2 Corinthians

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2001 by Hubbard, Moyer

2 Corinthians. By Jerry W. McCant. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, 196 pp., $23.75 paper; 2 Corinthians. By William R. Baker. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin: College Press, 1999,470 pp., $29.99; 2 Corinthians. By David E. Garland. NAC 29. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999, 587 pp., $29.99.

Twenty years ago 2 Corinthians was one of the more neglected Pauline epistles. Unlike 1 Corinthians, with its highly contemporary discussion of tongues, prophecy, spiritual gifts, lawsuits, and more, this homely younger sister received little attention from the popular and scholarly worlds. This situation has been remedied in recent years, and there now exists a host of commentaries on 2 Corinthians, ranging from full-scale technical studies (Thrall, Furnish, Martin), to those aimed at the layperson and Bible-study leader (Kruse, Belleville, Hafemann). The commentaries under review here would fall somewhere between these, being written primarily for the pastor (Garland, Baker) or serious student (McCant, Garland). All three defend the unity of 2 Corinthians, and explain the letter's changes in tone and subject matter in terms of the complexity of the situation Paul is addressing in Corinth.

Jerry McCant's deceptively slender volume is part of a new series of commentaries from Sheffield that intentionally focuses on the literary dimensions of the text. The commentary proceeds paragraph by paragraph, rather than verse by verse, which allows McCant to concentrate on the structure and development of each section, as opposed to atomistic analysis of the components. The rhetorical/stylistic features of the text are explored with deft acumen, and the reader gains the impression that the author has lived a long time with the argument, language, and phraseology of 2 Corinthians. Those unschooled in the vocabulary of rhetorical criticism will probably find some of McCant's analysis tough sledding. Latin phrases, frequently untranslated, are sprinkled generously throughout the book, as are other technical literary-critical terms. The author interacts with a limited selection of important modern authors, reflecting the constraints of the series, but is generous in his reference to ancient writers-certainly a prudent exchange.

McCant advances two provocative theses regarding 2 Corinthians, rendering his contribution more substantive than might first appear by its mere 196 pages. McCant's first bold proposal is that all of 2 Corinthians, not just the final three chapters, should be read as a parodic defense in which "irony and parody are frolicking on every page" (p. 13). It is widely acknowledged that 2 Corinthians 10-13 is rife with parody and sarcasm, though McCant contends that this is characteristic of the earlier chapters as well. His section titles are indicative: "A Parodic Defense of Behavior" (chaps. 1-7); "A Parody of Benefaction" (chaps. 8-9); "A Parodic Defense of Authority" (chaps. 10-13). In his introductory comments McCant offers some broad definitional boundaries for parody that highlight its function to ridicule, caricature, and malign through imitation. He comes closest to a definition on p. 14: "parody imitates serious writing. . . but with slight changes makes the serious appear ridiculous." In his attempt to read chaps. 1-9 as parody, McCant uncovers numerous tongue-in-cheek expressions, and other sardonic elements that might otherwise go unnoticed. This is all genuinely helpful, yet it remains doubtful whether the argument as a whole should be understood as an extended theological lampoon. McCant frequently invokes the term parody or parodic to describe passages or features of the text that do not fit any conventional definition of parody. Can we seriously read the appeal of chaps. 8 and 9 for the Corinthians to recommit themselves to the collection as a parody of benefaction? In what sense is 8:16-24 a parody of a letter of recommendation? Where are the elements of imitation, ridicule, and sarcasm? It seems that McCant must stretch the definition of parody beyond any recognizable form in order for his creative analysis to work. While appreciative of his many insights, I remain unconvinced.

The second daring thesis McCant advances is that, contrary to the unanimous voice of scholarship on 2 Corinthians, there were no intruders from outside causing problems for Paul in Corinth. He writes, "There is no evidence that Paul considers that he has any 'opponents' in Corinth. They are a troublesome lot, even a `thorn in his flesh' (12.7), but Paul's pastoral heart does not permit thinking of the congregation as 'opponents'. Perhaps it is time to close the door on discussions about opponents in Corinth" (p. 18). The identity of Paul's opponents in Corinth is certainly vexing, and has led to numerous imaginative profiles (Schmithals, Georgi, Guttgemanns, Rissi), and also to confessions of agnosticism (Stockhausen, Bieringer). But can we dispense with the notion altogether? When Paul decries any who would preach "a different Jesus" (11:4), and calls those feigning apostolic status before the Corinthians "false apostles and workers of evil" (11:12-13), who are trying to deceive the Corinthians as Satan did Eve (11:3, 14-15), it is difficult not to conclude that there were in fact opponents in Corinth. Paul's rhetorical questions, "Are they Hebrews? Are they Israelites? Are they the seed of Abraham? Are they ministers of Christ?" (11:22), along with his designation of this group as false apostles, virtually demands that we are dealing with Jewish-Christian missionaries representing (most likely) the Jewish wing of the Palestinian church. While there is no evidence that they were advocating the Mosaic law-and Paul's own attack focuses on their demeanor, not their doctrine-it seems impossible to deny their existence. Indeed, it remains unclear to me how McCant can argue that there were a minority of wealthy Corinthians who did not support Paul against the offender of 2:6-whom McCant calls "slanderers" (p. 105) and "troublemakers" (p. 119), and whom Paul perceived to be "satanic" (p. 127)-and at the same time claim that Paul had no opponents in Corinth. By the definition of most, these would qualify as opponents. Unfortunately, McCant never offers any systematic defense of his proposal (which would probably require a monograph-length treatment), but contents himself with passing comments as he works through the text.