Paul is referring to an earlier part of 2 Cor where he discusses being falsely accused of profiting off the church collection. I’m not sure which bible is quoted by the OP, but that verse, the way it’s written, sounds like a sarcastic response to the accusation. The NRSV translates the verse as:
“Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit” [parenthetical insertion by NRSV, not me]
I guess the parenthetical insertion is to make the verse more clear.
NET Bible
The translation and extensive notes were undertaken by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
But be that as it may, I have not burdened you. Yet because I was a crafty person, I took you in by deceit!
Douay-Rheims Bible
The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
But be it so: I did not burthen you: but being crafty, I caught you by guile.
Quoting from that bible, the verse can be taken out of context. Here’s the “paragraph” from the NRSV:
2 Cor 12:14-18:
14 Here I am, ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, because I do not want what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children. 15 I will most gladly spend and be spent for you. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? 16 Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit. 17 Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? 18 I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Titus did not take advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves with the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps?
Here are several other translations that concur with the NRSV: ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Some of those translations are less expository.
Looking at the context of 12:16 within 14-18 rather than just looking at the one verse I don’t see how one could say Paul loses credibility. Credibility with what? Paul is virtually scoffing the Corinthians for presuming to think he was a lazy thief. He’s saying he gives everything for the Corinthians and they have the gall to say he deceived them (not so harshly though obviously).
I’m not fan of Paul’s. This isn’t the only place where he “protests too much” about not lying or being “crafty” as has been noted above.
In this one case, however, it can likely be assumed he is being sarcastic. One can almost see him using “air quotes” when he wrote the words. And the next verse is yet another protest of innocence – “Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you?” So it’s a continuation of his whining about being True and honest.
That said, ALL of this contributes to Paul losing credibility, both to the Corinthians AND to moderns like us. Amazingly, as the NT has come down to us, we can plainly see Paul as a person who admittedly will be “all things to all men” and do anything (including getting Timothy circumcised) in order to convert people to his new religion about the Risen Christ. And his inconsistent telling of his conversion also raises concerns.
That we should be suspicious of Paul and his motive (and his doctrine, IMO) is natural, given his previous inconsistencies and loud, frequent protests of innocence.
What difference does it make, as long as in every way,
whether in pretense or in truth,
Christ is being proclaimed? And in that I rejoice.
Indeed, I shall continue to rejoice, for I know that this will result in deliverance for me through your prayers and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ. My eager expectation and hope is that I shall not be put to shame in any way, but that
with all boldness, now as always, Christ will be magnified in my body,
whether by life or by death.
An Authentic Letter of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, 1: 18-20
St. Paul
gmatthews said
Quoting from that bible, the verse can be taken out of context.
I think you are mistaken to take the stand that the NRSV is a better translation, for scholarly or research purposes, than either the NET or the Douay-Rheims.
If we’re playing church and we want our children to form their character based on the Bible, THEN Paul has to put his shirt in his pants.
If we are scholars and researchers who don’t have the license to tamper with the evidence, then we’re back to the NET and the Douay-Rheims.
(Note: Elsewhere, I recommend the NET with qualification. Somewhere else I was researching something and saw a flaw in the NET.)
Let’s do read contextually.
At 12: 5, he says I will not boast, except about my weaknesses.
He has a weakness for lying, so he will boast about it because at v 9, power is made perfect in weakness and v10, when I am weak, then I am strong.
Second, going with your line of reasoning, the context.
Paul deceived the Corinthians by having them believe they can have a free church experience, no expenses paid by them, no financial burden to them because
“I plundered other churches … in order to minister to you.” Ch. 11, verse 8.
I did not ask them for an offering or a gift to minister to you, I didn’t just steal but plundered not one church singular but churches plural. I didn’t pilfer, steal (typically things of relatively little value), from multiple churches to get value; I plundered multiple churches, crafty fellow that I am.
Where are the Ten Commandments?
It’s just going to come down to a matter of which translation we prefer. I wasn’t raised Catholic so I don’t know much about the Douay-Rheims version. I’d never heard of the NET bible until you mentioned it. I won’t go into what I see that I don’t like about it (by that I just mean that I’m not going to be inclined to accept it).
Based on the translations we come away with pretty much diametrically opposing views of Paul.
On p. 151 of my 2009 hard copy Jesus Interrupted, where Ehrman is ticking off the few “historical” items we get from the Pauline letters, he lists two sayings of Jesus: 1.) that his followers should not get divorced and 2.) that they should pay their preachers. His footnote lists Gal 4:4; Romans 15:7; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 15:5; 1 Cor. 11:22-25; 1 Cor. 7:10-11 and I Cor 9:14. The saying about divorce is at 1 Cor. 7:10-11. And in I Cor.9:14 Paul says it was Jesus who ordered them to make their living this way.
