Having done a bit of work on Pauline ethics, I think about his approaches from time to time, wondering about the extent to which he is repeating classic admonitions of his heritage, or doing something new. Recently I was looking again at 2 Corinthians (yes, that’s TWO Corinthians – apparently it exists) 12:20-21, and thinking to myself that Paul Barnett goes too far in thinking that the issues Paul mentions in verse 21 can serve to reconstruct a situation in ancient Corinth behind the letter. Don’t get me wrong – Barnett is always a great read, so I don’t think he goes too far on everything. But in relation to this passage, I just don’t think that Paul’s vice lists are responding to particular problems in Corinth.
Enter Nijay Gupta’s recent article in JSNT: “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters.” It’s a good read. Nijay attempts to broaden Barclay’s methodical approach to mirror-reading, in order to apply it to ethical issues (such as appears in 2 Corinthians 12:20-21). He is appropriately measured and cautious, while providing some sensible ways forward. Give it a read!
Welcome to the exciting world of 2 Corinthians!
Surely Barnett is correct here. The situation in Corinth is certainly in view in 13:1-3. Since 12:21 also refers to those who sinned before, it too must refer to the situation in Corinth. Do explain why you think otherwise.
My view is that Paul is afraid that the licentious faction are criticizing himself and Titus-Timothy (2 Cor 12:16-19) to undermine his authority so that they can return to their immoral ways (2 Cor 12:20-21) with impunity. He worries that there will be a revival of the immorality that distressed him on his second visit (2 Cor 13:1-3). It is no coincidence that the vices of 12:20-21 are those that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians.
The offender of 2 Cor 2&7 had made accusations against Paul to undermine Paul’s authority (with the aim of rendering Paul incapable of disciplining the licentious). Paul is worried about a repeat of this kind of thing. In 2 Cor 13:1-2 he fears that fresh accusations will be brought against him when he visits Corinth, so he insists that accusations against him that have not been corroborated by multiple witnesses will not be entertained (so Welborn).
Yeah, I suppose when I think about it, it’s not that I think there is no background in Corinth; it’s more that I am hesitant about reading too much into a list of vices that is: a) highly conventional; b) brief; c) at a non-prominent position of the letter. I don’t doubt that Paul’s fear is real; I just doubt that we can mirror-read much in this particular instance.
But I do need to do more work on 2 Corinthians. I’m intrigued by its arrangement, and not particularly satisfied with the redaction theories. Perhaps chapter 12 will make more sense to me when I’ve looked into it further.
Does anyone have a list of vice lists that can be use to measure how conventional any particular list is? Are there any examples of a non-conventional vice list?
You are right to be skeptical of partition theories. I used to be a partitioner, but I have repented.
I’ve found Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr’s work helpful on this point – he compares ethical lists in early Jewish & Christian works. I’ve recently bought the book Moral Formation According to Paul by James W. Thompson, and in glancing through I’ve noticed that he draws on Niebuhr as well – but I haven’t had a proper read yet
Matthew, it’s a pity Nijay did not take as test-case 1 Corinthians …
Perhaps he knew your monograph is on its way 
When can I buy my copy here in Cambridge?????
Hi Ferdie! Will you be at the Tyndale Conference? My final revision of my typescript is not due until September, so the monograph won’t be out until next year at the earliest.
Matthew, sorry – I’m with my nose in the books
No, for the first time in three years I won’t be there.. I’m presenting a paper in Germany. When exactly will you fly back to Australia?
Oops – arrived back on Saturday! Was an exhausting time, but very worthwhile. I hope your paper went well in Germany!
[...] [...]