Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Irony/sarcasm in Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad AT artsci.wustl.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Cc: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.GOODACRE AT bham.ac.uk>
  • Subject: Irony/sarcasm in Paul
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:29:21 -0400


I'd like to invite the list to consider some potential instances of Pauline
rhetorical "double-speak" and venture opinions on the extent to which the
apostle may on occasion have indulged in deliberate misstatement of his
honest perceptions or attitudes for rhetorical purposes.

1. In an exchange yesterday with Mark Goodacre originating on another list,
the question arose whether or not it is the case that Paul on more than one
occasion resorts to rhetorical exaggeration, equivocation, irony, even
sarcasm in order to enhance, even at peril of distorting them, his intended
messages. I want to point to a few texts where one may seriously doubt
whether Paul means to be understood literally and some others that may be
more ambiguous.

The text Mark brought up yesterday was Rom 15.18-19: OU GAR TOLMHSW TI
LALEIN hWN OU KATEIRGASATO CRISTOS DI EMOU EIS hUPAKOHN EQNWN, LOGWi KAI
ERGWi, EN DUNAMEI SHMEIWN KAI TERATWN, EN DUNAMEI PNEUMATOS [QEOU]. This is
commonly understood and conveyed, Mark noted, along the lines: "I will not
venture
to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in
leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done . . ." But
might it not more naturally be conveyed: "I will not dare to speak of those
things which Christ has not done through me . . ."?

My own response to this was a not atypical instance of rhetorical Litotes,
the double negative expression employed to underscore what the
speaker/writer really does intend to emphasize. Yet the question can be
raised: is Paul here perhaps deliberately EXCLUDING "signs and portents"
as being among things he has accomplished--or is he being IRONIC,
deliberately exaggerating his accomplishments without intending to be taken
seriously? Certainly in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians (esp. 2:1ff.)
Paul seems to be deadly serious when he insists that his initial gospel
presentation to the community was altogether unaccompanied by impressive
displays of power and wisdom--he certainly appears to downplay any
suggestion that he has ever been a QEIOS ANHR.

Another instance of what I personally take to be Paul's clear tendency to
exaggerate his powers rhetorically when it suits him is 1 Cor 14:18
EUCARISTW TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW. Does anyone think
that Paul really believes this? I don't, but I think it suits his
rhetorical purpose to insist that he is adept at glossolalia but doesn't
value that competence at all.

Another point in 1 Cor where I personally think Paul is being VERY ironic
is 1 Cor 1:4-5-- EUCARISTW TWi QEWi MOU PANTOTE PERI hUMWN EPI THi CARITI
TOU QEOU THiDOQEISHi hUMIN EN CRISTWi IHSOU, hOTI EN PANTI EPLOUTISQHTE EN
AUTWi, EN
PANTI LOGWi KAI PASHi GNWSEI. I think, in view of the whole ongoing
remonstration with the Corinthians over their claim to spiritual wealth in
the
letter that follows, this initial statement in the latter simply MUST be
sarcastic or VERY ironic. I've suggested this before only to be criticized
for suggesting that Paul could be anything less than fully sincere in the
salutation of a public letter. Nevertheless I still believe that it suits
Paul's purpose to puff up the balloon of Corinthian religious pride here
which he intends to prick repeatedly hereafter. Am I alone in this judgment?

I think there may be several points in the Pauline corpus where we ought to
suspect rhetorical exaggeration or even sarcastic humor. What of Gal 5:12,
where he suggests that the circumcisers ought to go all the way to
castration: OFELON KAI APOKOYONTAI hOI ANASTATOUNTES hUMAS? Ought we to
suppose that Paul is so violent in his passions to be deadly serious here?
Or should we take a more sophisticated view of a sophisticated writer's
sense of humor and readiness to
exploit rhetorical exaggeration for his own purposes when it suits him? And
are there other instances that might be adduced either to confirm or
undercut this suspicion?






Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad AT artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page