[Forgery] 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 [/Forgery]

[JoeWallack]

JW:
This Thread will consider the evidence that 2 Corinthians 11:32-33:

2 Corinthians 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:

2 Corinthians 11:33 and through a window was I let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands.

is forged/interpolated.

Some of the points I'm going to make here have already been mentioned to some degree in related Threads here that appear to be expanding even faster than early Christianity did.

For starters, here is the El-a-font in the room, the interruption of Paul's normal philosophical argument:

2 Corinthians 11:29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is caused to stumble, and I burn not?

2 Corinthians 11:30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things that concern my weakness.

2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for evermore knoweth that I lie not.

2 Corinthians 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:

2 Corinthians 11:33 and through a window was I let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands.

2 Corinthians 12:1 I must needs glory, though it is not expedient; but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:3 And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth),

2 Corinthians 12:4 how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

2 Corinthians 12:5 On behalf of such a one will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in [my] weaknesses.

2 Corinthians 12:6 For if I should desire to glory, I shall not be foolish; for I shall speak the truth: but I forbear, lest any man should account of me above that which he seeth me [to be], or heareth from me.

Note the theme/meme before and after. Paul/man is weak verses God/Jesus is strong. God/Jesus as source is good. Man source is bad. Philosophical argument with the contrasted/balanced rhetoric that reminds one of the Master in Mystery Men. The offending verses are completely out of place with this.

Looking forward, as we've seen in the Threads here, and if you read the related literature, the main/only reason not to think the offending verse in error is because Paul would have known what he was talking about. If though the offending verse is forged/interpolated, than this defense, as Gene Wilder said in the classic Young Frankenstein, "Collapses like a bunch of broccoli."


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[hjalti]

It would be fun to see a more detailed analysis. E.g. why would anyone want to put this in the text? Why put it at that point in the text?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It would be fun to see a more detailed analysis. E.g. why would anyone want to put this in the text? Why put it at that point in the text?

Marginal note by a speculating copyist?

Hyothesis:

Paul writes "Governor," copyist writes "Aretas?" in a marginal note. Next copyists incorporates it into the body of the text.

[hjalti]

It would be fun to see a more detailed analysis. E.g. why would anyone want to put this in the text? Why put it at that point in the text?

Marginal note by a speculating copyist?

Hyothesis:

Paul writes "Governor," copyist writes "Aretas?" in a marginal note. Next copyists incorporates it into the body of the text.

So only "under Aretas the king" is the interpolation? That's somewhat different from Joe's suggestion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yeah, only "Aretas the King" need be interpolated and that can be an accident. I was answering the question of why somebody would add it. It wouldn't have to be intentional, just a speculative marginal note accidentally stacked into the text.

[Bernard Muller]

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
2Cr 11:23
Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death.
2Cr 11:24
Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes.
2Cr 11:25
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep.
will boast of what pertains to my weakness.
2Cr 11:26
I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren;
2Cr 11:27
I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
2Cr 11:28
Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.
2Cr 11:29
Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern?
2Cr 11:30
If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.
2Cr 11:31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.

Then comes 2Cr 11:32-33, the so-called offending verses.

In this passage, Paul is trying to establish he is more a servant of Christ than his competitors. See 2Cr 11:23 "Are they servants of Christ?—I speak as if insane—I more so;". And Why? Paul explained "in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death."
Then follows a list of Paul sufferances, dangers and risk taking: 2Cr 11:24-29.
In 2Cr 11:26, let's notice "dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city" which fits very much 2Cr 11:32-33.

However 2Cr 11:32-33 is separated from 2Cr 11:22-29 by two verses.

That can be explained very easily: Paul was afraid that long list of dangers & sufferances would be considered boasting (of glorification) of himself. So he briefly interrupted that list in order to insert:

2Cr 11:30
If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.
2Cr 11:31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying

Essentially, Paul said 2Cr 11:24-29 is not about boasting, because if he were to boast, that would be about his weakness.
And he tried to assure his audience he was not telling lies.

