¹ See Mitchell, M. M., ‘Korintherbriefe’, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. iv (ed. Betz, H. D. et al. ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002 ⁴) 1688-94Google Scholar. Also, ead., ‘The Corinthian Correspondence and the Birth of Pauline Hermeneutics’, Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall (ed. T. J. Burke and J. K. Elliott; Novum Testamentum Supplements 109; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 17-53.

² See, in particular, R. Bieringer, ‘Teilungshypothesen zum 2. Korintherbrief. Ein Forschungsüberblick’, ‘Der 2. Korintherbrief als ursprüngliche Einheit. Ein Forschungsüberblick’, and ‘Plädoyer für die Einheitlichkeit des 2. Korintherbriefes. Literarkritische und inhaltliche Argumente’, all in Studies on 2 Corinthians (ed. R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht; Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 112; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994) 67–105, 107–30, and 131–79, respectively. I. Vegge, 2 Corinthians – a Letter about Reconciliation (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.239; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

³ See Schmeller, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (2 Kor 1.1–7. 4) (EKK viii/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener/Patmos, 2010) and Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (2 Kor 7.4-13.13) (EKK viii/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener/Patmos, 2015).

⁴ The four motifs are among those identified by Jan Lambrecht S.J., Second Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 8; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999, 158–9) as being ‘present in both ch. 10 and ch. 13’ (158). He also quite rightly sees the consequences of this: ‘The two chapters [chs. 10 and 13] can be considered, to some degree, as framing and including the middle chs. 11 and 12.’

⁵ Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. II (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) 612 (my italics).

⁶ The final result of the present essay will be that 1 Cor 4.18–21 is exceedingly relevant to the whole of 2 Cor 10–13, just as 1 Cor 3.1–4.13 is highly relevant to Paul's comparison with his external critics in 2 Cor 10.12–12.10. However, I will not spell out these connections here.

⁷ Vegge, 2 Corinthians, 270 (my italics).

⁸ Vegge, 2 Corinthians, 271 (my italics).

⁹ Schmeller, Der zweite Brief vol. II, 128.

¹⁰ Compare also Bieringer, ‘Die Gegner im 2. Korintherbrief’ (in Bieringer and Lambrecht, Studies on 2 Corinthians, 181–221), 186: ‘Dabei bleibt es bisweilen allerdings offen, ob der Apostel von den Gegnern oder von den Korinthern spricht.’

¹¹ Watson, F., ‘2 Cor. x-xiii and Paul's Painful Letter to the Corinthians’, Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1984) 321–46Google Scholar, at 343 (my italics).

¹² This is the translation of both the NRSV, Lambrecht (Second Corinthians, 155, with discussion), and Thrall (The Second Epistle, 597, with discussion, 618–19); I believe correctly. Schmeller (Der zweite Brief vol. II, 121, with discussion, vol. II, 139-40) understands the phrase quite differently: ‘Ihr seht auf (mein) persönliches (Auftreten)’, namely ‘(und findet es schwach)’. It seems to me that such an understanding would require some kind of contrast in the next sentence: ‘However, if somebody is confident etc., then let him etc.’ But Paul just continues from the disputed phrase: ‘If somebody is confident etc., … then … so am I’! To me this speaks pretty strongly for the alternative reading.

¹³ I have not seen this particular way of understanding the connection between οὐκ αἰσχυθήσομαι in 10.8 and the whole of 10.9 elsewhere. It consists in ‘hearing’ a μόνον after διὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν in 10.8. It seems to me that this understanding is supported by Paul's claim in 10.10–11 that he will in fact not just be ‘weighty and strong’ in his letters (δι’ ἐπιστολῶν) when absent, but also in actual fact when present.

¹⁴ Schmeller, Der zweite Brief, vol. II, 128 and 131, speaks of a lack of a grammatical object for both δέομαι and θαρρῆσαι in 10.2. (In the latter case, it would be ɛἰς ὑμᾶς.) However, the flow of the sentence, coming directly after παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς and θαρρῶ ɛἰς ὑμᾶς in 10.1, practically calls for ὑμᾶς as the intended object.

