Paul's Thorn in the Flesh E-Book

Kenneth Berding

• Herausgeber: Lexham Academic
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 481

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Solving the mystery of Satan's messenger Paul's enigmatic "thorn in the flesh" in 2 Corinthians has baffled interpreters for centuries. Many offer suggestions as to the identity of Satan's messenger; others despair that the puzzle is unsolvable. In Paul's Thorn in the Flesh: New Clues for an Old Problem, Kenneth Berding reopens the case. He follows a trail of clues that includes ancient beliefs about curses, details from Paul's letters, Jesus's own suffering, and the testimony of the earliest Christian interpreters. Berding offers twenty criteria—some familiar, others neglected—that any proposal must explain. While the usual suspects fall short, Berding suggests a new solution—one that satisfies all the evidence and gives us a fuller view of Paul. Far from an abstract puzzle, Paul's own suffering is relevant to Christians today. Paul's Thorn in the Flesh is an accessible study that casts new light on Pauline studies, first--century background, and theological and pastoral concerns.

Leseprobe

PAUL’S THORN in the FLESH

NEW CLUES FOR AN OLD PROBLEM

BY KENNETH BERDING

Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh: New Clues for an Old Problem

Copyright 2023 Kenneth Berding

Lexham Academic, an imprint of Lexham Press

1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at [email protected].

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation or are from the ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version), copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Text edition: 2011.

Print ISBN 9781683596837

Digital ISBN 9781683596844

Library of Congress Control Number 2022947468

Lexham Editorial: Derek Brown, Caleb Kormann, Jessi Strong, Mandi Newell, Katrina Smith

Cover Design: Alecia Sharp, Brittany Schrock

CONTENTS

Abbreviations

Introduction

CHAPTER ONE

Why We’re Skeptical

CHAPTER TWO

What Others Think

CHAPTER THREE

Clues from the Historical Context

CHAPTER FOUR

Clues from the Book of Job

CHAPTER FIVE

Clues from the Literary Context (Part 1)

CHAPTER SIX

Clues from the Literary Context (Part 2)

CHAPTER SEVEN

Clues from the Literary Context (Part 3)

CHAPTER EIGHT

Clues from the Suffering of Jesus

CHAPTER NINE

Clues from Irenaeus and Tertullian

CHAPTER TEN

Clues from Galatians

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Layered and Less-Likely Connections

CHAPTER TWELVE

Pulling it All Together

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Comparing Positions

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Face-to-Face with a Partial Solution

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

A Fuller Portrait of Paul

Acknowledgments

Works Cited

Subject & Author Index

Scripture Index

DETAILED OUTLINE

Introduction

-Imagine a house church: A short narrative introduction

-Book summary, including the twenty criteria

CHAPTER ONE

Why We’re Skeptical

-Introduction to Presuppositions in Interpretation

-Problematic Presuppositions

-My Own Presuppositions

CHAPTER TWO

What Others Think

-What was Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh? A List of Suggestions

-Physical Pain or Ailment Proposals

-Other Proposals

-Five Issues that are Masked by Lists of Positions

Uncovering the Clues

CHAPTER THREE

Clues from the Historical Context

-Introduction to Ancient Magic

-Omnipresence of Magic

-Piercing in (and on) Ancient Curse Tablets, “Voodoo Dolls,” and Animals

-Attacks on the Head

-Hindering Speech

-Thorns in Magic

-A Pattern of Power Encounters Associated with Paul in Acts

-Angels and Demons in the Letters of Paul

-The Theological Issue: Would God Allow Paul to be Attacked by a Demon?

CHAPTER FOUR

Clues from the Book of Job

-Job was Known and Used by Paul

-“Messenger” or “Angel”

-“Skin” and “Flesh”

-Paul’s Reference to “Satan”

-Satan “Stung” or “Stabbed” Job

-Overlapping Theologies of Suffering

-Foolishness in Job and Paul’s “Fool’s Speech”

-Humiliation, Boasting, and Weakness

-Three Times

-Similar Responses by God

-The Move from Complaint to Acquiescence

-Neither Received Healing

-A Post-Hays Interpretive Environment

CHAPTER FIVE

Clues from the Literary Context (Part 1)

-Three Concentric Circles: Sentence, Paragraph, Discourse

-“Thorn” + “Flesh”

-An Unusual Kind of Suffering

-“An Angel of Satan”

-“Given” to Paul

-“Punched in the Face”

-To Keep Paul from Becoming Conceited

CHAPTER SIX

Clues from the Literary Context (Part 2)

-Fourteen Years

-Connected to the Heavenly Ascent

-Seeing and Hearing

-Excruciating

-Weaknesses

-Connected to Other Sufferings

CHAPTER SEVEN

Clues from the Literary Context (Part 3)

-Weak Body

-Humiliation, Weakness, and Shame

-Facial Allusions

-Known to the Corinthians

-Weakness Again

-Stress

-Satan and Spiritual Warfare

-Paul’s Rhetoric: Strong or Weak?

CHAPTER EIGHT

Clues from the Suffering of Jesus

-Paul’s Identification with the Suffering of Jesus

-Pierced on the Head with a Crown of Thorns

-Pierced with Nails and a Spear

-Struck on the Head and Slapped in the Face

-Shamed on the Face

-In Fulfillment of Scriptures about Piercing

CHAPTER NINE

Clues from Irenaeus and Tertullian

-Why Irenaeus and Tertullian Are More Valuable than Anyone Else

-Irenaeus: A Bodily Ailment

-Tertullian: Pain of the Ear or Head

CHAPTER TEN

Clues from Galatians

-General Similarities between Galatians and 2 Corinthians (esp. 10–13)

-What Galatians 4:13–15 Suggests

-Similarities between Galatians 4:13–15 and 2 Corinthians 12:1–10

-Galatians 3:1

-Galatians 6:17

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Layered and Less-Likely Connections

-Layered Connections

-Less-Likely Connections

-Fiery Darts?

-Handkerchiefs and Evil Spirits?

-Paul’s Explosive Response?

-Beating with Thorns?

-“Thorns in Your Side/Eyes”?

-Beating with Scorpions?

