¹ Oepke's, Albrecht article on “ὅπλον” (TDNT [1968] 5. 292–94)Google Scholar and Bauernfeind's, Otto on “στρατεύομαι” (TDNT [1971] 7. 701–13Google Scholar) are singularly unhelpful. The Stoic parallels to the Pauline use of the military metaphor, especially those in Seneca, have frequently been noted. See Sevenster, J. N., Paul and Seneca (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 156CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 2. But 2 Cor 10:3–6 is usually neglected or entirely omitted from discussion. Sevenster approaches the subject from the virtue of bravery and denies that Paul has anything in common with Seneca.

² Heinrici, C. F. Georg, Das zweite Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die Korinther (Berlin: Hertz, 1887) 417 n. 2;Google Scholar J. H. Bernard, “The Second Epistle to the Corinthians,” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.) 3. 95.

³ Plummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915) 276;Google ScholarWindisch, Hans, Der zweite Korintherbrief (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924) 297;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G. in Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther I.II (HNT 9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949) 208;Google ScholarHughes, Philip Edgcumbe, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 351Google Scholar n. 7; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 251Google Scholar. Less confident is Schlatter, Adolf, Paulus der Bote Jesu (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1934) 615 n. 9.Google Scholar

⁴ Bauernfeind, “στρατεύομαι,” 710.

⁵ See Lawrence, A. W., Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), in general, and for a list of accounts of attack and defense, 53–66.Google Scholar

⁶ See Xenophon Hellenica 3.2.3; Polybius 4.6.3, and for the papyri, Moulton, James Hope and Milligan, George, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1929) 470.Google Scholar

⁷ In epistolam secundam ad Corinthios, homily 21 (PG 61. 543), where he also states that Paul continues the metaphor in order to express the thought better.

⁸ Thus Lietzmann, Korinther, 141; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 252. Straub, Werner (Die Bildsprache des Apostels Paulus [Tübingen: Mohr, 1937] 92) questions whether ὕψωμα still belongs to the image.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. 40.1; Thucydides 1.90.3; 1.91.1; 2.75.6.

¹⁰ For ν τοίμῳ ἔχειν see Polybius 2.34.2; Philo Leg. ad Gaium 259; without ἔχειν, Dion. Halic. 8.17.1; 9.35.6; 9.12.14.

¹¹ It is equally unnecessary to seek the origin of Paul's use in a particular campaign or in Paul's own past. Stanley, A. P. (The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians [London: Murray, 1858] 516) suggests that Paul may have had in mind the campaign of Pompey against Mithridates and the Pirates. Bauernfeind (“στρατεύομαι,” 711 n. 37) asserts that Paul “did not borrow directly from the usage of Roman troops and their commanders,” and suggests that the language may very well have come from “Paul's past as a Pharisee, if not strict zealot.”Google Scholar

¹² Quod omnis prob. lib. sit 151. The translations of classical authors that follow are those of the LCL (sometimes adapted) when available. The others are my own.

¹³ De leg. alleg. 3.155, 13–14; 2.91. Cf. De somn. 2.82: εὐλά βεια is to man what a wall is to a city. In De somn. 1.103 λόγος is described as a weapon of defense. In it man has a most strong redoubt and impregnable fortress (μέγιστον ἔρυμα κα ϕρουρν καθαίρετον). The LCL translators note (5. 350 n. b) the difficulty of distinguishing between “reason” and “speech” as the meaning of λόγος, and compromise with “rational speech” or “rational speech and thought.” See further n. 50.

