1 Corinthians
Here is a traditional translation:
1 Corinthians 2:2 NRSV
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
I always took this to mean “Jesus Christ and the fact that he was crucified.” So his focus while he was with them would be Jesus Christ and his crucifixion, as does Tom (N.T.) Wright:
Wright: No: I decided to know nothing in my dealings with you except Jesus the Messiah, especially his crucifixion.
Or does he mean Jesus Christ—who was crucified? Who was crucified describing who he is as opposed to adding another subject of the crucifixion?
NLT: For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified.
Lattimore: for I did not judge that, among you, I know anything except only Jesus Christ, that is, Jesus Christ crucified.
Or something in-between or both?
REB: I resolved that while I was with you I would not claim to know anything but Jesus Christ—Christ nailed to the cross.
I’d recommend a lovely walk amongst autumnal trees kicking leaves around.
Sorry, didn’t have anything intelligent to say since I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, despite reading the post 4 times. :-/
Hmmm maybe I need to word that better. A more extreme way of putting it would be-is Paul talking about Jesus or a crucifixion?
Jeff
I’m not normally this thick, but whatever point you are making has gone way over my head. Why would he be focusing on a crucifixion especially?
Jeff, I always thought the gist was that he was talking about seeing Christ and him crucified – that is, God and the sacrifice he gave – in the people around us, rather than seeing their flaws. Not really a focus on either. “μὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον” seems to suggest an equality of focus.
I have always read this verse as though it meant something like: For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ (from the TNIV), (to be more specific) who he is and that he was crucified.
Mulled, and him crucified. Is his emphasis on knowing Jesus Christ or on knowing Jesus Christ and the crucifixion he endured? That probably doesn’t clear it up.
Damian, that one kind of went over my head. I’ll have to think about that. Wasn’t Christ and him crucified the central point of Paul’s message as opposed to what he sees in people around him?
Stan, are you talking about a note in the TNIV?
Sorry this isn’t more clear. I don’t know how to explain what I’m thinking.
Ah, I’m sorry Jeff. I guess I’m being unclear. My point as it pertained to you was that there is that it is focussed on the person of Christ and on the crucifixion equally.What I think Paul meant was that he resolved to know nothing about the people in Corinth, except that Christ was in them and that he sacrificed his life for them. It’s talking about the attitude that Paul came in, not about the central point message of Paul’s message.I hope that’s more clear.
So Damian and Stan would say that it’s Christ and his crucifixion equally which is what I was trying to get at.
This seems to be different than how the NLT presents it, unless I’m seeing that differently than others.
Damian, according to v. 1 and even going back to 1:18, 23 if that isn’t a stretch, isn’t he talking about the message he’s preaching?
Jeff
Jeff, I wouldn’t call it central. You’re right about the connections though. I think central to the message is the idea of the gospel as foolishness (in a variety of ways). I don’t think he’s talking about that here. I think he’s giving an example of his attitude towards them, in his humility. That’s why he can next go on to speak of wisdom (in contrast to foolishness). If we wanted to summarise: We’re foolish to the gentiles, so don’t be arrogant. See how I wasn’t? We can be wise in our maturity, however. This section is kind of a ‘bridge’ between the two contrasting concepts.That said, I’m no scholar, and I have no commentary on Corinthians here
. So, if I’m dead wrong, I’ll defer to you.
Jeff, No. I wasn’t referring to a TNIV note. I was trying to show that the first part of the verse came from the TNIV. The bold part was my interpretation of the latter part of the verse. I would concur with you that it’s Christ and his crucifixion equally.
I understand on both of you now. Interestingly, both the NTLSB and ESVSB have no note on this! Wimps.
In looking at the translations, it seems to me there is a difference among them, which is why I asked what I did. I will list a bunch of quotes regarding the preaching part:
R.C. Sproul:
“he [Paul] told the Corinthians he had determined to know nothing except Christ crucified. Clearly Paul was determined to know all kinds of things besides the person and work of Jesus. He wanted to teach the Corinthians about the deep things of the character and nature of God the Father. He planned to instruct them about the person and work of the Holy Spirit, about Christian ethics, and about many other things that go beyond the immediate scope of Christ’s work on the cross. So why, then, did he say this? The answer is obvious. Paul was saying that in all of his teaching, in all of his preaching, in all of his missionary activity, the central point of importance was the cross.”