Applying the Criteria

CHAPTER TWELVE

Pulling it All Together

-List of the Twenty Criteria with Summary of Arguments

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Comparing Positions

-Chart Comparing Five Non-Physical Proposals

-Chart Comparing Five Leading Bodily-Ailment Proposals

-Chart of the Seven Proposed Solutions

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Face-to-Face with a Partial Solution

-Medical Conditions that Fit the Criteria

-Trigeminal Neuralgia Type 1

-Posttraumatic Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain

-Herpes Zoster (Shingles) in the Trigeminal Nerve

+Post-herpetic Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain

-Short-lasting Unilateral Neuralgiform Headache Attacks

-Episodic Paroxysmal Hemicrania

-Episodic Cluster Headaches

-Primary Stabbing Headaches or Migraines with Primary Stabbing Headaches

-Location and Nature of the Pain

-The Trigeminal Nerve

-Nature and Severity of Pain

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

A Fuller Portrait of Paul

-Encountered Varying Reactions to His Suffering

-Understood Satanic Attacks as God-Permitted

-Viewed His Sufferings against the Backdrop of Job

-Believed That Satan’s Attacks Could Be against His Body

-Displayed Non-verbal Indications of His Suffering

-Factored in Extreme Suffering

-Filled Out 2 Corinthians 3–5 with His Own Experience

-Accepted God’s Discipline

-Participated in the World of Honor and Shame

-Experienced Loneliness in Suffering

-Learned Trust despite Wanting to Recoil from Others

-Identified with the Physical Sufferings of Christ

-Faced Stresses that Exacerbated His Sufferings

-Spoke Effectively, but Still Was Criticized

-Tended to Self-Disclose Rather Than Be Secretive

-Moved beyond Endurance to Contentment

-Revealed His Visionary and Mystical Side

-Sported a Less-than-Beautiful Face

ABBREVIATIONS

AB

Anchor Bible

ABR

Australian Biblical Review

ACNT

Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament

AFP

American Family Physician

AsJT

Asia Journal of Theology

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol.

Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology

ANF

The Ante-Nicene Fathers

ANTC

Abingdon New Testament Commentaries

Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

BAR

Biblical Archeology Review

BBR

Bulletin for Biblical Research

BCOTWP

Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

BDAG

Danker, Fredrick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (Danker-Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich)

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Bib

Biblica

BJP

British Journal of Pain

BNTC

Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BSac

Bibliotecha Sacra

BTB

Biblical Theology Bulletin

BTL

Biblical Theology for Life

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ClAnt

Classical Antiquity

Clin. Geriatr.

Clinics in Geriatric Medicine

CRINT

Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

CTR

Criswell Theological Review

Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep

Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports

Curr Pain Headache Rep

Current Pain and Headache Reports

DBI

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery

DPL

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, IL: InverVarsity, 1993

ECL

Early Christianity and Its Literature

ETAM

Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris

EvQ

The Evangelical Quarterly

ExpTim

Expository Times

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Headache

Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC

The International Critical Commentary

Int

Interpretation

IRM

International Review of Mission

IVPNTC

The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JBR

Journal of Bible and Religion

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

J. Disabil. Relig.

Journal of Religion, Disability & Health

J. Man. Manip. Ther.

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

J. Moral Theol.

Journal of Moral Theology

J. Neurol.

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry

J. Oral

Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache

J. Philos.

The Journal of Philosophy

JPT

Journal of Pentecostal Theology

JSHJ

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSPL

Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

JTSA

Journal of Theology of Southern Africa

Lancet Neurol.

The Lancet Neurology

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

LSJ

Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996

Mayo Clin. Proc.

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

MeyerK

Meyers Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

MH

Medical History

MNS

Mnemosyne Supplements

NAC

New American Commentary

NCBC

New Cambridge Bible Commentary

Neot

Neotestamentica

Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am.

Neurosurgery Clinics of North America

NIBC

New International Biblical Commentary

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIVAC

The NIV Application Commentary

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NovTSup

Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NPNF

Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

NTM

New Testament Monographs

NTS

New Testament Studies

OBT

Overtures to Biblical Theology

OECS

Oxford Early Christian Studies

OTE

Old Testament Essays

PBM

Paternoster Biblical Monographs

PGM

Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by Karl Preisendanz. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–1974

PKNT

Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament

PNAS

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

PNTC

The Pillar New Testament Commentary

PPS

Popular Patristics Series

Postgrad. Med.

Postgraduate Medicine

PTMS

Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series

R&T

Religion & Theology

RBS

Resources for Biblical Study

RevExp

Review & Expositor

RGRW

Religions in the Graeco-Roman World

RRA

Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity

SEÅ

Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok

SemeiaSt

Semeia Studies

SetF

Scientia et Fides

SHBC

Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

SNTSMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976

TOTC

Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TTCLBS

T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies

TynBul

Tyndale Bulletin

TZ

Theologische Zeitschrift

VCSup

Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WUNT

Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZECNT

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

ZNW

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

INTRODUCTION

Imagine with me a first-century house-church meeting. The apostle Paul is addressing a new group of Jesus followers that has recently sprung up as an extension of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. Paul is passionately exhorting the assembled group about their need to view one another as brothers and sisters in the family of God. He is twenty minutes into his talk when suddenly—and without warning—Paul’s face grimaces, his hand moves rapidly to the side of his face just in front of his ear, he collapses into a sitting position, his breathing quickens as he leans forward, eyes shut, fighting to hold back the groans working their way out of his throat. The matron of the house rushes forward along with a half dozen others. She cries out, “Brother Paul, are you OK? What’s happening? What’s wrong?”

Paul holds up his available hand and temporarily halts their questions. His new friends wait apprehensively. The only sounds in the room are Paul’s muffled groans. Tears wet his cheek. An agonizing thirty seconds pass. Paul’s breathing slows. After another thirty seconds, Paul releases a long sigh and looks up apologetically at his friends. “I am so sorry.”

“Sorry? Don’t worry, Paul. Are you all right? What happened? Is it over?” Questions tumble out.

Paul answers haltingly. “God allowed this … to keep me humble. Like Job.”

The house matron shushes everyone and takes over. “But what was it? Tell us what happened, Paul. What did you just experience?”

