reconstruction also seems to determine his exegesis of 10.7flf. and 11.4ff. We see this in both his identification of parallels and his certainty that those who claim Jewishness to their advantage are Palestinian. And if they are from Palestine, they must be Judaizers. Summary Baur uses second-century (or later) texts to reconstruct the history of the first-century church and then identifies the opponents of 2 Corinthians primarily on the basis of his reconstruction. It is the basis for his exegesis of 2 Corinthians, especially 2 Cor. 5.16, and allows him to find a single front of opposition to Paul. The reconstruction, then, determines his identification of the opponents of 2 Corinthians. Baur isolates certain passages as significant for identifying the opponents, but he does not explain why they are important. They seem to be important because, through them, he can make connections with his reconstruction and other Pauline letters. Baur's reconstruction also leads him to assume that we should use other Pauline letters to interpret 2 Corinthians (or any other Pauline writing). This assumption is a correlate of his view that Paul faced a single front in all of his churches. Baur identifies parallels in Pauline letters on the basis of verbal similarity. Once he establishes a connection between two letters, even the same kind of expression can be a parallel, as his treatment of 2 Cor. 11.5 demonstrates. Parallels function not only as guides when interpreting a passage, but sometimes they supply the meaning. For example, the Galatians 2 parallel of 2 Cor. 11.4 ('another gospel') tells us what the other gospel is at Corinth. Baur does not, therefore, base his identification of the opponents primarily on 2 Corinthians. Rather, his presuppositions, especially his methodological presuppositions, determine what he finds. His

22

Identifying Paul's

Opponents

starting point is his reconstruction, not 2 Corinthians. Schmithals correctly notes that (I)t is possible to elicit a certain understanding for the fact that the 'Judaists' theory was held within the Tubingen school. Here the studies from the first stood under the sign of Baur's construction of history. And since this construction ruled out other significant phenomena in primitive Christianity besides Gentile Christianity and Jewish Christianity, one was simply compelled to characterize the Corinthian heresy as Judaistic.39

Derek Oostendorp Oostendorp sets out to see what influence the twentieth century emphasis on the Spirit in Corinth has had on Baur's thesis.40 Oostendorp's own thesis is that the Corinthian opponents are Judaizers who assert the primacy of Israel and teach that the Mosaic law is the supreme revelation of God's will. They argue that Christians receive the Spirit and spiritual gifts through the law. They also contend that Paul is unworthy of the apostolic office because he fails to recognize Israel's dominance in tne eschatological age.41 Oostendorp's position is nearly the same as Baur's, but he wants to correct Baur at two points. (1) Peter and James are not the leaders of the Judaizing movement; rather, the opponents' driving force is their understanding of the eschatological prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. (2) Paul believes that in his mission to the Gentiles he is the last apostle to Israel.42 Oostendorp also emphasizes the Spirit's place in the problems at Corinth a great deal more than Baur does. Oostendorp ties his assertions about the opponents more extensively to the text of 2 Corinthians and so does not rely as heavily as Baur on a reconstruction. Therefore, the main issues that Oostendorp's work raises concern assessing passages in the primary text and the relation of 2 Corinthians to other texts. The influence of a presupposed reconstruction is more subtle in Oostendorp than in Baur. Still, Oostendorp presupposes some kind of reconstruction. He assumes that Paul's opponents must be either Judaizers or Pneumatics.43 Thus the reconstruction is not as narrow as Baur's (Oostendorp allows for two possibilities rather than Baur's single option), but it may still control his exegesis of 2 Corinthians.

