2 Corinthians 10:1

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 2px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 30px; }
h3 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 3px; margin-top: 25px; }
blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 5px; }

An Exegetical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10:1-6: Grammatical and Rhetorical Dimensions

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10:1-6: Grammatical and Rhetorical Dimensions is based on a b-greek discussion from October 15th, 2016. The passage under consideration, 2 Corinthians 10:1-6, presents a crucial segment of Paul’s defense of his apostolic authority and method against accusations of weakness and inconsistency by certain individuals within the Corinthian church. Paul addresses the perceived dichotomy between his mild demeanor when present and his sternness when absent, subsequently shifting to a robust assertion of his spiritual warfare and authority.

The main exegetical issues raised pertain to specific grammatical constructions within the opening verses. Firstly, the syntax of 2 Corinthians 10:1, particularly the relative clause beginning with ὃς, prompts inquiry into the unusual combination of a relative pronoun, an adjective, a participle, and a first-person verb, and whether this pattern conveys emphasis. Secondly, questions arise regarding the grammatical function of δέομαι δέ in 2 Corinthians 10:2, its relationship to preceding relative clauses, and the potential for a nested relative clause introduced by ᾗ.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς διὰ τῆς πρᾳότητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ χριστοῦ, ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀπὼν δὲ θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς· 2 δέομαι δέ, τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει ᾗ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι ἐπί τινας τοὺς λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας. 3 Ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦντες, οὐ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμεθα — 4 τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ σαρκικά , ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὀχυρωμάτων — 5 λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες καὶ πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντες πᾶν νόημα εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ χριστοῦ, 6 καὶ ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες ἐκδικῆσαι πᾶσαν παρακοήν, ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• In verse 1, the SBLGNT (2010) capitalizes Χριστοῦ, while the provided text uses lowercase χριστοῦ.
• In verse 3, the SBLGNT (2010) concludes the sentence with a period (`.`) rather than a dash (`—`).
• In verse 4, the SBLGNT (2010) concludes the clause with a comma (`,`) rather than a dash (`—`).
• In verse 5, the SBLGNT (2010) capitalizes Χριστοῦ, consistent with its capitalization in verse 1, while the provided text uses lowercase χριστοῦ.
• No other substantive lexical or morphological differences are present across 2 Corinthians 10:1-6 between the provided text (attributed to Nestle 1904) and the SBLGNT (2010).

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) presents a text for 2 Corinthians 10:1-6 that is substantially consistent with the SBLGNT (2010) and the provided text. The critical apparatus of NA28 shows no significant variants in these verses that would alter the overall meaning or the specific grammatical structures under examination, affirming the stability of the textual tradition in this passage.

• πρᾳότης (praotēs): BDAG defines this as “gentleness, mildness, courtesy, humility.” KITTEL emphasizes its theological significance as a virtue expressing humble mildness, often in the face of provocation, distinguishing it from weakness.
• ἐπιείκεια (epieikeia): BDAG defines this as “fairness, reasonableness, graciousness, gentleness.” KITTEL notes its ethical usage, signifying a generous and equitable disposition that tempers strict justice with mercy and understanding.
• ταπεινός (tapeinos): BDAG lists “lowly, humble, unimportant.” In classical Greek, it often carried negative connotations of abjectness. In the NT, particularly with Paul, it takes on a positive theological meaning, signifying humility before God and others, often contrasting with worldly pride. KITTEL provides an extensive discussion of its semantic shift and theological revaluation.
• θαρρῶ (tharrō): BDAG translates this as “to be courageous, confident, bold.” KITTEL highlights its usage to describe inner resolve and boldness, often in the face of opposition or danger, reflecting a trust in divine aid.
• δέομαι (deomai): BDAG gives “to ask, beg, plead, pray.” KITTEL traces its use from simple request to earnest supplication, particularly in prayer to God, indicating an urgent need.
• πεποίθησις (pepoithēsis): BDAG defines this as “trust, confidence, assurance.” KITTEL contextualizes it as a state of inner conviction and reliance, often a confident expectation rooted in faith or experience.
• λογίζομαι (logizomai): BDAG translates as “to reckon, count, consider, calculate.” KITTEL discusses its application in various contexts, from accounting to reflective thought and judgment, including Paul’s theological usage of “reckoning” righteousness.
• τολμάω (tolmaō): BDAG suggests “to dare, venture, presume, have courage.” KITTEL notes its dual valence, ranging from commendable courage to presumptuous audacity, depending on context and motivation.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical structure of 2 Corinthians 10:1-2 presents several points of interpretive interest, particularly concerning Paul’s self-description and the flow of his argument.