Now, call me simple (“Simple!”) but when you’re preaching an imminent kingdom that doesn’t come and doesn’t come, and you’re telling people to forsake their worldly goods and the Q sayings of Jesus also urge this outlook, and everyone has their eyes on the skies (for the prize, as it were) and are not bothering about the ‘morrow, as sheep-fully taught…with multiple hands in their pocketses, as cynical Gollems might say, here we are back at the endless squabbling about who pays the freight in the meantime.
I’d say “crafty” is fair. And deceitful. Sing and dance some more. Only THESE two sayings (out of all the others) come out that match the Q sayings. THESE TWO: STAY MARRIED And PAY YOUR PREACHERS. With what (after they’ve sold all that they had to follow you?)?
Uff da with the obvious mechanisms of CONTROL.
Where Paul loses credibility is in 1st Corinthians:
“For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.”
It raises the question whether Paul, in his brief meetings with James and Peter, was being straightforward with his beliefs or to the Jew did he become as a Jew when his teachings were actually the end of the Torah? In Acts and Paul’s letters, it certainly appears that after Paul’s confrontation with Peter, there was an investigation of his teachings, which prompted several of his letters, after which he was called back to Jerusalem to discuss his beliefs. Paul was willing to present himself as observing and guarding the law but this attempt failed because un-coincidentally there were witnesses able to recount exactly what he was teaching to gentiles and outside of Jerusalem.
gmatthews said
It’s just going to come down to a matter of which translation we prefer.
Second, going with your line of reasoning, the context.
Paul deceived the Corinthians by having them believe they can have a free church experience, no expenses paid by them, no financial burden to them because
“I plundered other churches … in order to minister to you.” Ch. 11, verse 8.
I did not ask them for an offering or a gift to minister to you, I didn’t just steal but plundered not one church singular but churches plural. I didn’t pilfer, steal (typically things of relatively little value), from multiple churches to get value; I plundered multiple churches, crafty fellow that I am.
Now for the NSRV:
I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.
Conclusion: same thing.
So, Paul is crafty and deceitful, as stated at 2nd Corinthians. Take the statement out of context to see if the description applies in other situations and it does. He is not being sarcastic, he is explaining his sinful nature, forgetting, caring less, or not even knowing Jesus instructed: “Go and sin no more.”
= = =
Steefen said
gmatthews said
It’s just going to come down to a matter of which translation we prefer.Okay, let’s do read from the NSRV to see if the following is correct.Second, going with your line of reasoning, the context.
Paul deceived the Corinthians by having them believe they can have a free church experience, no expenses paid by them, no financial burden to them because“I plundered other churches … in order to minister to you.” Ch. 11, verse 8.
I did not ask them for an offering or a gift to minister to you, I didn’t just steal but plundered not one church singular but churches plural. I didn’t pilfer, steal (typically things of relatively little value), from multiple churches to get value; I plundered multiple churches, crafty fellow that I am.
Now for the NSRV:
I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.
Conclusion: same thing.
So, Paul is crafty and deceitful, as stated at 2nd Corinthians. Take the statement out of context to see if the description applies in other situations and it does. He is not being sarcastic, he is explaining his sinful nature, forgetting, caring less, or not even knowing Jesus instructed: “Go and sin no more.”
= = =
So, the problem for the scholars, researchers, theologians, and heaven-bound readers is probably not to base too much historical accuracy or faith/hopes in the writings of Paul. I’ve heard someone say when Acts and Paul are in conflict, choose what Paul himself wrote. That may not be good advice. Second, Paul seems to have known some of the autobiography of Josephus and claimed it as his own. Both got shipwrecked on the way to see Nero; but, neither one mentions each other (illustrious personages) by name.
Your point of Acts vs Paul, Prof Ehrman has addressed this a few times. Obviously Acts was not written by Paul, but as Bart says, even though Luke supposedly wrote it and even though he was supposedly a traveling companion of Paul his historicity doesn’t match up with what Paul says, ie., was the author of Acts really a traveling companion of Paul?
Regarding Jsoephus/Paul, I’ve never heard that. Are you saying that Paul knew of Josephus’ writings or just “knew about him”? If it’s the former, Josephus is not believed to have written any earlier than 75CE, but like I said, I don’t know anything about Jospehus vis a vis Paul. If you meant the latter then to sate my curiosity I’d like to read more about that if you’ve got a source.
