We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 March 2011
This essay offers a reading of 2 Cor 12.7–9 in light of a rabbinic story of Moses' ascent to heaven (b. Šabb. 88b-89a). After an exploration of Moses in 2 Corinthians the author argues that vv. 7–9, like vv. 2–4, constitute an ascent report (vv. 2–4). This ascent report, it is maintained, is structurally parallel to Moses' heavenly ascent in b. Šabb. 88b-89a. Early traditions of Moses' ascent to heaven and dominance over angels suggest that Paul knew a form of the Mosaic ascent, and parodied it to highlight his weakness and paradoxical authority in vv. 7–9.
1 Paul's legitimacy as an apostle is widely recognized as the key issue in the ‘Four Chapter Letter’ (2 Cor 10–13). See, e.g., Strecker, G., ‘Die Legitimität des paulinischen Apostolates nach 2 Korinther 10–13’, NTS 38 (1992) 566–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Commentators recognize that Paul's ascent to paradise is not an instance of weakness and thus find difficulty integrating it into a speech whose overall aim is to demonstrate weakness. See, e.g., Thrall, Margaret E., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 2.773Google Scholar; Welborn, Laurence, ‘The Runaway Paul’, HTR 92 (1999) 115–63 (122).Google Scholar
3 Thrall recognizes that Paul's ascent is ‘integrally connected’ with his experience with the thorn (Commentary, 2.784), but cannot explain the logic of the connection (2.806). Murray Harris notes a temporal link between the ascent (vv. 3–4) and Paul's reception of the thorn, but no logical link (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005] 855). For Frank Matera, the thorn is the ‘result’ or ‘outcome’ of Paul's heavenly ascent, but he does not explain why (II Corinthians: A Commentary [NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003] 276, 282).
4 For Paul's depiction of Moses in general, see the recent article by Gerhard Dautzenberg, ‘Mose und das Neue Testament. Zwischen Vereinnahmung und Abstossung?’, Studien zur paulinischen Theologie und zur frühchristlichen Rezeption des Alten Testaments (ed. Dieter Sänger; Giessen: Selbstverlag des Fachbereichs, 1999) 201–4.
5 Cf. Stockhausen, Carol K., Moses' Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor. 3,1–4,6 (Rome: Biblical Pontifical Institute, 1989) 154–6, 167–75.Google Scholar
6 Thrall, , ‘“Putting On” or “Stripping Off”’, New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. Epp, E. J. and Fee, G.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 221–37, esp. 234–36.Google Scholar
7 Apart from his devotion to the θεῖος ἀνήρ typology, Dieter Georgi's study of Moses in Hellenistic-Jewish apologetic remains valuable (The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] esp. 254–8).
8 Moses as paradigm of religious authority and legitimacy for religious leaders is a pervasive theme in apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature (Scott Hafemann, ‘Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Survey’, JSP 7 [1990] 79–104, esp. 101).
9 The view is almost universal. A recent exception is Gooder, Paula, Only the Third Heaven? 2 Corinthians 12.1–10 and Heavenly Ascent (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2006) 171.Google Scholar
10 For this claim, see Furnish, Victor P., II Corinthians (AB 32a; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 550Google Scholar; and Thrall, Commentary, 2.817.
11 Michael Goulder's view, that the ‘man in Christ’ in vv. 2–4 is a missionary companion, does not take seriously enough Paul's exceedingly personal plea for his own authority, his rhetorical ability, and the ability of the Corinthians to understand this rhetoric (‘Visions and Revelations of the Lord [2 Corinthians 12:1–10]’, Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall [ed. Burke, Trevor J. and Elliot, J. Keith; Leiden: Brill, 2003] 306CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
12 The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University, 1953) 158–9.Google Scholar
13 Murray Harris asserts that διό is the harder reading (Commentary, 829). As he notes, however, it is only harder if one assumes that v. 7a begins a new sentence. For those who see v. 7b as beginning the new sentence, the διό presents a smoother, stylistically improved text. Likely, then, the scribes who produced the more polished Alexandrian text saw v. 7b as beginning a new sentence, and inserted the διό to make this clear.