“Terrible pain in my face.”

“Where on your face?”

“Just in front of my ear … but extending throughout the one side of my face … inside the skin and much deeper down …”

“What kind of pain?”

“I’m hesitant to talk about it.”

“That won’t do, Paul. You’re our teacher and brother. Tell us about your pain. What kind of pain was it?”

“Piercing pain. Stabbing pain. Like someone driving a stake into my face.”

Wince. They begin looking around at each other—uncomfortably. Finally, one woman articulates what everyone knows the others are thinking: “Somebody is attacking you, Paul. Someone doesn’t want you here. Someone with power is casting a curse on you.”

Paul turns his gaze upward, reflectively. “You could be right. It wouldn’t be the first time. Dozens of curses have been unleashed upon me over the years. I don’t know whether this pain is related to a curse—but, whatever it was, it was some sort of satanic attack. Satan and his evil angels often seek my harm, as they try to harm anyone who serves our Lord Jesus Christ. Still, I don’t want you to worry. I have no fear of Satan’s messengers, and neither should you. I’m prepared for weaknesses or insults or distresses or persecutions or difficulties for Christ’s sake if God should so permit.”

“But why would he allow it? Why would God permit such terrible pain like you’ve described?”

“I already told you. God sometimes allows such attacks to keep me humble.”

One of the men in the back of the room mumbles—perhaps a little too loud—“Humble … that’s for sure.”

Mrs. Matron sends the mumbler a look with daggers in it. She turns back to Paul. “Is this going to happen again?”

“Yes, I’m afraid so. It could happen again today. Sometimes it occurs repeatedly, though I never know when I’ll be struck. Sometimes attack periods recede for months at a time. I must ask your forgiveness in advance. Three times over the years, I have asked the Lord to take it away from me. His only answer has been to remind me that his grace is enough for me. He never allows the pain to entirely overcome me, as excruciating as it might be in the moment—and let me assure you, it is terribly painful. I have to trust that God will continue to be faithful, and will never allow me to be tested beyond my ability, but will always provide a way of escape so that I can endure these attacks of the Evil One.”

After a bit more discussion, Paul resumes his talk about the church being the family of God. Paul’s message is marked by the power of the Holy Spirit, but some in the room wonder why God would allow one of his faithful servants to face such humiliation in front of them all. Some wonder whether Paul really was one of those faithful servants in light of what they just witnessed.

What was Paul’s thorn in the flesh? Many people deem this question unanswerable. The bias against finding a solution to this intriguing historical question is powerful (see chapter 1). But in our haste to pronounce the puzzle unsolvable, might we have missed some clues? Or, even if we have accurately identified some relevant clues, have we failed to connect them with other clues previously identified by interpreters who have worked on this fascinating historical enigma?

Select almost any commentary on 2 Corinthians and read what has been written about 2 Corinthians 12:7. A handful of observations get drawn out, followed by a tentative solution based upon a few criteria. But what would happen if we brought together all the clues that have been identified by past interpreters, and then added more into the mix that haven’t yet been adequately explored? What if we drew up a list of twenty criteria? Would we not then be in a place to propose a more satisfying solution? I think that we have come to that place, and the time has come for us to reopen this conversation.

The essence of my argument is a list of twenty criteria, each of which I will support on the pages ahead. When taken together, these criteria limit the possibilities of what Paul’s thorn in the flesh could have been. As we work together through each relevant verse, intertextual connection, and cultural background, it will be easier to follow the overall argument if we keep this list of criteria in mind. I propose that the following are the twenty criteria necessary for establishing a plausible solution to the riddle of Paul’s thorn in the flesh:

Twenty Criteria

1.Viewed by others as black magic attacks

2.Viewed by Paul as attacks by an angel of Satan, though permitted by God

3.Paralleling Job’s sufferings (especially Job 1–2), which included skin/flesh

4.Impacting Paul’s physical flesh

5.Comparable to the jabbing of a sharp-pointed object

6.Excruciating, not simply annoying

7.Impacting Paul’s face (as a part of his head)

8.Viewed by Paul as educational discipline by God

9.Viewed by others as humiliating and weak

10.Unusual, not like the pains of others

11.Long-term, but intermittent

12.Paralleling the sufferings of Jesus

13.Exacerbated by stress

14.Negatively impacting Paul’s rhetorical ability

15.Known to the Corinthians, not a secret

16.Analogous to Paul’s other sufferings

17.Connected to the heavenly ascent

18.Involving the ear

19.Involving the eye

20.Visible bodily damage

I will argue on the pages ahead that any proposed solution to the historical puzzle of Paul’s thorn in the flesh must attempt to account for these twenty criteria.

How will the argument progress?

In chapter 1, I expose an unnecessarily strong bias against pursuing a plausible solution to this historical perplexity. I also include a brief discussion of how presuppositions impact interpretation, including a few key presuppositions related to the study of Paul’s thorn in the flesh, and lay out my own presuppositions pertaining to the matters under discussion.

In chapter 2, I summarize the history of interpretation of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. We will observe that a physical explanation continues—rightly—to be the dominant interpretive position for much of that history, despite a litany of other creative solutions that have been proposed along the way. At the end of this chapter, I expose the problems with listing out opinions.

Chapters 3–10 form the heart of the argument.

In chapter 3, I argue that Paul’s combination of the words “a thorn in the flesh” and “an angel of Satan” would have caused Paul’s first-century readers to think of black magic attacks. Ancient magicians regularly fashioned figurines (ancient “voodoo dolls,” as they are sometimes called today) and stuck them with sharp objects such as pins, nails, or thorns. Those magicians also inscribed curses upon tablets that they pierced, and stabbed animals on behalf of people who wanted to bind their adversaries with magic. I argue that people who heard Paul’s “thorn” and “angel of Satan” language would have connected Paul’s sufferings with such attacks of magic. Suggesting this as a historical-cultural background fits well with what we know about Paul’s encounters with evil spirits in the book of Acts as well as in his own letters. I close chapter 3 by reflecting on two theological issues raised by positing this as a relevant background.

