Second Corinthians 10–13 contains considerable verbal irony spread over a relatively short stretch of text, where there is interplay between sarcasm (2 Cor 11:4–5, 19–21; 12:11, 13) and self-deprecating irony (asteismos, 10:1; 11:8, 21; 12:13, 16) that does not occur in other letters. Analysis of these two forms of irony is used to nuance previous scholarship on these chapters, including scholarship on irony in Paul’s so-called ‘fool’s speech’ and instances where historical claims have been made on the basis of ironic passages.

This chapter weighs the evidence for sarcasm in Paul’s expression of astonishment (thaumazō hoti) in the opening of Galatians (1:6), which some scholars have considered an epistolary convention for expressing ‘ironic rebuke’. I then discuss whether the epithets that Paul uses to refer to the ‘pillar’ apostles in Gal 2:2, 6, and 9 can be classified as sarcastic and how their use serves Paul’s rhetorical aims across the autobiographical section of Galatians, before pushing back on a common misidentification of sarcasm in Gal 5:12.

Case studies on Job and the prophets in their Septuagint translations are used to address the question ‘What does sarcasm do?’ – the issue of sarcasm’s pragmatic functions. I hypothesize that sarcasm normally functions as an implicit challenge to what the speaker perceives as a claim to some positive quality made by another party. It is appropriate so long as it is not used against the grain of social hierarchy, although the prophets show a willingness to engage in more subversive uses of sarcasm.

This chapter addresses the question ‘How is sarcasm expressed?’ by analyzing 400 examples of sarcasm drawn from a broad selection of texts, with special reference to the second-century satirist Lucian of Samosata and including Aristophanes, the New Testament (outside Paul), and ancient satirical epigrams, among other texts. After addressing the communication of sarcasm, I return to sarcasm’s rhetorical functions using Lucian as a case study.

This chapter answers the question ‘What is sarcasm?’ by surveying ancient and modern treatments of irony and sarcasm, enabling us to disambiguate sarcasm from other forms of irony and facilitate the creation of a working definition of sarcasm that will serve throughout the project. I define sarcasm as a subset of verbal irony in which an utterance that would normally communicate a positive attitude or evaluation implies a negative attitude or evaluation.

A few years back, I was sitting in Evensong at the Peterhouse Chapel in Cambridge. During the service, the first scripture reading was taken from the Book of Job, the 26th chapter, beginning at the second verse: ‘How you have helped one who has no power! How you have assisted the arm that has no strength! How you have counseled one who has no wisdom, and given much good advice!’ (Job 26:2–3 NRSV). This was read in a tone that conveyed all the grace and solemnity appropriate to the liturgical setting. The passage sounded as if Job was addressing pious thanksgiving unto God. I must confess to having repressed a chuckle with some difficulty, knowing that what sounded so sincere in this context was Job’s bitingly sarcastic indictment of his false comforters. While I do not fault a student reader for mistaking the tone of a passage for which they had no context, this situation well illustrates the exegetical importance of being able to accurately identify sarcasm. Simply put, taking a sarcastic utterance literally or reading a literal utterance sarcastically both have the potential to generate serious misreadings of a text.

Ancient diatribe has played a central role in the interpretation of Romans. To clarify the presence of sarcasm in certain rhetorical questions throughout the letter (Rom 3:8; 6:1, 15), I offer a revised conception of authorial voice in dialogical, diatribe-like passages based on analysis of Romans and Epictetus’ Discourses. I then turn to other passages where Paul is sarcastic with his hypothetical interlocutor (Rom 2:17–19; 11:19–20), discussing the implications of these verses for the identity and characterization of the interlocutor. Finally, I assess subversive and ironic readings of Paul’s discussion of governmental authority in Rom 13:1–7.

This chapter reviews the major findings of the study and compares Paul’s use of sarcasm across the letters surveyed. Attention is paid to the way sarcasm contributes to Paul’s argumentation across the different rhetorical contexts of each letter and the ways in which Paul’s use of sarcasm reflects differences or developments in his relationships with the early Christian congregations represented in his letters.