tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6689838439428844486.post1476450356661870583..comments2024-03-15T20:15:34.428+13:00Comments on ξενος: 2 Cor 12:1-5: Is Paul Just Taking The Mickey?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6689838439428844486.post-9387921524799133322010-03-25T09:43:10.484+13:002010-03-25T09:43:10.484+13:00Richard, a warm welcome to the blog :-)
Thanks T...Richard, a warm welcome to the blog :-) <br /><br />Thanks Tim and Richard, both comments greatly appreciated. <br /><br />Tim, you are absolutley correct about the problems, of course, but I think the problems with it being Paul's own vision are even greater. I think this idea might deserve a more substantial attempt to argue it... watch this space :-)Jonathan Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18295840754661890186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6689838439428844486.post-74244469316725356892010-03-24T18:18:44.245+13:002010-03-24T18:18:44.245+13:00Some (admittedly quick) comments: It seems to me t...Some (admittedly quick) comments: It seems to me that the conventional understanding of this passage works quite well. The switch to the third person seems strange to us, but I wonder if it would have been strange to first century ears. Josephus refers to himself in the third person, and I would argue that Luke does too.<br /><br />12:5 seems problematic for your interpretation. You propose that Paul is taking the mickey in 12:2-4 and that in 12:6 he is being straight forward. The difficulty is that 12:5 links 12:2-4 with 12:6. How was the reader to know when Paul switches out of mickey mode? The switch doesn't really correspond to the switch back to the first person, since you require that 'boast' in 12:5 is used ironically. People do sometimes use sarcasm, but there is never a gradual transition between sarcasm mode and normal mode. That would create intolerable ambiguity.<br /><br />12:2 is also problematic, I think. Why, on your reading, would Paul mention that the revelation was 14 years ago AND say that the man was caught up to the third heaven? 14 years is a long time and could, on your understanding, be Paul's way of saying how infrequently his opponents had visions. However, the mention of 'third heaven' does not seem to be a put-down. Why would Paul express the greatness of his opponents' revelation with the phrase 'third heaven' but also express the infrequency of the revelations? Wouldn't you need to suppose that Paul switches modes mid-sentence?<br /><br />The '14 years' makes perfect sense with the conventional understanding of the passage. Paul here makes is clear that he had had this great vision before the 18 months that he had spent with the Corinthians. He makes them realize that he had been with them for the 18 months without breathing a word about this vision, unlike the opponents who had boasted about their revelations upon arrival in Corinth.<br /><br />I haven't given your hypothesis the time it deserves, but I hope these initial thoughts are helpful.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6689838439428844486.post-19787876140589161052010-03-24T16:38:58.681+13:002010-03-24T16:38:58.681+13:00I just had a quick look at the NRSV translation of...I just had a quick look at the NRSV translation of the first few verses, and once you suggest the idea it looks "obvious" to me, but then I have been known to use sarcasm myself on occasion... It's a hoot!Tim Bulkeleyhttp://bigbible.org/sansblogue/noreply@blogger.com