¹⁴ Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 297. He is followed by Betz, Hans Dieter (Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition [BHT 45; Tübingen: Mohr, 1972] 68, 140–41)Google Scholar, who stresses the anti-sophistic use of the image. It should be noted that references to this passage from Philo had been made long before Windisch, but had not really been put to fruitful use in interpreting 2 Cor 10.4. Cf. Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum (Amsterdam: Dommer, 1752) 2. 203;Google Scholar H. St. Thackeray, John, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan, 1900) 239.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In addition to the references provided by LSJ, 664, see esp. Garlan, Yvon, Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Athens: Ecole Française, 1974) 33–38Google Scholar. For Philo, see Pelletier, André, “Les passions a l'assault de l'âme d'après Philon,” REG 78 (1965) 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ As it does in Philo, e.g., see n. 13. See further Leisegang's index. Heidland, H. W. (“λογίζομαι,” TDNT [1967] 4. 287) is correct in his judgment that the philosophical term is in view here. See further below.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Thus Plummer, Second Corinthians, 276; Lietzmann, Korinther, 141. Cf. also Betz, Der Apostel, 68, 121. For λογίζεσθαι as a slogan in the Corinthian discussion, see Georgi, Dieter, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (WMANT 11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964) 222–23, 226–27.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Thus Betz (Der Apostel, 68), who does, however, recognize the difficulty of the passage.

¹⁹ The usage elsewhere in the Pauline literature: I Thess 5:8; 2 Cor 2:14; Col 2:15; Eph 6:14–17. On the use in the NT and other early Christian literature, in addition to Bauernfeind, “στρατεύομαι,” and Oepke, “ὅπλον,” see Harnack, Adolf, Militia Christi (reprint ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963);Google ScholarSchneider, Carl, Geistesgeschichte des antiken Christentums (2 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1954) 1. 705–7;Google ScholarLeipoldt, Johannes, “Das Bild vom Kriege in der griechischen Welt,” in Delling, Gerhard et al., eds., Gott und die Götter. Festgabe für Erich Fascher (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958) 16–30;Google ScholarSpicq, C., Saint Paul: Les épitres pastorales (2 vols.; EBib; 4th ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1969) 1. 350–51.Google Scholar

²⁰ For the mystery cults, see Cumont, Franz, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (reprint ed.; New York: Dover, 1956) 213 n. 6;Google ScholarReitzenstein, Richard, Die hellenistische Mysterienreligionen (3d ed.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1927) 192–97;Google ScholarGriffiths, S. Gwyn, Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI) (EPRO 39; Brill: Leiden, 1975) 254–55.Google Scholar

²¹ Leipoldt, “Bild vom Kriege,” 22. He argues that, while Paul uses Jewish language, he adapts it. He does not mention 2 Cor 10:3–6.

²² For Heraclitus, see Leipoldt, “Bild vom Kriege,” 17–18; for Pythagoras as Socrates' source, see Hilarius Emonds, “Christlicher Kriegsdienst. Der Topos der militia spiritualis in der antiken Philosophie,” reprinted in Harnack, Militia Christi, 131–62; see 137–41.

²³ E.g., in Plato Apol. 28D–29A; Phaedo 62D. For other references, see Leipoldt, “Bild vom Kriege,” 16–18.

²⁴ See Garlan, Recherches, 91–103.

²⁵ Ibid., 98–99.

²⁶ Plutarch Lycurgus 19.4.

²⁷ Plutarch Apophth. Lac. 217E, 228E.

²⁸ Ibid., 210E.

²⁹ Plutarch Reg. et imp. apophth. 190E; Apophth. Lac. 212E, 215D, 230C. Cf. 228DE: Lycurgus forbade attacks on walled places so that brave men might not die at the hands of a woman, child, or any such person.

³⁰ Epictetus Frgs. 39, 61 (Schenkl, H., ed., Epictetus: Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae [editio minor; Leipzig: Teubner, 1916] 39Google Scholar, 61); Dio Chrysostom 1.31; 22.2; 80.4. On Dio's admiration for Sparta, see Desideri, Paolo, Dione di Prusa: Un intellettuale greco nell' impero romano (Messina/Florence: D'Anna, 1978) 248Google Scholar n. 40, 463 n. 13a. Cf. also Philostratus Vita Apoll. 1.38.

³¹ E.g., Gnom. Vatic. 69 (Sternbach, Leo, ed., Gnomologium Vaticanum [reprint ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963] 32)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the passages in Stobaeus, see the apparatus in ibid, and Schenkl, Epictetus.

