Through a Glass Darkly
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:11 am
Paul can be hard to understand. The author of 2 Peter had his own self-serving, proto-orthodox agenda, but that doesn’t make his statement any less true.Just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him.
He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Paul can be hard to understand if one looks primarily to his Christology or to his defensive doctrinal gymnastics for understanding. Or if one looks for the Great Saint Paul. Or if one tries to follow the tortuous, extended, Eisenman-esque interpretations presented by Robert Price in his none-the-less interesting recent book, The Amazing Colossal Apostle --- The Search for the Historical Paul, (2012).
The passage in 2 Corinthians 4:8-10 provides a good example,
Dr. Price discusses the challenges readers of 2 Corinthians face due to the way the final compiler re-shuffled and re-assembled several separate letters (page 377). I agree with Price, and many other investigators, on the composite and disjointed nature of the correspondence. Though any consensus on a re-assembly scheme is lacking, this topic calls for further discussion --- and such would shed additional light, not only on this passage, but on the entire Corinthian correspondence.In every way being hard pressed, but not being crushed; being perplexed, but we are not despairing; being persecuted, but not being forsaken; being struck down, but not being destroyed. Always carrying in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus should also be manifested in our bodies.
But that aside for now, of the entire document 2 Corinthians --- wearing it like some skeptical badge of honor --- Dr. Price writes,
“I rejoice to count myself among the minority following the Dutch Radical Critics. I reject the Pauline authorship of every word” (page 377).
Price characterizes the 18 verses of chapter 4 as beginning with ”pure Marcionism”, but also containing a “catholic interpolation” and a “catholic gloss”, and then the chapter ending with phrases that are ”heavily redolent of Valentinian Gnosticism” and “Gnosticizing Paulinism” (pages 384-386).
These passages provide the opportunity to provide a different way of viewing Paul and his rhetoric.
The key to understanding Paul lies in simpler, more basic human needs --- needs we all share to some degree. Paul was motivated by the need for respect, authority, and financial rewards --- and, for Paul, each of those flowed from the others. In such a view, here’s another interpretation of the passage cited above (2 Corinthians 4:8-10) ---
Paul played the “poor me” card, as he did on several other occasions. Paul felt “hard pressed”, “perplexed”, and “struck down” because he felt rejected after the Corinthians had been visited by evangelist they liked better than Paul --- the so-called “super-apostles” (2 Cor 3:1, 10:12, 11:5, and more). And not only that, the Corinthians sent Paul’s envoy Titus packing --- empty handed and with accusations that he and Paul were trying to take advantage of them with Paul’s scheme of the collection for the saints in Jerusalem. (2 Cor 12:16-18). However, Paul wasn’t about to give up so easily (2 Cor 3:1, 10:1, 11:1 and many more) with his efforts among the well-heeled Corinthians (2 Cor 8:14).
Guessing at the motivations of others can be tricky business. But Paul’s all-too-human motivations are abundantly revealed in all five of his authentic letters addressed to his congregations, and those motivations provide the key to sorting out his hyperbole. The key to understanding Paul is, I believe, to see his warts, to recognize his bad breath, to look for his human frailties.
robert j.