F.F. Bruce:
“Paul’s insistence on ‘knowing nothing’ among the Corinthians ‘except Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (1 Corinthians 2:2) had some regard to the intellectual climate of the city. As he came to know something of the Corinthians’ reverence for the current wisdom, he stressed that element in the gospel for which current wisdom could have no place: what more abject spectacle of folly and helplessness could be imagined than a crucified man? A crucified deliverer was to Greeks an absurd contradiction in terms, just as to Jews a crucified Messiah was a piece of scandalous blasphemy. But as Paul persisted in preaching Jesus as the crucified Saviour and sin-bearer, the unexpected happened: pagans, as well as Jews and God-fearers, believed the message and found their lives transformed by a new, liberating power, which broke the stranglehold of selfishness and vice and purified them from within. The message of Christ crucified had thus accomplished something which no body of Greek philosophic teaching could have done for them.”
C.K. Barrett:
“Of all the epistles, those to the Corinthians are most full of Christian paradox–of strength that is perfect in weakness (…); and the heart of the paradox is the preaching of the feeble and stupid message of the crucified Christ, which nevertheless proves to have a power and a wisdom no human eloquence possesses, since it is the power and wisdom of God himself.”
I like the crucified Christ.
What’s with all the double initials with these people?
Gordon Fee:
“The ‘for’ that begins this sentence is explanatory; Paul is offering reasons for the behavior outlined in v. 1. (…) ‘To know nothing’ does not mean that he left all other knowledge aside, but rather that he had the gospel, with its crucified Messiah, as his singular focus and passion while he was among them.
David Garland:
“…he [Paul] was content to be identified as a know-nothing who preached foolishness: Jesus Christ crucified. But announcing the gospel was his sole focus, and the corss molded his entire message and his whole approach. It was not a new development arising from some previous failure (cf. Acts 17:22-31) but his standard procedure everywhere* (cf. 1 Thess. 2:1-10; Gal. 3:1). Jesus Christ can only be preached as the crucified one, and no one can preach Christ crucified to win personal renowon.”
*This kind of answers another question I had.
Barrett and Fee are from the library so it was good for me to type those in and have them.
Jeff
These are great, Jeff. But I think for me, none of these address the use of the words ‘among you’, which is why my understanding is a bit off. Sproul avoids it all together, as (seemingly) do Barrett, Fee and Garland.Bruce seems to pick up on it: “As he came to know something of the Corinthians’ reverence for the current wisdom, he stressed that element in the gospel for which current wisdom could have no place”. I think his is closest to my understanding, in that he understands Paul isn’t speaking with regards to his own purpose, but with regards to the Corinthians themselves and his attitudes towards them.
This is helpful to me on my original question. I should have looked this up before.
Calvin:
“In adding the word crucified, he does not mean that he preached nothing respecting Christ except the cross; but that, with all the abasement of the cross, he nevertheless preached Christ. It is as though he had said: ‘The ignominy of the cross will not prevent me from looking up to him from whom salvation comes, or make me ashamed to regard all my wisdom as comprehended in him — in him, I say, whom proud men despise and reject on account of the reproach of the cross.’ Hence the statement must be explained in this way: ‘No kind of knowledge was in my view of so much importance as to lead me to desire anything but Christ, crucified though he was.’”
(his italics)
I would think “among you” is what he taught while he was with them in person.
You’re correct in that they don’t address among you directly.
Jeff
Comparing your two translations: ‘For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.’ (NRSV) & ‘For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified.’ (NLT)Here the NRSV ‘among you’ suggests that what Paul decided not to know (anything but Christ) was among them (ie. Christ in them); as opposed to the NLT suggesting that when he was among them, he decided not to know anything but Christ.
I like the Calvin quote and have more understanding thankfully.
Robert
I also like the Calvin quote – this seems to get to the heart of it, I think.