2. Judaizers

23

These options could simply give him a place to enter the discussion, but the way he uses them shows that, in fact, something more is involved. In principle, Oostendorp does not presuppose a single front for all of Paul's letters. He implies that we cannot assume that a particular letter of Paul reflects the same situation as any other letter. However, we may look to 2 Corinthians 1-9 to support or discredit an interpretation of chs. 10-13, even if chs. 1-9 belong to another letter, because they show enough points of contact with chs. 10-13 to justify this approach.44 Unfortunately, he does not explain whether these contacts are verbal or conceptual. Neither does he tell us whether they must be numerous enough or significant enough to postulate the same situation for both letters. He allows various letters to clarify issues in 2 Corinthians even though the occasions of those letters differ somewhat from that of 2 Corinthians. Even at the end of his study Oostendorp leaves open the question of whether Paul faced the same opponents in all of his letters. However, he does believe that the same opponents are in view in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Romans.45 We will have to determine whether this is really an open question by examining the way he deals with key passages of 2 Corinthians in relation to these other letters. The influence of Oostendorp's historical presuppositions is especially evident as he begins his study with 2 Cor. 11.4 (which refers to another Jesus, Spirit, and gospel). He believes that it clearly introduces the problems of 2 Corinthians and tells enough about the other gospel to be a 'touchstone' to test the validity of hypotheses about that gospel. This conditional sentence is not hypothetical. Someone was preaching a different Jesus, Spirit, and gospel. Why else would Paul single out these three things? The polemical nature of chs. 3 and 4, which deal with the Spirit and Paul's relationship with Jesus, confirm that the items of 11.4 are real issues at Corinth. Since there are many ways to understand 'another Jesus' and 'another Spirit', Oostendorp acknowledges that we cannot identify the opponents or their gospel solely on the basis of this verse.46 His discussion focuses on whether this verse shows that the opponents are Judaizers or Pneumatics and thus demonstrates that he considers only these two options as possibilities. Oostendorp designates chs. 10 and 13, along with 11.4 as important for understanding the opponents without justifying that designation. He says only that if we understood the background of

24

Identifying Paul's Opponents

the charges found in these chapters, 'a significant aspect of the opponents' teaching would be known'.47 Since Oostendorp often uses parallels to interpret these passages, we must see how he identifies and uses parallels. According to Oostendorp, 2 Cor. 10 and 13.3 show that the main thrust of the attack on Paul is his lack of the Spirit.48 The opponents charge that Paul's failure to deal effectively with sin in his congregation demonstrates this lack and makes Paul unfit to be an apostle. They even claim that he is not a Christian. Paul is battling this charge in 10.7 when he reminds his readers that he is 'of Christ'. The parallel passages of 1 Cor. 3.23,15.23, and Gal. 3.29 confirm this meaning for 'of Christ'. The opponents' criticism of Paul's weak presence includes a criticism of his failure to take strong disciplinary action at Corinth. Verses 7-11 confirm that the major factor in the opponents' attack is their claim that they are true promoters of righteousness and Paul is not.49 Oostendorp uses 10.13-17 to connect the question of JewishGentile relations and Paul's weakness. He holds that Paul's 'canon' of v. 15 is the Gentile mission. He uses the parallels of Gal. 1.16, 2.7ff., Rom. 1.5, and 15.16 as his evidence for this interpretation.50 Gal. 2.7ff. shows that the other 'canon' (the ctAAorpico Kavovi of v. 16) is a fitting title for the mission to the Jews. The knowledge of God and the life-style based on the Hebrew Scriptures set the Jews apart as 'the prepared' (ret STOIJUUX, 10.16).51 No Gentile could match these things. This comparison shows that the opponents set up the Judean churches as models and say that Paul's churches do not conform and so are sub-standard.52 Oostendorp finds another issue the opponents raise in 2 Cor. 13.3. They want Paul to prove that Christ speaks through him by dealing strongly with sin.53 According to Oostendorp, 2 Cor. 10 and 13.3 show that the opponents question Paul's ability or willingness to fight sin because he failed to carry out the threatened discipline during his second visit. They teach that it is Paul's duty to punish sinners and that discipline in Corinth can only be achieved if Jewish apostles demonstrate their mastery over the Gentiles' faith.54 Paul's polemic in 2 Cor. 5.1 Iff. shows that the opponents boast in external advantage, according to Oostendorp. This is the point of the reference to 'Christ according to the flesh' (v. 16) which refers to a Jewish nationalistic conception of the Messiah because Paul uses Kara adpica in relation to Christ to make a connection with Israel in