In chapter 4, I draw out a set of literary and conceptual features shared by 2 Corinthians 12 and Job (especially Job 1–2). This will support my contention that the story of Job runs as a subtext beneath Paul’s explanation of his own suffering. This literary and conceptual dependency of Paul upon the story of Job is significant because Job (analogous to Paul, I argue) was struck (or “stung”) with painful sores in his literal skin and flesh.

In chapters 5–7, I analyze Paul’s thorn in the flesh in the immediate literary context of 2 Corinthians 12:7, working outward in three concentric circles. In chapter 5, I consider the first and smallest circle, the sentence (2 Cor 12:7). I evaluate the words “thorn” and “flesh” and their relationship to one another, the expression “an angel of Satan,” the idea of given-ness, the facial connotations of the Greek word kolaphizō, and the educational-disciplinary nature of God permitting the thorn.

In chapter 6, I draw out clues appearing in the second concentric circle, the paragraph (2 Cor 12:1–10). I explain the fourteen-year duration and intermittent nature of the thorn. I observe how the thorn was connected to the heavenly ascent (vision/revelation) described by Paul in 12:1–4. I evaluate Paul’s note about seeing and hearing in 12:6, the excruciating nature of his suffering, the importance of “weakness(es)” for understanding Paul’s thorn (12:5, 9, 10), and clarify how Paul’s special misery belongs in a class alongside other sufferings Paul endured.

In chapter 7, I widen into the third concentric circle, the discourse (2 Corinthians 10–13). I note that Paul’s body was perceived as weak (10:10), draw out the weakness/humiliation/shame theme that pervades these chapters, and observe a collocation of facial terminology—a focus on the face that differs from other places in Paul’s letters. I support the contention that Paul’s malady was known to the Corinthians and observe that the themes of stress and spiritual warfare are both significant and relevant. I close by asking whether Paul’s rhetoric was weak or strong, and how a particular understanding of Paul’s thorn in the flesh might address this unusual question.

In chapter 8, I identify clues from the suffering of Jesus that might bear upon the nature of Paul’s thorn. I begin the chapter by noting how intimately Paul identified with the suffering of Jesus in his letters, especially in 2 Corinthians. I argue that Paul’s unique identification with the sufferings of his Lord brought spiritual encouragement to Paul in the midst of his own physical suffering, particularly as he encountered piercing pain. I observe that Jesus was pierced on the head with a crown of thorns, pierced with nails and a spear, struck on the head and slapped in the face, resulting not only in pain, but also in shame—all in fulfillment of Old Testament piercing passages. Paul’s identification with the sufferings of Jesus suggest that when Paul himself experienced piercing pain, he likely would have considered his pain as analogous to the piercings that his Lord endured.

In chapter 9, I probe the question of how people in the post-apostolic church interpreted Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I argue that the comments of Irenaeus, who viewed Paul’s thorn in the flesh as a bodily ailment, and Tertullian, who similarly viewed it as a bodily ailment—but more specifically as a pain of the ear or head—are more valuable than any other of the church fathers who commented on Paul’s thorn. This is because Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote during a period (roughly one hundred and fifty years after Paul wrote about his “thorn”) when oral transmission should still be highly valued. The other primary authors who commented on the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh wrote three centuries after Paul, and accordingly should be differentiated in terms of their historical value from Irenaeus and Tertullian.

In chapter 10, I dive into the difficult question of whether there is anything in the book of Galatians that assists us in determining the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. It has been necessary for me to take up this question because so many interpreters in the past have answered this question in the affirmative, while some have been skeptical. I end up answering this question with a hesitant affirmative. I draw out clues from Galatians 4:13–15, and briefly inquire into what Galatians 3:1 and 6:17 might add to the discussion.

I start chapter 11 by explaining how it is possible for various influences (literary, historical-cultural, ethical) to simultaneously layer. I do this with the aim of addressing a question that might arise during the study. I spend the remainder of the chapter exploring other possible literary and conceptual relationships to Paul’s thorn in the flesh in the Bible, and explain why I factored them out of an overall solution.

In chapter 12, the book shifts from argument to application. In chapter 12, I restate the twenty criteria that have already emerged from the study and summarize primary reasons each criterion was included on the list. (Note: If you desire a short summary of core arguments that appear in chapters 3–10, the place to find such a summary is chapter 12.)

In chapter 13, I present comparative charts that display how the twenty criteria relate to other past proposals for the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I then employ the same chart format to illustrate that there are seven medical conditions (centering, for the most part, on the trigeminal nerve) that fit the criteria better than any of the other alternatives included on the charts. This final chart prepares the reader for the following chapter.

In chapter 14, I identify and describe seven medical conditions that closely fit the criteria.

1.Trigeminal Neuralgia (Type 1)

2.Posttraumatic Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain

3.Herpes Zoster (Shingles) in the Trigeminal Nerve + Post-herpetic Neuralgia

4.Short-lasting Unilateral Neuralgiform Headache Attacks

5.Episodic Paroxysmal Hemicrania

6.Episodic Cluster Headaches

7.Primary Stabbing Headaches, or Migraines with Primary Stabbing Headaches

The chapter concludes with an explanation of the trigeminal (facial) nerve, and its central role in the solutions offered. Finally, in order to bridge the relevance gap with those who have never heard of such medical conditions, I have included a handful of testimonials from people who suffer from intense piercing pain in the trigeminal nerve.

In chapter 15, I draw out a few implications of this study beyond the simple identification of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. In particular, I focus on how this study enhances our understanding of the person of Paul.

There are many new points of argument in this book, including: the facial associations of kolaphizō in 2 Corinthians 12:7, along with other facial indicators in 2 Corinthians 10–13; the historical setting of magical curses, voodoo-doll-like images, and the piercing of animals; some of the suggested intertextual relationships with Job; and the connection with stress, to mention only a few. But some of the criteria have also been drawn from observations made by others, including the honor-shame impulse in the text, possible links to Paul’s rhetorical ability or inability, the possible involvement of head, ears and/or eyes, and the combination of a chronic condition with intermittency, among others. I am deeply grateful for all the insights I have gleaned from those who have closely looked at 2 Corinthians 12:7 before me.