³² For exercises, see Seneca Suasoriae 2.3.14; Philostratus Vita Soph. 1.514; cf. 2.584. See also Menander Rhetor Peri Epideiktikōn 3.381 line 11 Spengel ( = Russell, D. A. and Wilson, N. G., eds., Menander Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon, 1981] 100Google Scholar and 286 for comment. For the use in practice, see Aelius Aristides 26.79 (Keil, Bruno, ed., Aelius Aristides, Quae supersunt omnia [Berlin, 1898] 2)Google Scholar; Maximus of Tyre 32.10 (Hobein, H., ed., Maximi Tyrii philosophoumena [Leipzig: Teubner, 1910] 378Google Scholar line 17). Note the rejection of Plato Rep. 6.496D in Maximus 10.10 (195 lines 13–19 Hobein).

³³ E.g., in Polybius 9.10.1 and Ps-Justin Cohortatio ad Graecos 3.

³⁴ On the idealization of Sparta, see Ollier, F., Le mirage spartiate 1 (Paris: Boccard, 1933)Google Scholar, 2 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1943). For the philosophers in general, see 1. 195–440; for the Cynics 2. 3–20; for the apophthegms 2. 21–54. On the latter, cf. Gerhard, G. A., Phoinix von Kolophon (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1909) 252.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Julian Oral. 6.187C, and see n. 122. See Ps-Crates Ep. 6: Antisthenes began doing philosophy, Diogenes brought it to perfection. The Cynic epistles are referred to according to Malherbe, Abraham J., ed., The Cynic Epistles (SBLSBS 12; Missoula: Scholars, 1977)Google Scholar. For an account of the modern debate, see Hoistad, Ragnar, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1948) 5–21.Google Scholar

³⁶ Diogenes: Diogenes Laertius 6.27, 39, 59. Antisthenes: Diog. Laert. 6.2.; cf. Plutarch Lycurgus 30; Frg. 195 (Caizzi, Fernanda Decleva, ed., Antisthenis Fragmenta [Milan: Cisalpino, 1966] 74); cf. Aristotle Rhet. 3.10 1411a24.Google Scholar

³⁷ Epiphanius Panarion 3.26 (Frg. 90 Caizzi).

³⁸ Diog. Laert. 6.12 (Frg. 71 Caizzi). On the need of friends for correction, see Plutarch De inim. utilit. 89B (Frg. 77 Caizzi); the same sentiment is attributed to Diogenes in Plutarch Quomodo adul. 74C, 82A. For a rejection of the Cynic view that virtue cannot be lost, see Xenophon Mem. 1.2.19.

³⁹ Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.105: the philosopher is a friend to his like (ϕίλος τῷ μοίῳ).

⁴⁰ Apud Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. sit 28. Cf. Stobaeus Anthol. 3.14.19 (Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium [Wachsmuth, C. and Hense, O., eds.; reprint ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1958] 3. 474 lines 10–13).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Diog. Laert. 6.13 (Frg. 88 Caizzi); cf. Hesychius Milesius De viris illustribus 7. The translations of the second line differ. R. D. Hicks in LCL translates, “Walls of defense must be constructed in our impregnable reasonings.” Paquet, Leonce (Les cyniques grécques: Fragments et témoignages [Collection philosophia 4; Ottawa: Université d'Ottawa, 1975] 40) renders it “Il faut édifier dans nos âmes des remparts inexpugnables.” Caizzi (“La tradizione antistenico-cinica in Epitetto,” Scuole socratiche minore [Pubbl. del centro di studio par la storia della storiografia filosofica 4; Gabriele Giannantoni, ed.; 1977] 113) correctly translates it “Occorre erigere un muro con i propri raggionamenti inespugnabili” and justifies her rendering (n. 76) by referring to Aeschylus Choephori 613, where ν λόγοις means “with speech.”.Google Scholar

⁴² Hoistad, Cynic Hero, 94–102, here 96. Other commentaries on the speeches: Caizzi, “La tradizione,” 90–91; Stanford, W. B., The Ulysses Theme (2d ed.; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1976) 96–99.Google Scholar

⁴³ The texts followed are those of Caizzi, Frgs. 14 (Ajax) and 15 (Odysseus).

