2 Corinthians 11:32 —- Why Aretas?

[GakuseiDon]

GakuseiDon, Please feel free to comment in the above thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487 so we don't siderail this thread too much.

No worries. I'll have a read through the other thread and if I comment I'll do so over there. Thanks Jax.

[neilgodfrey]

I'd love to follow up some of the references included in Welborn's article The Runaway Paul (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1510052) -- especially the Michelsen one and others at #12. I've had no luck searching for Michelsen so far. Yet to find time to look for the others.

Many exegetes, and among them the most critical, are inclined to dismiss these verses as an ''afterthought,''¹¹ or to delete them entirely as a "scribal gloss" that has crept into the text.¹² The source of the critics' dissatisfaction lies in the obscurity of the narrative's intent. The prosaic successful flight seems to lack a purpose in its present context, and rhythmical catalogue of hardships in 2 Cor 11:23-29, and even more the solemn asseveration of truthfulness in verse 31.¹³ The little narrative appears to be "out of context, out of style, quite out of connection."¹⁴

. . . .

11 Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 363; Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1,11 (rev. Werner Georg Kummel; HNT 9; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949) 151; Jean Hering, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1967) 87; Heinz Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 220; among others.

12 So, already, J. H. A. Michelsen, "T Verhaal van Paulus' vlucht uit Damaskus, 2 Kor. XI:32,33; XII: 1, 7a een interpolatie," Theologisch Tijdschrift 7 (1873) 424-27; J. M. S. Baljon, De tekst der brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de Corinthiers en de Galatiers als voorwerp conjecturalkritiekbeschouwd (Utrecht: Boekhoven,1884) 159-61; Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 363-64; Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner "Apologie" 2 Kor 10-13 (BHTh 45; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, n. 201.

13 Rightly, Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,1915) 332; Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 363; Rudolf Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Gottingen: Vandebhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976), 220.

14 E. F. F. Bishop, "Does Aretas Belong in 2 Corinthians or Galatians?" ExpTim 64 (1953) 189, cited by Victor Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 540.

The Michelsen reference is cited by Sturdy in his book as:

Michelsen, J. H. A. 1873. "Het verhaal van Paulus' vlucht uit Damaskus 2 Kor. XI:32, 33; XII:1, 7a een interpolatie:' ThT 7: 421-29.

[maryhelena]

I'd love to follow up some of the references included in Welborn's article The Runaway Paul (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1510052) -- especially the Michelsen one and others at #12. I've had no luck searching for Michelsen so far. Yet to find time to look for the others.

Many exegetes, and among them the most critical, are inclined to dismiss these verses as an ''afterthought,''¹¹ or to delete them entirely as a "scribal gloss" that has crept into the text.¹² The source of the critics' dissatisfaction lies in the obscurity of the narrative's intent. The prosaic successful flight seems to lack a purpose in its present context, and rhythmical catalogue of hardships in 2 Cor 11:23-29, and even more the solemn asseveration of truthfulness in verse 31.¹³ The little narrative appears to be "out of context, out of style, quite out of connection."¹⁴

. . . .

11 Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 363; Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1,11 (rev. Werner Georg Kummel; HNT 9; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949) 151; Jean Hering, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1967) 87; Heinz Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 220; among others.

12 So, already, J. H. A. Michelsen, "T Verhaal van Paulus' vlucht uit Damaskus, 2 Kor. XI:32,33; XII: 1, 7a een interpolatie," Theologisch Tijdschrift 7 (1873) 424-27; J. M. S. Baljon, De tekst der brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de Corinthiers en de Galatiers als voorwerp conjecturalkritiekbeschouwd (Utrecht: Boekhoven,1884) 159-61; Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 363-64; Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner "Apologie" 2 Kor 10-13 (BHTh 45; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, n. 201.

13 Rightly, Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,1915) 332; Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 363; Rudolf Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Gottingen: Vandebhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976), 220.

14 E. F. F. Bishop, "Does Aretas Belong in 2 Corinthians or Galatians?" ExpTim 64 (1953) 189, cited by Victor Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 540.

The Michelsen reference is cited by Sturdy in his book as:

Michelsen, J. H. A. 1873. "Het verhaal van Paulus' vlucht uit Damaskus 2 Kor. XI:32, 33; XII:1, 7a een interpolatie:' ThT 7: 421-29.