¹⁵ The rendering in the NRSV is slightly vague: ‘when your obedience is complete’. So is that of Thrall: ‘when your obedience is brought to completion’. Lambrecht is much better: ‘once your obedience has been made perfect’. His brisk comment is initially well placed: ‘The time difference between v. 6b and v. 6a is strange and not without tension.’ (Second Corinthians, 155). I suggest, however, that Paul has a precise point. He will confront his critics directly on his arrival once he has through the letter achieved your complete obedience. Following up on his 2^nd person, mild address to the ‘you’ in 10.1, Paul aims to separate the ‘you’ completely from the ‘them’ that he will address boldly on his arrival. You will – hopefully – come round to complete obedience before that! (Compare for part of this Bultmann, Rudolf, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 188Google Scholar: ‘Offenbar hofft er, die Gemeinde im ganzen zu gewinnen, um dann nötigenfalls gegen einige Gegner strafend einzuschreiten’, my italics.)

¹⁶ Note in addition how Paul binds the two defences in 10.3–6 and 10.7–11 together. In both cases, the defence consists in turning the criticism completely around. In 10.2–6 he has been criticized (b, 10.2) for acting κατὰ σάρκα. This he then (10.3–6) turns completely around: on the contrary, the weapons of his warfare are not σαρκικά, but ‘powerful for God’. Similarly, in 10.1 he has been criticised for being weak when present and only bold when absent (a). In 10.7–11, then, he assures them – so that he may not appear only to frighten them in his letters – that, on the contrary, he will be forceful in practice when he comes to be present with them.

¹⁷ Watson saw the distinction between the two groups in the quotation given above, but he did not pay attention to the difference between those whom Paul ‘dares’ address (in the future) and those he does not ‘dare’ to compare himself with (in the present). I consider this difference to provide strong support for finding the ii-group alone in 10.2–11 and the iii-group alone from 10.12 onwards.

¹⁸ While Watson clearly saw that Paul is turning to the external critics in 10.12, other scholars are less clear on this. Schmeller (Der zweite Brief vol. II, 173) begins his account of 10.12–18 as follows: ‘Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Gegnern geht weiter.’ Lambrecht (Second Corinthians, 168) connects 10.12–18 relatively closely with 10.8 (on boasting). He speaks somewhat vaguely of Paul's ‘opponents’, but ends up describing them – rightly, to my mind – as the ‘intruders’. Thrall (Second Epistle, 635) is (half-way) on the right track: ‘Paul has already (vv. 7, 10) made allusive reference to the external opposition he faces in Corinth. Now he plainly refers to these people’, meaning ‘the rival missionaries’. The reason for the lack of certainty here is, I contend, that the specific target all through 10.1–11 has not been seen: that of the internal critics only.

¹⁹ For this last point, see further below.

²⁰ Compare, e.g., Schmeller (Der zweite Brief vol. II, 197, my italics) on 11.1: ‘Nachdem Paulus im vorangehenden Abschnitt [that is, 10.12–18] gegenüber den Adressaten [that is, the Corinthians] harte Kritik an den eingedrungenen Fremdmissionaren geäußert hatte, fordert er nun die Gemeinde selbst auf, ihn mit seiner Narrheit zu ertragen’.

²¹ Thrall clearly saw the intrinsic connection between 11.5 and 11.6 (Second Epistle, 675).

²² This, incidentally, would fit the fact that already in 2.17 Paul had reversed this charge by referring to the rival missionaries (cf. 3.1 on letters of recommendation) as ‘peddlers of God's word’ (καπηλɛύοντɛς τὸν λόγον τοῦ θɛοῦ).

²³ Thrall (The Second Epistle, 715) is spot on here: ‘v. 20, explanatory of v. 19, clearly refers to the rival missionaries’.