⁴⁴ Whether he was allegorizing or not has been debated. See Hoistad, R., “Was Antisthenes an Allegorist?” Eranos 49 (1951) 16–30;Google ScholarTate, J., “Antisthenes Was Not an Allegorist,” Eranos 51 (1953) 14–22;Google Scholar cf. Laurenti, R., “L'iponoia di Antistene,” Rivista critica di storia della Filosofia 17 (1962) 123–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Stanford, Ulysses Theme 91, and for discussion of the scholion which follows, 99. The scholion is printed as Frg. 51 Caizzi. For the debate over the meaning of πολυτρόπος, see Kakridis, T., “Die Bedeutung von πολυτρόπος in der Odyssee,” Glotta 11 (1921) 288–91;Google ScholarLinde, P., “Homerische Selbsterläuterungen,” Glotta 13 (1924) 223–24Google Scholar. On Antisthenes' interpretation, also see Norden, Eduard, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie,” Jahrb. f. d. class. Philol., Suppl. 19, 2 (1893) 394–95;Google ScholarRostagni, A., “Un nuovo capitolo della retorica e della sophistica,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 2 (1922) 150–59;Google ScholarKennedy, G. A., “Ancient Disputes over Rhetoric in Homer,” AJP 78 (1957) 27–28Google Scholar; Caizzi, “La tradizione,” 103.

⁴⁶ Ep. 96.5; cf. Epictetus Diss. 3.24.31, 34.

⁴⁷ Ps-Aristotle De mundo 6.400b8–9, on which see Capelle, W., “Schrift von der Welt,” Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altertum 15 (1905) 558 n. 6 for other references.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Epictetus Diss. 1.9.16, 24; 3.1.19, cf. 3.13.14; 3.24.99–100; 3.26.29. He swears allegiance to God and does not complain: 1.14.15, cf. 1.29.29. For Seneca, see Emonds, “Christlicher Kriegsdienst,” 143–48.

⁴⁹ Ps-Aristotle De mundo 6.399a32.

⁵ Cf. Plutarch De fortuna 98DE; Max. Tyr. 20.6 (249, 1–9 Hobein); cf. 31.4 (365, 14–15 Hobein); Ps-Phocylides 128. The notion is widespread, not only among Stoics, although they seem to have found it particularly apt. In its more popular use, it is speech that is said to distinguish man from the beasts, but it is not always possible to decide which meaning λόγος has in any particular context (cf. n. 13). On some occasions such words as ϕρόνησις and λογισμός provide clarity. On the topic, see Dickerman, Sherwood O., De argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem obviis et structura hominis et animalium petitis (Diss.; Halle: Wichan und Burkhardt, 1909);Google ScholarPease, A. S., M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1958) 2. 875–76;Google ScholarHorst, P. W. van der, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 199–201.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Menander Sent. 515; cf. 582, 621.

⁵² For a few generations earlier, see Horace Ep. 1.1.60 and Sat. 2.3.296–97, the latter referring to the Stoic Stertinius giving his convert Damasippus the Stoic precepts as weapons.

⁵³ Diss. 4.16.14.

⁵⁴ On αἰδώς in Epictetus, see Hijmans, B. L., ἌΣΚΗΣΙΣ: Notes on Epictetus' Educational System (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959) 27–30;Google ScholarBillerbeck, Margarethe, Epiktet: Vom Kynismos (Philosophia Antiqua 34; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 67–68.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Diss. 4.8.33; cf. 4.3.7.

⁵⁶ Diss. 3.22.13–19, 94–95. Cf. Dio Chrys. Oral. 77/78.40.

⁵⁷ Diss. 3.22.14–16; cf. Marcus Aurelius 3.7.16.