14 Martin, Ralph P., 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word, 1986) 388.Google Scholar
15 Furnish, II Corinthians, 513; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ed. Chadwick, Henry; New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 314.Google Scholar
16 Bultmann, Rudolf, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 226Google Scholar; Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915) 347Google Scholar; Barrett, Commentary, 305. See also Thrall, Commentary, 2.803 n. 240.
17 LSJ ‘ὑπεραίρω’ suggests ‘to be lifted up’ as the meaning of ὑπεραίρωμαι in 2 Cor 12.7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950) 1858. This meaning would be parallel to the passive uses of ἁρπάζω (‘to be snatched up’) in vv. 2, 4. Gooder sees a double entendre in the verb: Paul becomes elated as he was literally lifted up (Gooder, Third Heaven, 200).
18 LSJ ‘ὑπεραίρω’, II.3.
19 The literature on the thorn is endless. For the main viewpoints, see Thrall, Commentary, 2.809–18.
20 ‘Paul's Thorn in the Flesh: A Messenger of Satan?’, Neot 35 (2001) 69–79.Google Scholar The idea was first proposed by Price, Robert, ‘Punished in Paradise (an Exegetical Theory on II Corinthians 12.1–10)’, JSNT 7 (1980) 33–40.Google Scholar
21 Plummer points out that ἀϕίστημι in the New Testament is always used of persons (Second Epistle, 353). See esp. Luke 4.13; Acts 22.29.
22 Abernathy, ‘Paul's Thorn’, 77.
23 See in general on this topic Maier, Johann, ‘Das Gefährdungsmotiv bei der Himmelsreise in der jüdischen Apokalyptic und “Gnosis”’, Kairos 5 (1963) 19–22Google Scholar; Schultz, Joseph, ‘Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law’, JQR 61 (1971) 282–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 In Jub. 48.1–4, it is Mastema who is said to attack Moses. In b. Ned. 31b-32a, it is said that Satan attacked Moses on his return to Egypt.
25 Jegher-Bucher, V., ‘The Thorn in the Flesh/Der Pfahl im Fleisch. Considerations about 2 Corinthians 12.7–10 in Connection with 12.1–13’, The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture (ed. Porter, Stanley and Olbricht, T. H.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 388–9, 96–7.Google Scholar
26 O. S. Wintermute dates the Apocalypse of Zephaniah between 100 b.c.e. and 175 c.e. If the pro-Edomite tradition in 3.2 derives from the author, Wintermute is inclined to assign the work a date before 70 c.e. (OTP 1.500–501; see also 510 n. 3b).
27 For the place of punishment as situated in heaven, see, e.g., Apoc. Abr. 15.5–6.
28 Cf. Apoc. Abr. 13.5; PGM 4.555–60.
29 Other MSS read ‘among aliens’.
30 R. Rubinkiewicz dates this work to the interval between 70 and 150 c.e., OTP 1.683.
31 The Baraita is of course only attributed to R. Ishmael. The source could be late Tannaitic (Kahana, Menahem, ‘The Halakhic Midrashim’, The Literature of the Sages [ed. Safrai, Shmuel et al. ; 2 vols.; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2006] 2.16Google Scholar) or Amoraic (Porton, Gary G., The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael [4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977] 2.7Google Scholar).
32 Finkelstein, Louis, Sifra on Leviticus according to Vatican Manuscript Assemani 66 with Variants from the Other Manuscripts, Genizah Fragments, Early Editions and Quotations by Medieval Authorities (5 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983) 2.11.Google Scholar
33 Finkelstein, Sifra on Leviticus, 3.39.
34 Morray-Jones, C. R. A., ‘Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12.1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources’, HTR 86.2 (1993) 177 n. 1.Google Scholar
35 Morray-Jones, C. R. A., Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism—A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 20.Google Scholar But the association of Eden, the future paradise of the righteous, and the heavenly temple is found as early as Jub. (3.9–13; 8.19; Morray-Jones, ‘Paradise, Part 1’, 204–7).