²⁴ Thrall is clear that the ‘them’ are the rival, ‘intruding’ missionaries (Second Epistle, 722–33) although she does not specifically discuss the question. Schmeller (Der zweite Brief, 242–55) speaks of ‘Rivale’ and ‘Gegner’, but does not make it quite clear that he understands them as the rival missionaries, who have intruded from the outside into Paul's own missionary field and of whom Paul speaks from 10.12 onwards. Once again, the reason probably is that the two scholars do not draw the sharp distinction between internal and external critics of Paul for which I have argued in connection with 10.1–11.

²⁵ Thrall concurs. She both claims that in 12.12 Paul is responding to criticisms made by ‘the Corinthians’ (Second Epistle, 837) and also states that in 12.11b–12 Paul asserts his own equality with ‘the rival missionaries’ (841). So, it is ‘you’ and these ‘them’.

²⁶ It is true that in his actual ‘fool's’ comparison with the intruders, Paul aims to show that he is better than them (as opposed to merely calling them ‘ministers of Satan’). This is well emphasized by Schmeller (Der zweite Brief, 252): ‘Im Unterschied zu 11,13–15 ist 11,21b–23 keine polemische Denunziation, sondern ein überbietender Vergleich’. However, Paul precisely returns in 12.11, that is, after the ‘fool's’ comparison, to his characterization of them as ‘super-apostles’, thereby continuing his description from 11.5–15. (Paul was someone who could do many things at the same time.)

²⁷ Two points here. First on the translation of 12.14 and 13.1. As will be clear, I take τρίτον τοῦτο in 12.14 to go directly with what follows immediately: ἑτοίμως ἔχω, and not ἐλθεῖν. For the alternative view, see, e.g., Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, 212–13. I just find the other reading easier in the Greek. Secondly on the division of sections. Thrall, Second Epistle, 832, sees 12.11–18 as a peroratio, and hence does not divide clearly between 12.13 and 12.14. Similarly, Lambrecht (Second Corinthians, vi) sees 12.11–21 as a single unit of ‘Self-Defense and Apostolic Concern’. By contrast, Schmeller, Der zweite Brief, 346, rightly states this: ‘Dass ein neuer Abschnitt beginnt [namely, in 12.14], wird nicht nur durch ἰδοὺ angezeigt, sondern auch durch den Aspekt der Rückkehr nach Korinth’. In the latter connection, he also rightly notes the strongly marked shift from the past tense in κατɛνάρκησα in 12.13 to the future tense in κατɛναρκήσω in 12.14. Paul clearly takes a breath between the two verses. In addition, concluding a section with a specific theme, and then continuing into a new section with the same theme is a Pauline specialty (cf., e.g., Rom 7.25).

²⁸ This should be contrasted with Schmeller's careful analysis, Der zweite Brief, 354. He finds that Paul's announcement of his forthcoming visit in 12.14–13.10 consists of four small sections that are ‘relatively loosely connected’ with one another: 12.14–18, 12.19–21, 13.1–4, and 13.5–10. I believe that the precise way in which Paul moves from speaking to the inclusive i-group (12.14–20) to speaking of the ii-group (12.21–13.2) and then returning to the i-group in a non-inclusive way (13.3–10) indicates a different division. (Thrall, Second Epistle, x, is even less helpful: ‘(i) Anxiety about the Corinthians’ moral state (12.19–21) (ii) Threat of punishment when Paul arrives: exhortation to reformed conduct (13.1–10)’.)

²⁹ Lambrecht argues (Second Corinthians, 221) that ‘We shall certainly live with him’ in 13.4 ‘does not point to life after death, but to Paul's promised boldness of action’ when he arrives. I do not think it is an either-or, rather a both-and. But Lambrecht must be right that Paul's ɛἰς ὑμᾶς does refer to his promised boldness of action on his arrival. Compare also Bultmann (Der zweite Brief, 246, my italics): ‘Das ζήσομɛν kann im Zusammenhang nicht das künftige Auferstehungsleben meinen wie Röm 6, 4f oder dieses nur, sofern es sich schon in der Gegenwart als wirksam erweist’.