2. Judaizers

25

Rom. 9.5. Therefore, as we saw in connection with the 'other Spirit', the 'other Jesus' of their gospel stresses Israel's priority.55 Chapter 3 is important for Oostendorp, as it is for nearly all who hold that Paul's opponents are Judaizers. He sees 2.14-4.6 as a unit with two themes: (1) Paul's ministry brings life (the major theme of ch. 3) and (2) Paul's ministry does not support the perishing. The relationship between the law of Moses and Christianity becomes the central theme at 3.6 when Paul contrasts the old and new covenants, saying that the letter of the old covenant brings death while the Spirit of the new covenant brings life. The opponents reject the distinction between the old and the new covenants. Oostendorp assumes that, since Paul's opponents in Galatia linked the Spirit and the Law, the opponents in Corinth do too. Gal. 3.21, where Paul says that the law could not make alive, shows what he means in 2 Cor. 3.10 when he speaks of the glory of Moses' ministry. The polemical reference to the inabilities of Moses' ministry in v. 10 shows that Paul must prove that 'the letter' kills (v. 6).56 Oostendorp interprets the discussion of the veil and Paul's boldness in vv. 12ff. in light of ch. 10 and concludes that Paul is insisting that he does have boldness in dealing with sin. Chapter 3 climaxes with v. 17, where Paul links the Lord and the Spirit, and thus opposes the link his rivals propose between the Spirit and the law. Paul's setting the Spirit against the law and comparing the glory of Moses with his own ministry show that the opponents' appeal to Moses is the basis of their position. Therefore, Paul must take Moses away from them.57 2 Cor. 3.6ff. is a discussion of the law because Paul uses the Spirit to make his point. The connection between the Spirit and the law in Galatians shows that the law is also an issue in 2 Corinthians. Galatians is a parallel because both it and 2 Cor. 3.6ff. mention the Spirit. Summary Parallels explicitly determine Oostendorp's interpretation of 2 Cor. 10.13-17, 5.1 Iff., and, implicitly, 10.7. He identifies parallels to these crucial passages on the basis of common or similar terminology. Oostendorp asserts that Galatians 3 and 1 Corinthians 2 only confirm his interpretation of the 'of Christ' in 2 Cor. 10.7. Similarly he confirms his interpretation of 5.16 with Rom. 9.5. But parallels control his exegesis of 10.13-17, which demonstrates that the conflict at Corinth is between Jew and Gentile. Parallels in Galatians 1 and 2 and Romans 1 and 15 make this interpretation plausible. His

26

Identifying Paul's Opponents

interpretation of 2 Cor. 3.1Off., which shows that the problem is with the law, rests on Galatians 3. Oostendorp does not utilize parallels as extensively as Baur, but he uses them at important points. Oostendorp's use of parallels shows that he presumes, without offering proof, that different letters address the same situation just because they contain verbal similarities. Thus, he implicitly holds from the start that they address the same situation. Therefore, his exegesis presupposes some type of unified front of Judaizers. Oostendorp's work, especially his treatment of ch. 3, also raises the issue of whether all passages in a letter like 2 Corinthians are polemic. Since he identifies most of 2 Corinthians as polemic, he uses the mirror technique extensively. Thus, if Paul says that the Spirit and the law do not go together, the opponents must be saying that they do. Barrett According to Barrett, the opponents of 2 Corinthians are members of a rival apostolate, specifically, Judaizing apostles who preach to Christians. They are agents of the Jerusalem church, commissioned to establish a connection between that church and the churches in the Gentile world, perhaps even to exact obedience from them.58 These intruders accept the Corinthians' criteria for apostleship.59 Thus, these opponents' views are 'best explained as the forcing of a Judaizing movement into a mould at least partly Hellenistic'.60 These Judaizers do not demand circumcision or a general respect for the Mosaic law, since Paul does not mention these issues in 2 Corinthians.61 It is surprising to find Judaizers who do not demand circumcision, but 'it must not be supposed that the Judaizing message always took the form it assumed in Galatia'.62 Insistence on circumcision is not indispensable for Judaizers, according to Barrett. Galatians 2 shows that Peter held a legalist position at Antioch without demanding circumcision and the keeping of Sabbath regulations.63 Still, the opponents of 2 Corinthians, and earlier Peter, 'attempted to impose a Judaic pattern of thought and religious life upon a Gentile community'.64 The opponents probably do demand conformity to the Apostolic Decree or the Noachian precepts.65 Barrett suggests a three-position scheme for early church history. The Jerusalem group, which he calls 'conservative Judaism', held its beliefs about Jesus as the Messiah within a firm framework of