Since I anticipate that many intelligent people who have never had the opportunity for advanced academic training as New Testament scholars or historians will be interested in this question, I have chosen to write this book in a register that will be a bit easier to access than are some scholarly books. In practice, this means that I do not assume that all my readers will be familiar with the technical jargon that often gets employed by biblical scholars, historians, linguists, and medical practitioners, and thus I try to use more direct and accessible language (though some technical language appears occasionally, especially in footnotes). My decision to accommodate non-specialists in this way does not mean that I have attempted to avoid any of the difficult questions, some of which, admittedly, are technical in nature. Nor does it mean that the observations I offer are simplistic. Nevertheless, I have made every effort to explain matters in ways that anyone who is serious about thinking through the details of this perplexing historical question can join in.

Even if one is not persuaded by the solution(s) proposed here, this study includes many new lines of inquiry that need to be evaluated by future historians and biblical scholars who attempt to uncover a solution to this famous historical conundrum.

CHAPTER ONE

WHY WE’RE SKEPTICAL

The topic of Paul’s thorn in the flesh is, on the one hand, like a puzzle to be solved—what could have caused Paul such agony?—and, on the other hand, the source of a powerful spiritual lesson—“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). Perhaps the combination of its mystery and profundity is why the riddle of Paul’s thorn has been attended by keen interest by some, but profound skepticism by others. Since presuppositions have played a significant role in how interpreters have historically approached this interpretive problem, in this chapter I will clarify how presuppositions impact the study of Paul’s thorn in the flesh.

A key factor in interpreting texts, ancient or otherwise, is the recognition that every interpreter floats or sinks in a personal pool of presuppositions. A presupposition is “any preconception of reality that is part of our thinking as we come to interpret the Bible.”1All people wade their way through life with individual presuppositions, whether or not they recognize and acknowledge their presence. Presuppositions impact the way we view the world around us, including texts. Thomas Kuhn, in his celebrated book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, comments, “What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see.”2 It is beneficial, even necessary, to become aware of one’s assumptions, biases, and proclivities in interpretation. Awareness of one’s presuppositions can actually help someone float when approaching the task of interpretation. To carry forward the analogy, people sink into their presuppositional pools when presuppositions become prejudices.3 The current interpretive climate vis-à-vis Paul’s thorn in the flesh can best be described as unreceptive, even antagonistic. As a historical puzzle, it is habitually deemed unsolvable. Possibly more than any other biblical problem I have encountered, scholars are discouraged from attempting to further the conversation on Paul’s thorn in the flesh (that is, unless they need to say something about it in a commentary they have agreed to write). This might be why, heretofore, there has been no scholarly book-length study written on this topic, only an occasional article or portion of a commentary that introduces a handful of relevant observations followed by a possible solution. Let us consider some of the places where presuppositions might play a role in the study ahead.

The first place where presuppositions are significant for this study, as has just been mentioned, regards the question of whether it is even worth exerting effort to try to identify what Paul referred to as a “thorn in the flesh” (skolops tē sarki). Many interpreters view this historical difficulty as intractable. A profound pattern of bias emerges when we pull together comments from biblical interpreters who have given thought to this question. Here is a sampling of such comments:

Plummer writes: “But nothing approaching to proof is possible, and of the numerous conjectures as to what the form of this suffering was, one may be true of the σκόλοψ [thorn], while something quite different may be true of the ἀσθενεία [weakness]. Unfortunately, we have to confess that in neither case can we be at all certain as to what is true … When all the arguments for and against these and other guesses have been considered, the fact remains that we still do not know, for the evidence is insufficient.”4

Dodd, while preferring a physical explanation, perhaps even malaria, finally pronounces: “Diagnosis is impossible.”5

Bultmann thinks that Paul’s suffering was probably physical, but deems irrelevant any attempt to say more: “For the rest, it is not to be diagnosed. The diagnosis is irrelevant to the context …”6

Bruce states bluntly “… no certainty is possible.”7

Similarly, Garrett writes, “… this question is, finally, unresolvable.”8

Kruse calls the lack of clues in the text a plain fact. He writes, “However, the plain fact is that there is simply insufficient data to decide the matter.”9

Martin is openly agnostic: “We will probably never know the truth (or, at least, never know for sure we have the truth).”10

Harris deems the quest to identify the thorn as eternally impossible: “Although Paul has not identified the ‘thorn,’ commentators have not been slow to attempt the impossible. Paucity of data and the ambiguity of Paul’s language have frustrated—and will always frustrate—all efforts to reach finality in this enigmatic question.”11

Danker similarly reckons that the thorn “will be an eternal mystery.”12

While Fee thinks that Paul’s ailment was probably a physical problem, he is certain that there is no way of knowing what it was: “Finally, even though we have no way of knowing what the infirmity was, Paul continued to be plagued by a physical problem, even after seeking relief from God.”13

Hughes waxes eloquent about the impossibility of finding a solution: “The problem of Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’ is another one of those questions which, on the evidence available, must remain unanswered. Over the centuries many solutions have been proposed, frequently with excessive confidence, but the plain fact is that it is impossible to escape from the realm of conjecture, which is by its nature the realm of inconclusiveness.… The great diversity of solutions which have been offered from the early centuries onward is sufficient warning to those who may think that they have answered the problem—not, of course, that we regard the formulation of conjectures as illegitimate; but we do feel that in this instance history has proved that no amount of induction, however ingenious, is going to dispel the uncertainty with which the subject is enveloped.”14

Kistemaker calls all proposed theories mere guesses: “Whether Paul’s affliction happened to be external or internal, the outcome remains the same: our theories are mere guesses, for we do not know what ailed the apostle.”15

Garland sounds almost fatalistic: “In the end we must accept the fact that we will never know for certain what Paul’s stake in the flesh was.”16

Roetzel claims that speculation about the thorn is “fruitless” and a “barren exercise.”17

Longenecker’s dogmatic assertion fittingly concludes our examples: “Paul does not tell us, and so there is no way for us to know.”18

As you can see, the prejudice against identifying Paul’s thorn is powerful. In light of such a strong prejudgment in the scholarly community, I made a decision early in my study to avoid (for the most part) commentaries while I dug deep into intertextual connections, historical backgrounds, and observations from the immediate context. I spent more than a year simply looking and re-looking at the relevant texts and noting anything that appeared pertinent while laying down rough drafts. Most often, I did this before looking at secondary literature, though in a few select cases, I read seminal articles on specialized ancillary topics. After fleshing out basic arguments, I immersed myself in the secondary literature to discover what I missed, where various arguments were weak, and what I needed to adjust in what I had already attempted to work out mostly on my own.

