. . . one must investigate whether there are
indications of possible ‘lost’ letters in 1 and 2 Corinthians, for there are
references to a more extensive Corinthian correspondence than that which
currently exists (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 2:3f.; 10:9–11). These indications raise
questions about the original extent of the Corinthian correspondence or about
possible compilations of letters and demand an attempted reconstruction. (Eve-Marie
Becker, Letter Hermeneutics in 2 Corinthians: Studies in Literarkritik and
Communication Theory [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series 279; London T & T Clark International, 2004], 3)
In the analysis of 2 Cor.
7:8f. two details support the interpretation of the aorist forms as temporal:
first, with the expression ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ in 7:8 Paul is definitely referring
to a writing described as a ‘letter’ (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9). This is an instrumental
dative. (Ibid., 99)
In his letters Paul writes
about his letter-writing and in so doing uses various forms and tenses of the
verb γράφειν. The aorist form ἔγραψα in 1 Cor. 5:9 and 2 Cor. 2:3f., 9; 7:12 is
controversial in respect of its temporal aspect (see above). . . . If then in 2
Cor. 2:3f., 9; 7:12 and 1 Cor. 5:9 we have a temporal aorist, Paul is here
returning to an earlier letter. This interpretation of the aorist is important
hermeneutically since the hypothesis that there were letters preceding 1 and 2
Cor. is based substantially upon it. (Ibid., 125, 127)
First I would offer some
observations on 1 Cor. 5:9, 11; then follows the interpretation of the aorist
in 2 Cor. 2:7: in 1 Cor. 5:9, 11 Paul uses ἔγραψα twice in a short space. In 1
Cor. 5:9 he refers to a previous letter, the possibly lost so-called
pre-letter. This can be inferred from the expression ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ. There are
linguistic indications to support this assumption of a pre-letter: there is no
other instance in the extant Pauline epistles of συναναμίγνυμαι (1 Cor. 5:9,
11). 5:9 could be a summary of the Pauline paraenesis in the so-called
pre-letter: συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις. It is given in summary form because Paul
had already in the pre-letter given a more detailed explanation which then
follows once more in 5:10. The terms for vices in 1 Cor. 5:10 (πόρνοι,
πλεονέκται, ἅρπαγες, εἰδωλολάτραι) are taken up again in their entirety in 1
Cor. 5:11 and then repeated in 1 Cor. 6:9f. and—apart from εἰδωλολάτραι in 1
Cor. 10:7—are not found elsewhere in Paul. The number of groups designated as
iniquitous increases—as if rising to a climax. Thus 1 Cor. 5:11 contains
additional iniquitous concepts to 5:9f. (λοίδοροι, μέθυσοι), which for their
part are only otherwise found in the Paulines in 1 Cor. 6:10. Finally in 1 Cor.
6:9f. there appear four further groups who are not mentioned in either 1 Cor.
5:9f. or in 1 Cor. 5:11 (μοιχοί, μαλακοί, ἀρσενοκοῖται, κλέπται). This creates
intensification in the argumentation: 1 Cor. 5:9 gives a summary warning about
associating with πόρνοι who in 5:10 are classified as πόρνοι τοῦ κοσμοῦ. In
5:11 Paul introduces further groups and situates them, exemplified in a person
(τις), in the actual life of the congregation: ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόνεμος … τῷ
τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. This too effects intensification. Finally in 1 Cor. 6
the Corinthian congregation itself is addressed on the matter of how to treat ἄδικοι
(6:1, 9). Thus in 1 Cor. 6:9f. in contrast to 5:11 there is an intensification
in the following three respects: here Paul is talking of ἄδικοι within the
congregation; these are not referred to in the dative as opponents of the
community (as in 5:9f. and 5:11) but in the nominative with regard to their
state (οὔτε … βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν); and finally the groups
designated by vices are increased by four.
From these observations it
seems reasonable to see in 1 Cor. 5:9f. a reference to a previous letter in
which Paul had given a warning in principle about associating with the πόρνοι
τοῦ κόσμου. Paul takes up this warning from his earlier letter in 1 Cor. 5:9 in
a summary, in 5:10 with an explication since there is now an actual problem of
πορνεία (5:1) in the Corinthian congregation. Hence in 5:11 Paul then brings
the earlier general warning up to date in the current congregational situation
(τις ἀδελφός). From this we may suspect that ἔγραψα in 5:9 refers to the
previous letter, but in 5:11 it relates to the closer context of what has just
been written. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that 5:11 is introduced
by νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα. This νῦν δέ is admittedly often interpreted as logical, but
here should be understood as temporal. For the basic meaning of νῦν δέ is ‘but
now’; furthermore, there is no parallel for a logical interpretation in the
Paulines. The aorist ἔγραψα in 1 Cor. 5 can then, in rapid succession, relate
temporally to an earlier letter and reflect epistolographically what has just
been written. (Ibid., 127-28)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