³⁰ Cf. δοκιμάζɛτɛ in 13.5, ἀδόκιμοι in 13.5, 6, and 7, and δόκιμοι in 13.7. Note also how in 13.9 Paul takes up the issue of ‘your’ ‘strength’ and his own ‘weakness’ from 13.3–4: ὅταν ἡμɛῖς ἀσθɛνῶμɛν, ὑμɛῖς δὲ δυνατοὶ ἦτɛ.

³¹ To my mind, this difference is extremely important. Note how it fits Paul's distinction in 10.2 between ‘asking’ the Corinthians (‘you’, here those within his immediate reach) that he may not need, upon his arrival, to be bold, namely, with ‘you’, and the confidence with which he does plan to be daring via-à-vis ‘those’ etc., whom we saw to be the internal critics. This distinction fits exactly (though in reverse order) with his direct threat in 13.2 to the internal critics, and his expression in 13.10 that he hopes to avoid having to act severely towards the Corinthians.

³² Compare Bieringer's excellent summary (‘Teilungshypothesen’, 82–3) of Victor Paul Furnish's list of five differences and inconsistencies between 2 Cor 1–9 and 10–13. (Furnish, II Corinthians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary; Anchor Bible 32A, Garden City: Doubleday, 1984, 30.)

³³ Incidentally, these are some of the correspondences that have made adherents of the ‘Hausrath-Kennedy hypothesis’ find chapters 10–13 to be the letter of ‘tears’ that Paul had written previously (cf. 2.4). See, e.g. Watson, ‘Painful Letter’, and Lars Aejmelaeus, Streit und Versöhnung. Das Problem der Zusammensetzung des 2. Korintherbriefes (Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran julkaisuja 46; Helsinki: Kirjapaino Raamattutalo, 1987). I am turning this approach completely around. The similarities are there, but what they mean is that Paul decided to write one more letter (namely, 2 Corinthians) in order to achieve the same aims with the remaining, underlying, bigger issue of his own standing vis-à-vis the rival missionaries. That decision was motivated by the fact that his earlier letter with similar aims concerning a smaller issue (of the ‘wrongdoer’, see below) had been a success.

³⁴ I have analysed this section in ‘Paul's Temporal Thinking: 2 Cor 2.14–7.4 as Paraenetic Autobiography’, New Testament Studies 67 (2021) 157–80.

³⁵ I have not found any clear indication in scholarship that one should distinguish markedly between the specific case of the wrongdoer (which is the basic theme of chapters 2–7) and the much broader case of the rival missionaries (which is the theme of chapters 10–13). As I see it, the distinction helps immensely to explain the dynamic of the whole letter. This claim includes the fact that Paul already broaches the broader case in 2.17, 3.1, and 4.2. Of note, however, is a splendid statement by Bieringer on the issue of the wrongdoer and that of the opponents (‘Die Gegner’, 220, my italics): ‘Am wahrscheinlichsten ist, dass sie [that is, the two issues] verschiedene Problemkreise darstellen, dass Pls sie aber in 2 Kor insofern einandern annähert, als er die bereits gefundene Lösung des adikesas-Problems als Modell für die noch ausstehende Überwindung des Gegnerkonflikts vorstellt.’

³⁶ The importance of the role of Titus in 7.5–16 and into chapters 8–9 has been convincingly brought out by Schmeller, Der zweite Brief, 117–19.

³⁷ Just for the record, with – but not because of – tradition, I take the former of these two letters to be 1 Corinthians and the latter, of course, to be 2 Corinthians as a whole.

³⁸ Lambrecht tentatively saw the connection (Second Corinthians, 164): ‘Is 10:1b–12:18, therefore, not somewhat analogous to the equally major (but, of course, quite different) excursus of 2:14–7:4?’ Only, neither of these two sections is an ‘excursus’! On the contrary, they are crucial to Paul's argument.