⁵⁸ See Emonds, “Christlicher Kriegsdienst,” 152–54, who attributes Seneca's fondness for the metaphor to his teacher Quintus Sextius. Cf. Ganss, Wilhelm, Das Bild des Weisen bei Seneca (Diss.; Freiburg: Gutenberg, 1952) 43–47; Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, 156–62.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ De const, sap. 3.4–5; De ben. 5.2.3–4.

⁶⁰ Epp. 59.6–8; cf. 64.3–4.

⁶¹ Epp.. 113.27–28.

⁶² Ep. 51.5–6.

⁶³ Ep. 74.19.

⁶⁴ De vit. beat. 4.2.

⁶⁵ Ep. 82.5.

⁶⁶ Ep. 65.18.

⁶⁷ De vit. beat. 15.5.

⁶⁸ De const. sap. 6.4.

⁶⁹ De const. sap. 6.8.

⁷⁰ See Geffcken, J., Kynika und Verwandtes (Heidelberg: Winter, 1909) 53–58;Google ScholarSchuppe, E., “Tribon,” PW 6A (1937) 2415–19, esp. 2417;Google ScholarBetz, H. D., Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie, 1961) 133 n. 3;Google Scholar idem, Der Apostel, 47–53; Voss, B. R., “Die Keule der Kyniker,” Hermes 95 (1967) 124–25;Google ScholarLiefeld, Walter, “The Wandering Preacher as a Social Figure in the Roman Empire” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1967) 146ff., 167ff.;Google ScholarKindstrand, J. F., Bion of Borysthenes (Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 11; Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1976) 161–63.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Dio Chrys. Orat. 72.5; Ps-Lucian Cyn. 20.

⁷² Dio Chrys. Orat. 34.2; 35.2–3.

⁷³ Dio Chrys. Orat. 12.9; cf. 72.16. On the philosopher's παρρησία, see Malherbe, A. J., “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to I Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970) 203–17.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Dio Chrys. Orat. 72.9. The entire oration deals with the philosopher's garb. The crowds approach him with suspicion (7), active dislike (9), or curiosity (10–11).

⁷⁵ E.g., Dio Chrys. Orat. 32.20, 24, 29, 74; 34.6; Gnom. Vatic. 352; Ps-Diog. Ep. 45.

⁷⁶ Nigrinus 24; cf. Dial. Mort. 1.1; Fugitivi 4, 14, 20, 27; Seneca Ep. 5.1–3.

⁷⁷ Epictetus Diss. 3.22.10, 50; 4.8.5; Max. Tyr. 1.9–10 (15–18 Hobein). Cf. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes, 139–40.

⁷⁸ Ps-Diog. Ep. 15.

⁷⁹ Dio Chrys. Orat. 13.10. For an unconvincing debunking of Dio's account, see Moles, J. L., “The Career and Conversion of Dio Chrysostom,” JHS 9 (1978) 79–100, here 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁰ On σύντομος δός as a description of Cynicism, see Lucian Vit. auct. 11; Ps-Crates Epp. 6, 13, 16, 21; Ps-Diog. Epp. 12, 30, 44, and see Emeljanow, V., “A Note on the Cynic Short Cut to Virtue,” Mnemosyne n.s. 18/2 (1965) 182–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ Cf. Lucian Vit. auct. 8.

⁸² Ps-Crates Epp. 16, 23; Ps-Diog. Ep. 34.

⁸³ Cf. Ps-Crates Ep. 13; Ps-Diog. Ep. 30 on security; Ps-Crates Epp. 6, 16, 23; Ps-Diog. Ep. 12 on separating from persons with different standards.

⁸⁴ Ps-Diog. Epp. 7, 34. Cf. Ps-Crates Ep. 33.2, the Cynic's garb guards him.

⁸⁵ Ps-Crates Ep. 23; Ps-Diog. Epp. 15, 34.