2. Judaizers

27

Judaism. They believed that God accepted Gentiles, but they would eat with Gentiles only if the Gentiles conformed to some basic legal requirements.66 The intruders at Corinth are a new kind of Christian Jew. They developed from the Jerusalem group and retained fundamental Judaism, including an attachment to the law, but put on 'a veneer of non-Jewish practice'. They stand in the middle of a spectrum with the Jerusalem church and its 'pillars' on one end and Paul on the other. At Corinth they adopted a gnostic framework coupled with ecstatic behavior.67 Paul represented revolutionary Judaism. This group was indifferent to the external features of religion. The center of life for this group was Christ instead of Torah.68 Barrett does not assume that the troubles of 2 Corinthians are 'a simple continuation' of those in 1 Corinthians.69 In 1 Corinthians Paul directs his comments to the Corinthians, but in 2 Corinthians 10-13 he speaks against intruders70 In 1 Corinthians Paul deals with misunderstandings of wisdom and knowledge, but in 2 Corinthians even the terms 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' are rare.71 Thus, Paul does not address a single front in all of his letters. Still, letters to different cities can address situations that are essentially the same (e.g. 2 Corinthians and Galatians). Barrett also sees continuity in the situations behind the various letters to Corinth.72 Answering his own 'preliminary question', Barrett asserts that since 1 and 2 Corinthians address different situations, we must not interpret 2 Corinthians in terms of the occasion of 1 Corinthians. In fact, the single letter of 2 Corinthians 10-13 marks the confines of the investigation because chs. 1-9 may contain parts of several letters. However, if we find that parts of 1-9 deal with the same persons as 10-13, it enhances our understanding of the whole situation.73 The limitation of considering a single letter is important because it should allow each letter to be understood on its own terms. Barrett also raises the issue of assessing passages within the primary text. He asserts that, instead of using the text to choose a current hypothesis or to construct a new one, it is best to take a number of vital and difficult passages, and establish for them, asfirmlyas possible, exegetical results. On the basis of these, one may hope, a picture will emerge with reasonably clear outlines, however vague some of the details may remain.74

28

Identifying Paul's Opponents

This issue is critical. The passages used to draw the outline of the situation will greatly affect that outline's appearance. Strangely, Barrett has us begin with Vital and difficult passages'.75 Even if we accept 'vital and difficult' passages as the appropriate starting point, Barrett does not define or give criteria for identifying them. 'Vital and difficult' is not synonymous with directly polemical. Barrett identifies three passages in chs. 10-13 as 'vital and difficult'.76 Elsewhere,77 he lists the passages where Paul refers specifically to his opponents. 2 Cor. 2.17; 3.1; 5.12; 10.7; 10.12-18; and 11.4 comprise this list. Even when we allow that neither list is exhaustive, the amount of overlap (only 10.12-18 is in both categories) shows that neither category includes the other. So not every vital passage is polemical and not every polemical passage is vital. Barrett needs to supply some criteria for identifying vital passages. Without such criteria, we can simply designate as vital those passages which support a particular position. Then, we gain nothing by speaking of method. If Barrett uses 'vital and difficult' to refer to passages which are vital and present difficulties, then the above comments about the relationship between polemical and vital passages may be without point. However, the remarks about the necessity of defining 'vital' stand. We might expect Barrett's assertion of the importance of analyzing letters individually to curtail his use of parallels, but it does not. Other letters, especially Galatians, significantly influence his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 10-13. Barrett asserts that we can use other letters to Corinth if they address the same situation. But he does not say how much or what kind of evidence he requires to tie the situations together. We will examine each of Barrett's 'vital and difficult' passages to see how he identifies and uses parallels. Barrett sees 10.12-18, with its use if icavcov and jaerpov, as one of the most difficult sections of chs. 10-13.78 Paul clarifies the meaning of Kavcov (v. 13) when he says in v. 14 that he had not gone beyond his appointed limit in coming to Corinth, as his opponents had. Paul claims the Corinthians because he arrived there with the gospel first.79 Barrett supports this interpretation with Rom. 15.20 where Paul states his own rule—he does not interfere in other missionaries' fields. The Corinthian opponents' glorying ei