In addition to the general bias against solving this puzzle, we need to be aware that our presuppositions also play a role in our openness (or lack thereof) to particular aspects of the arguments that lie ahead. For example, I will present evidence that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was a painful nerve condition that felt like the repeated stabbing of something sharp into the flesh of his face. However, since most of us have no personal experience with such pain, and furthermore since we frequently judge the plausibility or lack of plausibility of a proposal by drawing analogies to our own experiences, many will judge this proposal implausible, albeit without adequate reason. Most people I know have never met anyone who suffers from acute chronic face pain, despite the fact that the Facial Pain Association claims that in the United States alone 4.3 million people experience craniofacial nerve pain. A minority of those 4.3 million experience acutely painful conditions that feel like the repeated stabbing of a pointed object.19 In contrast, many biblical interpreters’ personal experience of pain in the face does not extend beyond tension headaches or toothaches. The idea that someone might experience repeated, long-term, jabbing, shock-like pain in the face could easily be deemed implausible by a person who has never experienced anything more painful than acne. One’s experience with craniofacial pain, or lack thereof, is likely to impact the persuasiveness of the argument ahead. This is an issue of presuppositions and needs to be kept in mind as you read.

Another problem of presuppositions in this study is that many of us approach texts with anti-supernatural assumptions. I will mount an argument that Paul’s jabbing face pain would have been viewed by observers as attacks of black magic. I will describe a widespread belief in evil spirits and their perceived ability to harm humans that was pervasive in the first-century communities in which Paul ministered. This belief would have been prevalent in the world of Paul; many people lived in fear that someone might cast a curse upon them, or otherwise attack them through the practice of magic. Paul himself also shared this worldview, though he believed that the attacks he experienced were attacks by a fallen angel of Satan that were permitted by God. Many historians of early Christianity do their scholarly work on the assumption that such pre-modern ideas are unfounded superstitions. Since such ideas are false, we are told, belief in angels and demons should be factored out of any inquiry into the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. The influence of writings such as Hume’s famous essay, Of Miracles, continues to be felt in the books and articles of many who deny that we can talk historically about anything supernatural.20 An interpreter of the Bible who carries this prejudgment into a historical study of Paul’s thorn in the flesh is likely to be biased against any solution that factors the supernatural into its conclusions.21 The problem with such modernistic presuppositions, ironically, is a historical one. If both Paul—who described his thorn as “an angel of Satan”—and his audience would have agreed on the reality of supernatural powerful beings of the spirit world, then twenty-first-century skepticism toward such a worldview is likely to skew an interpreter’s judgments regarding whether an argument is plausible or not.22

I will also present a case for an intertextual relationship between 2 Corinthians 12:7, including its surrounding context, and the book of Job. Biblical scholars will have little trouble accepting in principle the suggestion that a passage in Paul was influenced by an Old Testament book like Job, since intertextuality is an important area of study in contemporary biblical scholarship. Since, however, I anticipate that some thoughtful people who otherwise would not read academic books will be interested in the topic of Paul’s thorn in the flesh, and thus may be reading this book right now, I need to remind such readers that quotations, allusions, reminiscences, and echoes of earlier Scripture fill the pages of the New Testament. Paul maintains a deep and intractable connection to the Jewish writings that came before him, and in particular, to the writings of what we now call the Old Testament. I will marshal a new argument—not new in the sense that no one has previously noticed the connection between the two passages, but new because robust arguments have not yet been detailed—for a literary and conceptual connection between 2 Corinthians 12:7 (in its literary context) and the book of Job. If someone has not spent much time looking into the breadth and depth of biblical interconnectivity, the suggestion that Paul is literarily dependent upon Job, including the shared connection of stinging or jabbing pain in the flesh, could potentially function as a bias that could prevent someone from acknowledging the plausibility of this kind of argument.

Another presupposition that might negatively influence one’s appropriation of the argument ahead stems from the fact that many reading this book have grown up in literate (non-oral) cultures. I will mount an argument that Irenaeus’s comment (written about 125 years after Paul wrote 2 Corinthians) that Paul suffered something in his physical body, and Tertullian’s more specific comment that Paul’s suffering was in his head or his ear (around 150 to 160 years after Paul wrote) should be granted significant weight, since they occurred in cultures that highly valued oral transmission. General presuppositions of instability in orality, such as those that undergird the practice of much of biblical form criticism, have kept us from granting these comments the distinction that they deserve.

One further presupposition relates to how one weighs the relative value of historical evidence and consequent conclusions drawn from it. Among my university students, I have encountered many who have not yet grasped that the historian’s task is one of probabilities falling on a spectrum of lesser to greater plausibility. Incontrovertible proof is not attainable in the study of most particulars from ancient history; the goal is to accumulate evidence and sort through clues that point toward an overall explanation that provides a substantively greater plausibility than explanations previously proposed. In this sense, the task of a historian is similar to that of a jurist in a courtroom who carefully listens to clues in a quest to determine what did or did not occur. But unlike a courtroom setting, the work of a historian does not require a conclusion to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt for it to have validity, only for it to provide considerably greater explanatory power than previous explanations.23 Those who desire incontrovertible proof will be more comfortable in a science laboratory than they will in evaluating ancient historical documents.

One final presupposition relates to the unity, or lack thereof, of what we currently refer to as Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. Various partition theories have been suggested, with the most widely accepted separating chapters 10–13 from chapters 1–9. Occasionally, I will suggest a line of reasoning that rests upon connections between earlier and latter parts of the letter. If one carries into a study of 2 Corinthians the presupposition that 2 Corinthians is two (or more) letters, rather than a single unified letter, the force of an argument drawn from the earlier portions of 2 Corinthians may be somewhat diminished. One who holds to the unity of 2 Corinthians is more likely to be influenced by arguments drawn from earlier chapters. I should state in advance that this issue will not play a significant part in my overall argument, and so should not create much tension for those who hold to some sort of partition theory. Nevertheless, this is an issue of presuppositions that needs to be kept in mind while reading this book.