After this "clarification", Paul continued to his last case about him putting himself in danger (from Gentiles, in a city), that is 2Cr 11:32-33.

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

agree. It is not out of context at all. One might say it was an after thought -- ie his very first suffering remembered at the end of the list, but that alone is hardly grounds for claiming interpolation. There is no elephant in the room. That's a fantasy.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I've launched the opening salvo in the battle over the originality of 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 by illustrating that visually they look out of place (like a childish Paul born out of time, like the time the surrounding verses were originally written). Now let's look at the related Literary categories of description to see if the offending verses fit the stir upps or are pricking at the godoads.

Paul's use of historical time Markers
Everyone would agree that Paul is a Minimalist when it comes to the use/non use/miss use of historical time markers. The offending verses:

2 Corinthians 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:

2 Corinthians 11:33 and through a window was I let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Here we have a historical time marker. When Aretas was king of Damascus (or at least a claimed one). Can we find any other historical time marker in Paul? That is real Paul. Someone, anyone, Muehler?

Can we find a historical time marker in fake Paul? Omama, yes we can:

1 Timothy 6

1 Timothy 6:13 I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession;

For the orthodox here, Jesus confesses before G-d that he broke the Law @ 613? It's enough to make you turn Jew. So the only other historical marker in all of Paul as of the time of this post is in what we would all agree is Fake (Forged) Paul.

Can we find more claimed historical time markers for Paul outside of real/fake Paul? Does a Bar take a peshitta to read on the wood?

Acts 4:6

Acts 4:6 and Annas the high priest [was there], and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.

JW:
Everyone would agree that regarding the direction of use of historical time markers, earlier Christianity has less, later Christianity has more. Here, we appear to have a choice between either 1 historical time marker in real Paul or none. Which is less, 1 or -0-?


Joseph

Errancywiki

[Bernard Muller]

to JW,
Aretas IV was king from 9BC to 40 BC. So that makes the mention of Aretas a very wide time marker covering some 48 years.
Certainly, if an interpolator, knowing about Acts, wanted to introduce a time marker in the Paulines, he could have done much better.
BTW, the so-called time marker in 1 Timothy 6:13 is about Jesus, not Paul. Was it put in as a time marker? Probably not, more likely to have Paul demonstrating he knew historical stuff about the human Jesus.
My last name is Muller.

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

Certainly, if an interpolator, knowing about Acts, wanted to introduce a time marker in the Paulines, he could have done much better.

But all your arguments - and I mean ALL your arguments - assume that the early Christians were limited to the same material that we in the post-Nicene world were limited to. It should be obvious that there were dozens of historical sources that are now lost. Justin of Tiberias's chronology, Nicholas of Damascus and many more we don't even know about. Why someone decided to develop a portrait of Paul in this particular direction is an interesting question - but since it is one that we can't possibly answer with absolute certainty - it can't be used as an argument against the question of whether or not the material was forged. The Marcionites said that Acts was a forgery along with many other 'heretical' traditions. The Marcionites and many other heretical groups testify to the fact that the Catholic canonical letters of Paul had a great deal of historical information added to them. Even Tertullian makes clear that there was no biographical material found in the letters that could be used to shine a light on the person of the apostle. The idea that Acts and the existing canonical letters are forgeries aren't 'unsettled questions' - they are clearly attested positions in antiquity. You choose to ignore this fact and ask modern writers and thinkers - if people here at the board can be so described - to effectively take Josephus and make arguments for or against forgery based on how the information lines up what that single source. But Polycarp or Irenaeus or whomever added this information had many other sources to 'square' this material which are no longer available to us. You are wasting everyone's time going on the offense like this. The rest of us don't bury our head in the sand when it comes to the actual situation in antiquity they way you and other believers do.

I think we can explore what scenarios might have contributed to these forgeries but nothing definitive can be expected of such investigations because there is so much we don't know.