Regarding 2 Cor 11:8, it all hinges on the translation of the Greek for what is written variously as robbed, plundered, etc. Paul supported himself by having those churches that he had previously visited and ministered to give him a stipend to support himself in his ministry after he left the previous church. In this case he’s referring back to (from what I recall) the Macedonians as the “other churches” from 11:8. This Greek word here for plunder (ὀψώνιον) means money appointed for buying food. I don’t know why plunder or robbed was chosen as the best word for the Greek. But, it’s clear to me that Paul is saying that he’s using the money sent to him by the Macedonians to support himself while he was with the Corinthians. Maybe he felt like he was robbing the Macedonians for some reason, but to suggest he literally plundered their good will is just too much.
I’m sorry, but disagree with your entire premise here. I think you’re misinterpreting what you’re reading. I don’t think Paul is being deceitful. Far from it and in my opinion not remotely close to it. What he is doing on the other hand that is something that he said he wouldn’t do in 1 Cor: boasting, an all too human act.
Rosekeister said
Where Paul loses credibility is in 1st Corinthians:
“For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.”
It raises the question whether Paul, in his brief meetings with James and Peter, was being straightforward with his beliefs or to the Jew did he become as a Jew when his teachings were actually the end of the Torah? In Acts and Paul’s letters, it certainly appears that after Paul’s confrontation with Peter, there was an investigation of his teachings, which prompted several of his letters, after which he was called back to Jerusalem to discuss his beliefs. Paul was willing to present himself as observing and guarding the law but this attempt failed because un-coincidentally there were witnesses able to recount exactly what he was teaching to gentiles and outside of Jerusalem.
Hi Greg- Been thinking it over for a few days and I’m still a bit confused timing wise. My hang-up on how you present it is not surprisingly Gal 2:1-10 versus Gal 2:11 et seq. His supposed confrontation with Peter at Antioch takes place after his come-uppance at Jerusalem, which he says took place 14 years after roaming about the Mediterraean in verse 1. I agree with skeptics like stephena in #6 above and yourself that the passage you quote, in particular, gives many of us pause, all the way to being a complete show-stopper for some. Wait. You’re telling me you’ll do and say anything to anyone? And i’m supposed to trust you about this kingdom coming for that, because you have no principle or scruple? Anyway, as you read it, then after the confrontation he wrote not only Galatians, obviously, but most of the other 7 letters we know? Do you know a good source on the order/sequence of the letters of the 50’s? thanks.
Steefen:
Second, Paul seems to have known some of the autobiography of Josephus and claimed it as his own. Both got shipwrecked on the way to see Nero; but, neither one mentions each other (illustrious personages) by name.
gmatthews:
Regarding Josephus/Paul, I’ve never heard that.
Steefen:
It is important to work the timelines of these two important people of the first century.
gmatthews:
Are you saying that Paul knew of Josephus’ writings or just “knew about him?”
Steefen:
Josephus would know of Paul’s writings. Josephus would have known about Paul.
gmatthews:
I’d like to read more about that if you’ve got a source.
Steefen:
“Both survived shipwreck then made it to Puteoli (Pozzuoli, Naples, Italy), before continuing to Rome for legal matters before the Emperor of Rome, Nero.”
I’m quoting from my own book: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, First Edition by Steefen.
In the second edition, so people can have the two sources, I’m adding this:
Compare Acts Chapter 27, Verse 27 through Chapter 28, Verse 5 with Life of Flavius Josephus, Section 3, 14-15.
gmatthews:
Regarding 2 Cor 11:8, it all hinges on the translation of the Greek for what is written variously as robbed, plundered, etc.
Steefen:
Do we really need to go back to the Greek? Okay:
NET: I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so that I could serve you!
Douay-Rheims: I have taken from other churches, receiving wages of them for your ministry.
gmatthews:
Paul supported himself by having those churches that he had previously visited and ministered to give him a stipend to support himself in his ministry after he left the previous church. In this case he’s referring back to (from what I recall) the Macedonians as the “other churches” from 11:8. This Greek word here for plunder (ὀψώνιον) means money appointed for buying food. I don’t know why plunder or robbed was chosen as the best word for the Greek.
Steefen:
I do not see a verb in your definition unless I reword it: Plunder means to appoint money for buying food. I think you are in error for that definition.
I wanted to revisit this topic because I’ve been doing some reading on it this past week. There’s an elephant in the room so to speak that none of us took into account which is the social relationship between a patron and his client in ancient Rome. I’ve been reading a couple of different commentaries and they both agree on this underlying factor to what Paul is saying in 2 Cor 11:8 (where Paul talks about plundering the Macedonian church) and 2 Cor 12:16 (where Paul says he is being accused of deceit by the Corinthians).