The Runaway Paul : Laurence L. Welborn

Page 8.

Against all these conjectures one must object that manuscript evidence of an interpolation is lacking. ‘’There is no evidence that the epistle ever existed without these verses at this point’’

[neilgodfrey]

The Runaway Paul : Laurence L. Welborn

Page 8.

Against all these conjectures one must object that manuscript evidence of an interpolation is lacking. ‘’There is no evidence that the epistle ever existed without these verses at this point’’

Yes, maryhelena, there is no manuscript evidence for interpolation. I know. We all know that. But that's not how arguments for probably most interpolations in both biblical AND ancient classical literature are decided -- as we all know (or should know) just as well.

I would still like to read what the arguments are, though. Don't you? Wanting to learn what others have argued is not a surrender to agreeing with them. It's about knowing what other perspectives there are and acknowledging that one needs to spend a bit of time learning other points of view in order to get a fair grasp on a question. Gosh, one might even find one disagrees with other arguments whether those arguments support or challenge one's own tentative thoughts. On the other hand, horror of horrors, we might even begin to change our minds as we reflect upon new information.

[maryhelena]

The Runaway Paul : Laurence L. Welborn

Page 8.

Against all these conjectures one must object that manuscript evidence of an interpolation is lacking. ‘’There is no evidence that the epistle ever existed without these verses at this point’’

Yes, maryhelena, there is no manuscript evidence for interpolation. I know. We all know that. But that's not how arguments for probably most interpolations in both biblical AND ancient classical literature are decided -- as we all know (or should know) just as well.

I would still like to read what the arguments are, though. Don't you? Wanting to learn what others have argued is not a surrender to agreeing with them. It's about knowing what other perspectives there are and acknowledging that one needs to spend a bit of time learning other points of view in order to get a fair grasp on a question. Gosh, one might even find one disagrees with other arguments whether those arguments support or challenge one's own tentative thoughts. On the other hand, horror of horrors, we might even begin to change our minds as we reflect upon new information.

Really, really, waiting for new information - actually been doing that for years now - let me know if you come across any.....

[neilgodfrey]

Really, really, waiting for new information - actually been doing that for years now - let me know if you come across any.....

Well I'd like to read the arguments in those citations. Perhaps you can summarize them for us here if it's all old information to you.

Till then, I'd like to read what others have said -- I am always finding new things. Aren't you?

[maryhelena]

Really, really, waiting for new information - actually been doing that for years now - let me know if you come across any.....

Well I'd like to read the arguments in those citations. Perhaps you can summarize them for us here if it's all old information to you.

Till then, I'd like to read what others have said -- I am always finding new things. Aren't you?

I'm not looking for opinions - I'm interested in established historical facts. Opinions are two a penny....The world, especially the NT world, is full of opinions - opinions going nowhere.....

oh, indeed I'm always finding new things...... I'm miles away from when I started this - and still moving....moving fast now....

[StephenGoranson]

Michelsen article available here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... up&seq=435

[Jax]

GakuseiDon, Please feel free to comment in the above thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487 so we don't siderail this thread too much.

No worries. I'll have a read through the other thread and if I comment I'll do so over there. Thanks Jax.

[robert j]

Aretas III --- Nah.

Based on the history of the city of Corinth, the timeline for an Aretas III is not a good fit for Paul’s letter to the Corinthians ---

146 BCE --- the ancient city of Corinth is destroyed by the Roman army and mostly lay in ruins until about 44 BCE

87-62 BCE --- reign of the Nabataean King Aretas III

44 BCE --- the Romans begin to rebuild the city of Corinth

9 BCE – 40 CE --- reign of the Nabataean King Aretas IV

From the very last year of the reign of Aretas III until the Romans begin to rebuild the ruins of Corinth is 18 years. For the city denizens to become well-established and prosperous, as characterized in the Corinthian correspondence, would take significantly longer. Sure, I suppose one can attempt to stretch-out the amount of time between the purported event in Damascus, and Paul’s telling of the story to the Corinthians, but Aretas III is not really a good fit for 2 Corinthians 11:32.