36 For HZ as the earliest version of the pardes story, see Morray-Jones, ‘Paradise, Part 1’, 195–208.
37 Synopse §346, Münich 22. For ‘angels of destruction’, note 1QS 4.12; 1 En. 53.3; 56.1; 62.11; 63.1; Philo Abr. 28, 145; t. ‘Abod. Zar. 1.17–18; cf. b. Šabb 119b. James Davila has argued for the presence of hostile angels in the ‘Hymn of the Garden’ in the Hodayot hymns of Qumran (1QHa col. 16.4–26), where the sword of the cherub in Paradise (Gen 3:24) becomes a bevy of ‘holy spirits and blazing fire that turns from side to side’ (16.12; ‘The Hodayot Hymnist and the Four Who Entered Paradise’, RevQ 17 [1996] 457–78, esp. 474–6). For later Christian material on adversarial angels, see, e.g., Ps. Clem. Rec. 10.61 = Hom. 20.19; Eus. E.H. 5.28.12; Barn. 18.1. Note also the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (NHL V/2) which pictures Paul encountering punishing angels at the fourth and fifth gates of heaven.
38 Gooder, Third Heaven, 197–200.
39 Insightfully, Gooder also points out that the King of Tyre, who lives in the luxury of God's paradise (παραδείσου, עדן גן־אלֹהים, Ezek 28.13) was also called a ‘piercing thorn’ (v. 24, סלון, LXX σκόλοψ; Gooder, Third Heaven, 202).
40 In HZ, Moses is immediately invoked as the prototypical mystic who learns the name of God which secures full remembrance of the Torah (Synopse §§336, 340; cf. Schäfer, , The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism [Albany: State University of New York, 1992] 67Google Scholar).
41 Mark Stephen Kinzer, ‘ “All Things under His Feet”: Psalm 8 in the New Testament and in Other Jewish Literature of Late Antiquity’ (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1995) 190. Interestingly, Moses, before his death, is taken on a cosmic journey in which he sees ‘the paths of paradise’ (L.A.B. 19.10; cf. 2 Cor 12.4).
42 Peter Schäfer is inclined to treat the parallel account of this story in Midrash ha-Gadol as more original since it is anonymous (Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975] 129Google Scholar).
43 Each homiletic narrative uses bits of scripture to generate the storyline and fill in dialogue. The stories are exegetically and thematically linked. The third, fourth, and fifth story interpret bits from Ps 68. The fifth, sixth, and seventh story underscore Moses' humility before God. The fifth, sixth, and eighth story depict hostile angels or the figure of Satan.
44 The Amoraic period is usually thought to run from ca. 200–450 c.e.
45 Halperin, David, ‘Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint’, JBL 101 (1982) 351–63, esp. 359.Google Scholar
46 Halperin, ‘Merkabah’, 353, 355–9. For the connection of Ps 68.17–18 with Shavuot and the Sinai pericope at Qumran, see Morray-Jones, C. R. A., ‘The Temple Within’, Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (ed. DeConick, April D.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006) 158–62.Google Scholar
47 See Harris, W. Hall, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7–11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 64–122.Google Scholar The argument is based partly on the (late) Targum on the Psalms which paraphrases Ps 68.19: ‘You ascended to the firmament, O prophet Moses (נבייא סליקתא לרקיע משה)’.
48 Even if Moses' dream vision in the Exagoge is a mere parable of mundane realities (as suggested by Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 166–9Google Scholar), the contents of the dream still give the historian access to ancient traditions of Moses ruling angels at Sinai. The thickness of biblical and extrabiblical allusion in Moses' dream indicates that Ezekiel was handling traditional material (Jacobson, Howard, The Exagoge of Ezekiel [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983] 90–4Google Scholar).
49 D. J. Harrington mistranslates the Latin perfect (ingressus es) as if it were future: ‘the heaven that you are to enter’ (OTP 2.346).
50 Here, subjected angels sandwiched between an ascent and the giving of the Law suggest a context at Sinai. For possible angelic opposition at Sinai, note L.A.B. 23.10: ‘I [God] brought them [the Israelites] to the foot of Mount Sinai, and I bowed the heaven and came down…and impeded the course of the stars…and interrupted the storm of the heavenly hosts so that they would not ruin my covenant’ (suspendi tempestatem militiarum, ut non corrumperem testamentum meum, trans., Howard Jacobson).
51 Kinzer, ‘ “All Things Under His Feet”’, 202.
52 The language here is deliberately politically incorrect to highlight the fact that the ‘man’ could be read as a singular, particular man. See below.