⁸⁶ The Cynic's dress is therefore part of his “falsifying of the currency,” on which see Diog. Laert. 6.21–22, 71; Dudley, Donald R., A History of Cynicism (London: Methuen, 1937) 20–22;Google ScholarNiehaus-Pröbsting, Heinrich, Der Kynismus des Diogenes und der Begriff des Zynismus (Munich: Fink, 1979) 43–56. However, not all Cynics made the connection. According to Lucian Demonax 5, Demonax wore the Cynic garb but lived the same life as everyone else.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The image does appear, e.g., in Ps-Diog. Ep. 29.1, but not in the Stoic manner. On the Cynic self-understanding, see Malherbe, Abraham J., “Self-Definition among Epicureans and Cynics,” in Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World, Meyer, Ben F. and Sanders, E. P., eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 46–59.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Der Apostel, esp. 47–57.

⁸⁹ On the use of examples in Greek and Latin literature, see S.J., Benjamin Fiore, “The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1982).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Stanford, Ulysses Theme, 118–19.

⁹¹ Statius Achilleid 1.784; Horace Od. 1.6.7; Sat. 2.5; Cicero De off. 3.97. Stanford (Ulysses Theme, 266 n. 12) tries too hard to remove any unfavorable assessment of Ulysses from Horace.

⁹² Ovid Metamor. 13.15, 101–4, 360–69. See Stanford Ulysses Theme, 138–43.

⁹³ Metamor. 13.382–83, according to Stanford's translation.

⁹⁴ Cf. Cicero Brutus 40, 177; De orat. 1.31.142; 2.15.64; 27.120; Tusc. disp. 5.46; Quintillian 11.3.158; 12.10.64; Aulus Gellius 1.15.3; Plutarch Quomodo adul. 66F, cf. 74B. Plutarch's discussion of παρρησία is heavily dependent on Cynic and Stoic sources. For other Stoics, see Epictetus Diss. 1.24.26; Heraclitus Homerica Problemata 67.5 (Buffière, Felix, ed., Heraclite: Allègories d'Homère [Paris: Belles Lettres, 1962] 72).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ganss (Bild des Weisen, 122) is wrong when he says that Odysseus had lost his earlier significance as a paradigm in the later philosophical literature. Cf. Stanford, Ulysses Theme, 118–27.

⁹⁶ Cicero De fin. 5.49; Horace Ep. 1.2.17–18. Cf. Lucian De parasito 10, where Odysseus is criticized for not being a better Stoic. For the problem of his weeping, see Stanford, Ulysses Theme, 121.

⁹⁷ Seneca De const, sap. 2.1. As a philosopher, Seneca admired Ulysses; as a dramatist he denigrated him. Cf. Stanford, Ulysses Theme, 144.

⁹⁸ Plutarch Coniug. praec. 139A. For νοȗν ἔχων as a description of the Stoic sage, see SVF 3. 548, 563, 701, 717 (Arnim, H. von, ed., Stoicorum veterum fragmenta [4 vols.; reprint ed.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1964]).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Plutarch De aud. poet. 31B-D.

¹⁰⁰ Cicero De off. 1.113.

¹⁰¹ Epictetus Diss. 3.24.13–21, on which see Malherbe, A. J., “Pseudo Heraclitus, Epistle 4: The Divinization of the Wise Man,” JAC 21 (1978) 49.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Cf. Epictetus Diss. 3.26.33–34.

¹⁰³ Tusc. disp. 5.46. According to Cicero, it is Anticlea, Ulysses' mother, but in the scene he and Pacuvius have in mind (Od. 19.390–93), Euryclea, Ulysses' nurse, does the washing. For lenis as a description of speech, see Cicero De orat. 2.183; Quintilian 6.1.50; 9.4.127.

¹⁰⁴ Tusc. disp. 2.47–50.

