Scot-
I have often read this passage as “tongue-in-cheek.” Paul seems to be very sarcastic, in many ways. “I didn’t realize that this was the High Priest… (he’s certainly not acting like the religious ruler should!)” Then Paul starts a dispute to stop any further discussion/punishment.
I enjoyed your insight on this passage, and it makes me wonder if my view was wrong. Paul does seem to approach people in grace and humility, but there are times he is also straightforward and a little sarcastic.
Any more thoughts here?

I believe Paul was a great expositor and mission-minded Christian because He let Christ’s ability energize him. Animated by the Holy Spirit he could labor and strive as Christ’s representative glorying in his weakness that the power of Christ may rest upon him. For when we are weak, Christ is strong. Paul’s defense of himself and his ministry in Galatians and II Corinthians was to provoke jealousy in his countrymen so as to win and persuade them to the radical nature of the walk in right living God through Christ was calling them to and even to the Gentiles was this plea made. For Christ’s resurrection “was not done in a corner” but as it was spread by word of mouth the message of the Gospel caught fire among the empire and the poor. To wit God was in Christ reconciling the world to God and has commited to us the word of reconciiation (to the believers.)
Any thoughts?

Daniel,
Tough call; how does one detect sarcasm here except to impute it? I see Paul apologizing for his behavior.

I have a tough time deciding as well…
the last sentence especially seems to indicate a sincere apology (why else would he quote something that seems to in all seriousness demand that he not “speak evil” to authority).
On the other hand, how could Paul not know that the guy was the high priest? I would think his face would be pretty well known (not based on actual knowledge of the culture/situation at all), and I would also guess that there would be some designation of him as a ruler, ordering people to slap him, etc., even if Paul didn’t recognize the man himself…. anybody care to explain?

Jason, with all those considerations, it comes down to two for me:
1. Either Paul was being sarcastic, which combines anger with a form of deception.
2. Or, Paul was reactive and out of line.
We can build to either view because he apologized, and that he began with “brother” and then shifted tones matters to me. Once we admit that, and I suppose some could think even his apology was sarcastic, we are left to infer what he thought he had done wrong or what he thought was perceived to be wrong. I don’t know of any way out of this one.

Dr. Scott, MAybe we put trust in Dictionary word definings for sarcastic more than scripture itself. no?