53 For Moses as the subject of Ps 8, see Kinzer, ‘ “All Things Under His Feet”’, 150–208.
54 When I discuss structural parallels, I mean to illuminate one text by another, not to suggest any genetic relationship(s).
55 Perhaps the former should be preferred since ‘the angel Satan’ would require the definite article (
ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ; Plummer, Commentary, 352). The translation ‘an adversarial angel’ is also possible.
56 Kelly, H. A., Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2006).Google Scholar
57 Morray-Jones, ‘Paradise, Part 1’, 202. Notably, in Pesiq. Rab. 20, the ‘angels of destruction’ (מלאכי חבלה) are identified with the ‘ministering angels’ (מלאכי השרת). See §§11.7 and 11.8 in Grözinger, Karl-Erich, Ich bin der Herr, dein Gott! Eine rabbinische Homilie zum Ersten Gebot (PesR 20) (Bern: Peter Lang, 1976) 298.Google Scholar
58 Schäfer, Rivalität, 221–2.
59 Trans. Morray-Jones, Transparent Illusion, 56.
60 This is not to say that all angels are unfriendly in the Hekhalot literature. The redactors of these texts have finely interwoven traditions of angelic opposition with the motifs of angelic guidance and revelation (Schäfer, ‘Engel und Menschen in der Hekhalot-Literatur’, Hekhalot-Studien [Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1988] 253–4.
61 Dibelius, Martin, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909) 44–5.Google Scholar
62 TDNT, ‘ὄλεθρος’, 5.170.
63 Pesiq. Rab. §11.2; 3 En. 6.2.
64 It appears that Paul's flesh must be stripped away in order for him to have access to Paradise, which is probably the location of God's throne room (cf. Ascension of Isaiah 9.8–9; 2 En. 22). In the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul, Paul reaches the tenth heaven as pure spirit (24.8). Cf. Morray-Jones, C. R. A., ‘Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah Tradition’, Journal of Jewish Studies 43.1 (1992) 1–31, esp. 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65 It is worth pointing out that in the Bavli, the story which follows the account of angels threatening Moses depicts Satan as searching for the Torah that Moses took from heaven. After confronting God, the Deep, Destruction, and Death (following Job 28.23, 14, 22), Satan confronts Moses with the accusation. ‘Where is the Torah which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to you?’ Moses claims that he does not have it, a lie which he (humbly) justifies by reasoning that such a great treasure was not given to him alone.
66 We know that Paul elsewhere combined two LXX terms into one: ἀρσενοκοίτης (1 Cor 6.9) from ἄρσην and κοίτη in Lev 18.22.
67 Cf. Thrall, Commentary, 2.828 n. 449.
68 See further Nielsen, Helge K., ‘Paulus’ Verwendung des Begriffes Dynamis. Eine Replik zur Kreuzestheologie', Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie (ed. Pedersen, Sigfred; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 137–58, esp. 141–2.Google Scholar
69 For ἐπισκηνόω as an allusion to the Shekinah, see Thrall, Commentary, 2.827–8. For the Shekinah resting on Moses due to his meekness, see b. Ned 38a.
70 The first to use the term ‘parody’ with reference to 2 Cor 12.7–9 was Hans Dieter Betz (‘Eine Christus-Aretalogie bei Paulus [2 Kor 12.7–10]’, ZTK 66 [1969] 288–305Google Scholar; cf. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ‘Apologie’ 2 Kor 10–13 [Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1972] 92–100Google Scholar). Betz asserted that Paul was parodying a healing oracle. His interpretation assumes that the ‘thorn’ refers to a physical malady, a judgment with which I cannot concur.
71 Welborn, ‘Runaway Paul’, 137.
72 Welborn, ‘Runaway Paul’, 150–1.
73 Trans. Lehrman, S. in Midrash Rabbah Exodus (ed. Freedman, H. and Simon, Maurice; London: Soncino, 1939) 494.Google Scholar
74 The text is late, but based on earlier traditions. See, e.g., ARN 12 (version A), ARN 25 (version B). For a pre-200 c.e. date of ARN, see Saldarini, Anthony J., The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 12–16.Google Scholar