Regarding each of the topics mentioned above, let me be candid about my own presuppositions:

General Interpretive Presuppositions: I believe that every text, including difficult texts like 2 Corinthians 12:7, need occasionally to be revisited with the goal of uncovering clues and connections that have been missed in the past. In this regard, one of my presuppositions is that careful literary, historical, and canon-conscious work can overcome a significant amount of one’s interpretive biases, even though no amount of study will ever entirely free one from the influences of his or her presuppositions.

Face Pain: I believe that one’s life experiences can sometimes blind an interpreter from accurately interpreting a text. At other times, life experiences crack open a door to a set of questions that help him or her ask probing questions that otherwise might never have been asked. The reader should be apprised that I have some personal experience with face pain, though the nature of Paul’s specific pain may have been something rather different from what I have experienced. Positively, this aspect of my own experience has aided me in asking questions that I probably would never have previously asked. It has also prodded me to keep digging deeper. Negatively, I have had to remain vigilant during my period of study to make sure that I have fairly weighed arguments and allowed those arguments to speak either for or against my proposal. This is also an aspect of my presuppositional pool.

Supernaturalism: I believe in the existence of God, the existence of angels (both good and evil), and the possibility that demons can attack humans (even God-fearing humans like Paul or Job) with physical pain, but only with God’s permission. Despite this being an aspect of my presuppositional pool, the study ahead does not require any reader to accept the reality of the supernatural. All that is required is the acknowledgment that Paul himself was a supernaturalist, and that most of his contemporaries were supernaturalists. In other words, the assertion that Paul’s audience would have perceived Paul’s stabbing pains as resulting from black magic attacks should not be discounted simply because a modern interpreter is a non-supernaturalist. Furthermore, I think that the assertion that Paul himself would have attributed his pain to the agency of a demon who had God’s permission to attack him with pain should also not be discounted simply because a modern interpreter does not share Paul’s worldview. Proper historical study requires that the interpretation of a historical character be carried out with sensitivity to that character’s own worldview. But the reader should know that, like Paul, I am a supernaturalist, and, furthermore, that this is one aspect of my presuppositional pool.

The reader also should be apprised that I lived in the Middle East for seven years (and speak one Middle Eastern language with proficiency). Many people in the country where I used to reside are powerfully influenced by folk religious beliefs, particularly regarding magic. I have known people who have sought out local magicians for help in combatting their fear of malicious spirits. Living so many years in a culture where attentiveness to the supernatural world was commonplace may have had some influence on me accepting a non-metaphorical reading of Paul’s words when he wrote about an “angel of Satan” in connection to his thorn in the flesh.

Intertextuality: I believe that the New Testament authors in general, and Paul in particular, deeply depended upon the writings that formed what Christians came to refer to as the Old Testament. I believe that we need to stay sensitive to the influence of earlier authors upon later authors such as Paul who knew and extensively drew upon the writings of earlier authors.24

Basic Stability of Oral Traditions: I believe that oral traditions in cultures such as the Mediterranean cultures during and after the time of Paul were more stable than most recent interpreters have been willing to grant—and accordingly, that the comments of Irenaeus and Tertullian should be admitted greater weight than they have typically heretofore been afforded.25

Historical Evidence: I am committed to seeking out every clue I can discover, and to evaluating carefully any and every clue I come across in the quest to uncover the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I do not consider my conclusions incontrovertible, but I am persuaded that the conclusions presented here hold considerably greater explanatory power than most proposals that have been previously tendered.26

Unity of 2 Corinthians: I am unconvinced that partition theories are more likely than the supposition of a unified letter of 2 Corinthians, though the letter may have been written over a period of weeks during which Paul could have received new information about the situation in Corinth.27 James Scott notes that “a historical reconstruction that can operate with the unity of 2 Corinthians has the advantage over partition theories, since it works with fewer unknowns.”28 I proceed in this study with the presupposition that 2 Corinthians is most likely a single letter, and should be read as such.29

CHAPTER TWO

WHAT OTHERS THINK

Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7) has been of interest to his readers for the past two thousand years. As a historical puzzle, it has enticed interpreters and sometimes made them a bit crazy. It has also engendered a long list of suggestions for the nature of Paul’s thorn. This chapter will list the various positions people have suggested for what Paul’s thorn in the flesh might have been.

It would be easy to get the impression from this chapter that there is no agreement whatsoever about the nature of Paul’s thorn. That is because a list of opinions is the most convenient way to lay out the various suggestions for what Paul’s thorn in the flesh might have been, and is the approach taken in most commentaries on 2 Corinthians. Here I have included just such a list to help anyone who might find a list of opinions beneficial as a starting point for study. But this approach masks five important observations. That is, there are five things that someone is likely to miss if he or she simply surveys suggestions people have made about what Paul’s thorn in the flesh might have been. Thus, immediately following the list, I will explain why the making of such a list is problematic.

WHAT WAS PAUL’S THORN IN THE FLESH? A LIST OF SUGGESTIONS

In light of the direction the current study will take, I will divide proposals for the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh into two categories: (1) Physical Pain or Ailment Proposals, and (2) Other Proposals. At least one representative of each proposal will be listed.1

PHYSICAL PAIN OR AILMENT PROPOSALS

1.An undefined bodily pain or ailment: A majority of interpreters have thought that a bodily pain or ailment is the best explanation for the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh.2 Some of these interpreters have made no comment on the specific nature or location of the bodily ailment, and others have intentionally opted to leave the nature of the ailment undefined. Examples: Irenaeus,3 Gregory of Nazianzus,4 Ambrose,5 Victorinus,6 Kierkegaard,7 Dodd,8 Bultmann,9 Black,10Russell,11 Thomas,12 Harris,13 Yong,14 Glessner,15 Wallace,16 Moss17