¹⁰⁵ Note also the Stoic allegorists' interpretation of Odysseus and the moly plant. According to Heraclitus Homerica problemata 73.8–10, Hermes, who is the rational intelligence (λογισμός), gives Odysseus the μ⋯λυ, which signifies prudence (ϕρόνησις), to withstand the onslaught of the passions. According to Apollonius Sophista Lexicon Homericum s.v. μ⋯λυ, Cleanthes said that μ⋯λυ allegorically signifies the reason by which the ρμαί and πάθη are softened.

¹⁰⁶ Moles (“Career”) has called into question Dio's account of his Cynic period and scholarly acceptance of it. On Odysseus in Dio, see Kindstrand, Jan Fredrik, Homer in der zweiten Sophistik (Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 7; Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1973) 34–35; Desideri, Dione di Prusa, 174 n. 2; Moles, “Career,” 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Orat. 13.10–11.

¹⁰⁸ According to Philostratus Vita Soph. 1.488.

¹⁰⁹ Orat. 1.51.

¹¹⁰ Orat. 9.9. Cf. Hoistad, Cynic Hero, 196, for the similarities to Antisthenes' Odysseus.

¹¹¹ Orat. 49.10–12.

¹¹² Cf. Orat. 32.11, and for the type, Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse,” 208–10; “Self-Definition.”.

¹¹³ Thersites is usually represented unfavorably as the dour Cynic, e.g., Lucian Vit. Auct. 7; Pisc. 37; Fugitivi 30; Adv. ind. 7. On Lucian, see Funk, K., “Untersuchungen über die Lucianische Vita Demonactis,” Philologus Supp. 10 (1907) 597;Google ScholarHelm, R., Lucian und Menipp (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1906) 53–54, 196.Google Scholar Lucian (Adv. ind. 7) pokes fun at Thersites as a Cynic making a popular speech (δημη γορ⋯ν): If he should get Achilles' armor he would not change immediately nor would he be able to use it. In Demonax 61 Thersites is called a mob-orator (δημή γορος) of the Cynic type. Demonax, however, accepted him as an illustration when it suited him (cf. 50), as does Dio. When Dio does characterize him, it is not as σκυθρωπός or δημή γορος, or from material derived from the Odyssey, but with words from Iliad 2.246, as λιγὺς γορητής, a “clear-voiced speaker.”.

¹¹⁴ For the curious attraction such people had for the public, see Malherbe, , “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Texts and Testaments, March, W. Eugene, ed. (San Antonio: Trinity University, 1980) 27.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ On Dio as an Antisthenic Cynic, see Hoistad, Cynic Hero, 164–65, 196–97.

¹¹⁶ On the dates and authorship of the letters attributed to Crates and Diogenes, see Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 10–21.

¹¹⁷ Ps-Crates Epp. 19, 23.

¹¹⁸ Cf. Capelle, W., “De cynicorum epistulis” (Doctoral diss., Gottingen, 1896) 23Google Scholar, 52–53. Norden (“Beiträge,” 394–95) states that most of the accusations made against Odysseus in the letter appear in the scholia to Homer as πορίαι and are solved. According to Stanford (Ulysses Theme, 266 n. 12), Martorana, Michelina (Ulisse nella letteratura Latina [Palermo/Rome, 1926] 75–80Google Scholar) discusses the Cynic rejection of Antisthenes' conception of Odysseus as the proto-Cynic, and suggests that Horace Sat. 2.5 may reflect the same attitude.

¹¹⁹ Softness frequently appears in vice lists describing the self-indulgent person, e.g., Lucian Timon 28; Epictetus Diss. 2.16.45; Ps-Diog. Epp. 12, 29.2, 36.5. The selfsufficient Cynic's σχ⋯μα is contrasted to the self-indulgent person's soft garments by Ps-Lucian Cyn. 17; cf. Ps-Diog. Ep. 28.1; Ps-Crates Ep. 19; Cicero De orat. 1.226.

¹²⁰ Paradoxically, Cynic begging was viewed as a sign of independence: By surrendering his private property, the Cynic was freed from evil and showed himself superior to the values of popular opinion (Ps-Crates Ep. 7; Ps-Diog. Ep. 9); begging is really a demand for what belongs to him (Ps-Crates Epp. 26, 27; Ps-Diog. Ep. 10.2); he begs only from people who are worthy of him and his teaching (Ps-Crates Epp. 2, 19,22, 36; Ps-Diog. Ep. 38.3–4.