The phrase ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀπὼν δὲ θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς (v. 1) is indeed unusual. The relative pronoun ὃς (nominative singular) grammatically should refer to a nominative antecedent. While the immediate preceding noun is τοῦ χριστοῦ (genitive), the subject of the main clause is Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος (nominative). Most scholars understand ὃς here as referring back to Paul (Παῦλος), creating a slight anacoluthon or a resumptive reference after the intervening genitive phrase. The peculiar aspect is the sequence: relative pronoun (ὃς), adjective (ταπεινός, describing Paul), participle (ἀπὼν, also describing Paul), and then a shift to a first-person verb (θαρρῶ). This shift from a third-person relative pronoun (implicitly referring to Paul) to a first-person verb is a distinctive rhetorical move. It is not a common grammatical pattern for relative clauses in the New Testament to contain such a direct shift in person within the same clause, although shifts in perspective are not unknown. This serves to emphasize Paul’s personal experience and perspective, underscoring the contrast introduced by μὲν…δὲ. The construction highlights the tension between his humble presence and his bold absence, directly linking his personal authority and actions to these perceived states. This is a rhetorical strategy to address criticisms head-on, articulating the basis of his pastoral approach.

Regarding the second set of questions, δέομαι δέ in 2 Corinthians 10:2 is not part of the preceding relative clause. The particle δέ serves as a connective or adversative, linking the new sentence to the previous thought but initiating a new independent clause. It functions to progress the argument, often implying a slight contrast or continuation (“but I entreat,” “now I beg”). Therefore, relative clauses are not structured by δέ in the sense of initiating them; they are introduced by relative pronouns (e.g., ὃς, ᾗ) or relative adverbs. The particle δέ is postpositive and modifies the relationship between clauses or sentences. Finally, the relative pronoun ᾗ in ᾗ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι is indeed a nested relative clause. It refers to τῇ πεποιθήσει (“the confidence by which I intend to be bold”). This is a grammatically standard and common construction where a relative clause further specifies a noun within another clause. It is not nested within the ὃς relative clause from verse 1, but rather within the main clause initiated by δέομαι δέ in verse 2.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis reveals Paul’s skillful use of complex grammatical structures to convey nuanced meaning and exert his apostolic authority. The unusual shift in perspective within the relative clause of 2 Corinthians 10:1 (ὃς…θαῤῥῶ) is a rhetorical device emphasizing his personal agency and the perceived contrast in his demeanor. The separate clause initiated by δέομαι δέ (2 Cor 10:2) clarifies his urgent appeal, and the nested relative clause with ᾗ provides specific detail regarding the nature of his confidence. Translations should strive to capture these grammatical subtleties and their rhetorical impact.

1. I, Paul myself, appeal to you by the gentleness and graciousness of Christ—he who is humble when present with you, but when absent, I am bold toward you.

   This translation attempts to retain the third-person relative pronoun referring to Paul, even while the verb shifts to first person, highlighting the grammatical tension and Paul’s self-referential description.

2. Now, I myself, Paul, implore you by the meekness and forbearance of Christ, I who am humble when face to face with you, yet when absent, I am confident towards you. I beg you, therefore, that when I am present, I may not have to be bold with the confidence by which I plan to show courage against some who consider us as living according to the flesh.

   This option aims for a more flowing, interpretative rendition, understanding ὃς as an appositional relative pronoun referring to Paul, and clarifying the implied connection between the clauses.

3. But I, Paul, entreat you by the mildness and magnanimity of Christ—I who am modest in my presence among you, but in absence, I am courageous toward you. Now I plead that I may not, when present, need to be bold with that very confidence by which I reckon to dare against certain ones who reckon us as walking according to the flesh.

   This version emphasizes the personal address and the rhetorical contrast, clarifying the identity of the “who” and using stronger vocabulary choices for ἐπιείκεια and τολμῆσαι.

“`