2.A pain or ailment of the head: Tertullian (“head or ear”),18 Jerome,19 Johnson,20 Heckel,21 Thrall22

3.A pain or ailment of the eyes: Lewin,23 Farrar,24 Plumptre,25 Nisbet,26 Merrins,27 Leary,28 Akin,29 Hisey and Beck,30 Togarasei,31 Witherington32

4.Epilepsy: Ziegler,33 Lightfoot,34 Krenkel,35 Wrede,36 Dibelius,37 Windisch,38 Schweizer,39 Landsborough,40 Dawson,41 Collins42

5.Malaria: Ramsay,43 Allo,44 Wilkinson45

6.Maltese fever: Alexander46

7.Speech impediment: Whitby,47 Eadie,48 Clarke,49 Mangan,50 Barrett51

8.Weak voice: Nash52

9.Deafness: Knapp53

10.Rheumatoid arthritis: Renan54

11.A socially-debilitating disease or disfigurement: Marshall55

12.Shingles: Chilton56

13.A flaring skin condition: Maloney,57 Pascual with others58

In addition, Hughes lists (without citation) the following: “gallstones, gout, rheumatism, sciatica, gastritis, leprosy, lice in the head, deafness, dental infection, neurasthenia …”59

OTHER PROPOSALS

1.Trials in ministry from human opponents in general: Basil of Caesarea,60 Chrysostom,61 Erasmus,62 Barré,63 Loubser,64 Louw and Nida,65 Brown,66 Guthrie67

2.Opposition from false apostles in Corinth: Mullins,68 Binder,69 Hagel70

3.Accusations in Corinth that Paul was an angel of Satan because he had persecuted the church: Thierry71

4.Rejection of Paul’s claim to apostleship: McCant,72 Woods73

5.Opposition from Judaizers: Barnett74

6.General persecution: Severian,75 Theodoret,76 Keener77

7.Temptations (of various kinds): Calvin,78 Henry79

8.Sexual temptations: Aquinas,80 à Lapide,81 many medieval interpreters82

9.Temptations to anger: Holmes-Gore83

10.Temptations to despair or to diminish apostolic activities: Luther84

11.The pains of an unsettled conscience over his former persecution of the church: Schlatter,85 Janzen86

12.Grief over the unregenerate state of Jewish countrymen: Menoud87

13.Weak self-presentation and speech: Jegher-Bucher88

14.Paul’s cruciform, sacrificial manner of life: Hood89

15.Depression after ecstatic visions: Clavier90

16.Demonic reminders of his former persecution of the church: Yoon91

17.Demonic attacks during Paul’s heavenly ascent: Price,92 Oropeza,93 Morray-Jones,94 Gooder,95 Litwa96

18.Ongoing demonic harassment: Tabor,97 Abernathy,98 Bowens99

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS LIST?

I have already registered concern with constructing a list. But what could be problematic about making such a list? Here are five issues that are masked when presented with a list such as the one you have just surveyed.

First, the view of the earliest Christian writers (starting from the second century) was that Paul suffered physical pain. Some of those authors claimed that the pain involved the head. Nor is there any clear example of a specific alternative to the bodily ailment view until the end of the fourth century, that is, two hundred or so years after the physical view was first mentioned. This observation is important, and the implications of this insight will be explored in chapter 9. But you would not know that the physical pain/ailment view was the earliest and most prominent recorded view in the early centuries of the church, or be able to weigh the importance of this observation, if you merely surveyed a list of positions such as I have just presented.

Second, listing positions masks the fact that a majority of modern interpreters have opted—and continue to opt—for bodily suffering (of some kind) as the general solution for Paul’s thorn in the flesh. This certainly does not necessitate that other suggestions should be ignored. It is always beneficial to carefully consider alternative proposals as they arise. I am simply taking this opportunity to offer a reminder that among interpreters during the modern period, a physical explanation has predominated. Let me add that, in my opinion, there are good reasons for the majority position, many of which will be detailed below.

Third, most advocates of particular positions offer little argumentation for the specific “position” they adopt. In the majority of cases, only a few observations get presented, after which an interpreter pronounces that there are simply not enough clues to offer a confident determination. Such a comment is then followed with a statement like, “But if I were forced to choose, I would choose X position.” Thankfully, there are a few exceptions to this pattern, but it is a recognizable pattern nonetheless. Someone new to this discussion who began by perusing the lengthy list of positions such as appears above might suppose that each position is undergirded by substantial argumentation. Such is not the case. In the majority of instances, the proffered position is little more than a slight preference over other positions, as many interpreters openly acknowledge.

Fourth, the listing-of-positions approach fails to alert the reader that an accident of translation was a key factor in spawning a number of non-physical interpretations from the fifth until the fifteenth century. When “sharp-pointed object in the flesh” (a literal English translation of the Greek skolops tē sarki) got translated as stimulus carnis meae into Latin, the subsequent use of that Latin translation opened the door to psychological and spiritual interpretations (such as sexual temptations or spiritual distress).100 This is because stimulus in Latin is more commonly used metaphorically for “incitement” or “stimulation” than is the Greek skolops.101 Don’t forget that the Latin translation of the Bible was the preferred version for both western priest and scholar for more than a thousand years, so such a translation carried the potential of wielding a far greater influence than was justified.102

Fifth, when positions are simply listed, we often fail to pay attention to the non-exegetical reasons an interpreter might adopt a position. For example, the leading alternative to the physical ailment view is that Paul’s thorn was a person or people who opposed Paul. John Chrysostom (late fourth to early fifth century) is often cited as the earliest proponent of this view.103 But some needed observations go by the wayside when Chrysostom is simply listed as an advocate for the relational-opposition viewpoint. Chrysostom first acknowledged his awareness of the head-pain view before stating his own view—and thus himself became a witness to the presence of that view—commenting that there “are some then who have said that he [Paul] means a kind of pain in the head that was inflicted by the devil.” But it is crucial to observe that Chrysostom argued against the physical view for theological reasons: “but God forbid! For the body of Paul never could have been given over to the hands of the devil.” So instead of the physical pain view, he suggested that Paul’s thorn was “Alexander the coppersmith, the party of Hymenaeus and Philetus, all the adversaries of the word.”104