MetaCatholic

The conversation about 1 Corinthians 9:27 seems to be growing. See TC, Nathan (and again) and my previous post. Now the pugilistic Peter Kirk has stepped into the ring, and I need to exchange a few punches with him. He’s aided by John Hobbins, who doesn’t like my suggestion, but has only said so in a comment on Peter’s blog and not here. I’m sure this is against the Marquess of Queensbury’s blog rules.

First a defensive block: please note that I offered what I did explicitly calling it a paraphrase, so critique it on those grounds and not, strictly speaking, a translation.

Now on to the meat of it. One of Peter’s key points is about principle. It is possible, he suggests to take my English metaphors literally. It seems to me that if that is a valid objection we had all better stop using metaphors, since most can be taken literally by someone. Six days of creation, anyone? Son of God? Peter claims that no-one could possible take Paul’s “I bruise my body / give myself a black eye” literally. I suggest that those who have indulged in corporeal self-mortification have done just that.

Peter’s own “literal translation” of this verse is: “I give my body a black eye and lead it in slavery”. The problem I have with this is twofold, and both objections are exegetical.

The controlling metaphor which overarches the whole section is one of competitive participation in the games. If this is what people are prepared to put up with to win a paltry prize, how much more discipline should Christians put into winning the refulgent rewards of righteousness! I simply fail to see how giving ὑπωπιάζω its simplest meaning easily fits that overarching metaphor. It is possible that Paul’s language is confused. It is also possible that he draws on its extended semantic field, which my paraphrase suggests. We need not stray very far. Hard training, particularly in practice bouts, could easily lead to “accidental” black eyes on the part of the one in training. We could stray a lot further. The importunate widow of Luke 18:5 is hardly in the business of giving the unjust judge a black eye. Personally, I think the training metaphor keeps us nearer the core usage, but we need to recognise that the word is used in a wider range of metaphorical contexts, with less precise meaning.

My second objection is in considering the straightforward sense of these verses if they are taken as “”I give my body a black eye and lead it in slavery”. If this is the case, Paul is characterising the body as an enemy to be fought against, and conquered. Certainly this dualist view of the body has regularly appeared both in the interpretation of Paul and in the Christian tradition more widely. I am unconvinced that it is an accurate interpretation of Paul, whose view of the body, while not remotely hedonistic, is more positive than the Platonism of σῶμα σῆμα (the body is a tomb). Again, it is possible that Paul is inconsistent, but when two interpretations are equally possible, I prefer the one that is most consistent with what Paul says elsewhere.

And I think I’m winning on points.