As someone else pointed out above Paul did write that churches should pay their preachers and that this hearkens back to a saying of Jesus. But, with the Corinthians Paul doesn’t accept any pay from them and it appears in 2 Cor that the rival preachers that he rails against are using this against him. There are around a half dozen versus in 1 Cor and 2 Cor that attest to Paul not accepting pay from the Corinthians. It is believed by scholars, or at least the ones I was reading and others whom they reference, that these churches would have been operating by the patron/client scheme. This is a subject that would take a while to explain, but I think most of us already recognize it. As an example, Josephus operated as a client of the benefaction of the Flavians of Rome after he “defected”. In this system the patron gains social prestige. I’m not saying that this is what the Corinthian church would have gained necessarily, but there was a certain amount of status gained by having a client and Paul would have been their client to some degree by accepting pay from them. Paul must have been one of the heavy hitters when it comes to mid first century preachers (hopefully I don’t assume too much with this statement). Surely there was some status gained by having the great Paul under your patronage? I think there must have been something going on with the church in Corinth that lead to Paul taking his position with them. We know that Paul visited them twice before writing 2 Cor and that on the second visit he left suddenly because of something one of the church members did. I think Paul wanted to support them with the good news, but he maybe felt there would be some obligation (unstated to us) to them if he did so. Why wasn’t this the case with other churches? I don’t know. In any event, it appears that the rival preachers in Corinth were using Paul’s stance here against him because he really was going against social norms by refusing to participate in the patron/client system. They even charge Paul with being deceitful to the Corinthians. It is hard for us to understand the subtleties here, but Paul was really under fire from the Corinthians because of the bugs the rival preachers were putting in their ear.
Regarding Paul’s description of plundering or robbing other churches, ie. the Macedonians, in 2 Cor 11:8, no scholar I can find makes an issue of Paul’s choice of words. That is, I can find nothing that suggest scholars believe Paul is being dishonorable. As I will describe in a moment Paul is literally plundering the Macedonians, but I do not accept or believe that he took pleasure in it. In my opinion I think Paul is almost antagonizing the Corinthians here with their hubris. In 2 Cor 8:1-2 Paul says that the Macedonians suffered “a severe ordeal of affliction”, but that even in the face of extreme poverty they are overflowing with joy and a wealth of generosity. The question I have though is what is the cause of Paul accepting their help, but not from the Corinthians? I said before that there must be something unsaid in either epistle to the Corinthians that makes Paul fearful of their patronage. He almost rubs the Corinthians in the face with the fact that the poor Macedonians are helping support him and because of some reason we don’t know it is better for him to do that than to accept support from the Corinthians.
Maybe I didn’t change anyone’s opinion of 2 Cor 11:8, but hopefully I’ve added something else to think about.
Regarding 2 Cor 12:16 that Steefen quoted in his original post I think this can be more easily explained after having described 2 Cor 11:8 in better detail.
From what I read this past week scholars refer back to the patron/client system again. The complete verse of 2 Cor 12:16 in the NRSV is:
Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit.
In the first sentence Paul is clearly pointing out that he didn’t submit himself to the patronage of the Corinthians. As I said above, this was almost a social faux pas (or maybe in reality it was a faux pas) so the rival preachers in Corinth use this against Paul by saying he’s being deceitful by not accepting their support. “Hey look at this guy, he’s not letting you pay for his food and hostel. There’s something weird about this. Did not our Saviour say to support people like us? Hasn’t he himself taken support from the other churches? Why doesn’t he take your support? There’s something going on here with this guy and you shouldn’t trust him.” So, the Corinthians listened to this and believed it and obviously accused Paul so here he says “you accused me of being a snake oil salesman so I MUST have taken you in by deceit because no one in their right mind trusts a snake oil salesman!”
Thoughts?
He robbed/plundered other churches, plural.
What is this singular Macedonian church (the Macedonians) you bring up?
Patron – Client = Church – Preacher means preach what we want you to preach, what we pay you to preach.
No, that does not sound like an arrangement Paul would honor. You listen to what I want to say. Jesus appeared to me, he did not appear to the patrons.
gmatthews:
I can find nothing that suggest scholars believe Paul is being dishonorable.
Paul is literally plundering the Macedonians, but I do not accept or believe that he took pleasure in it.
stephenoabc:
Plundering is dishonorable not whether or not one takes pleasure in the crime.
gmatthews:
“(you say) I was being crafty…”
stephenoabc:
Those who say weren’t the ones doing the plundering, weren’t the ones being crafty. Why couldn’t Paul minister to the Corinthians from his tent-making or leathersmithing? Even you say there was a social norm, he craftily got out from under the social norm.
The patron client relationship definitely should not have existed for Jesus. He had the gift and the listeners payed to be enriched. Paul could see it the same way where the patron-client relationship was reversed. I’m not paid for propaganda as Josephus was, I’m paid for my talent that enriches your life to hear.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)