¹²¹ Cf. Ps-Diog. Ep. 29: The harsh Cynic clad in the traditional garb will turn Dionysius away from his softness, take away his fears, and instill θρσος.

¹²² Various persons are credited with it. In addition to the Cynic epistles, the sources behind Diog. Laert. 6.21 and Lucian Dial. mort. 21 refer to Antisthenes. The epistles of Crates, Diog. Laert. 6.22–23 and Dio Chrys. Orat. 72.11, 26 attribute it to Diogenes, the latter including Socrates, and Lucian Vit. auct. 8 finds it already in Heracles. On the tradition, see Leo, F., “Diogenes bei Plautus,” Hermes 41 (1906) 441–46; Dudley, History of Cynicism, 6–7. Kindstrand (Bion of Borysthenes, 162) thinks that the practice may have begun with Socrates.Google Scholar

¹²³ Cf. Emeljanow, Victor, “The Letters of Diogenes” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974) 41.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ For an attempt to place this passage in the context of Cynic attitudes toward religion, see Malherbe, “Pseudo Heraclitus,” 50–51, and for a modification, idem, “Self-Definition,” nn. 73–75.

¹²⁵ Cf. Ps-Diog. Ep. 10.1.

¹²⁶ Ps-Diog. Ep. 15.

¹²⁷ Ps-Diog. Ep. 46.

¹²⁸ E.g., Horace Sat 2.5.27–44; cf. Martorana, Ulisse, above, n. 118.

¹²⁹ See Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse.”

¹³⁰ The three participles, καθαιροȗντες, αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, ἔχοντες are grammatically dependent on (στρατευόμεθα and explicate how the campaign takes place.

¹³¹ The closest parallel in Paul is 2 Cor 2:14–16, if one accepts the interpretation of some commentators. Cf. Allo, E. B., Saint Paul: Seconde epître aux Corinthiens (EtBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 45–47; Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle, 77–78; Kümmel, An die Korinther, 198; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 98.Google Scholar

¹³² See Betz, Der Apostel, 44–57.

¹³³ On τολμ⋯ν, see further Betz, Der Apostel, 67–68, who is followed by Zmijewski, Josef, Der Stil der paulinischen Narrenrede (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 52; Cologne/Bonn: Hanstein, 1978) 234–35.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Betz, Der Apostel, 68.

¹³⁵ For the Cynic irony, see Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes, 55–56, and Kindstrand, Bion of Borysthenes, 183.

¹³⁶ See the catalogue of interpretations in Theissen, Gerd, The Social Selling of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 64 n. 44. Windisch (Zweite Korintherbrief 295 n. 2) compares the construction to Diogenes Laertius 6.11, which refers to a statement by Antisthenes on the wise man's conduct.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Thus Barrett, Second Corinthians, 250, on the basis of the content of chaps. 10–13.

¹³⁸ Cf. Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief 64.

¹³⁹ Betz concentrates on the former, where he espies traces of the philosophic-sophistic controversy, hence the latter is a difficult passage for him (cf. Der Apostel, 68).

¹⁴⁰ See Hock, Ronald F., “Paul's Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class,” JBL 97 (1978) 555–64Google Scholar, and idem, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) esp. 36, 60, 64.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Cf. the reference to his manual labor in the list of apostolic hardships in 1 Cor 4:9–13 (vs 12), and see Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 334.

¹⁴² Cf. n. 120.

¹⁴³ Social Context, esp. 39–40, 56–59.

¹⁴⁴ Plutarch Apophth. Lac. 213C; Gnom. Vatic. 70. Cf. also Epictetus Diss. 4.1.19.

¹⁴⁵ See Fitzer, Gottfried, “τολμάω” TDNT 8 (1972) 181–82.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 294–95; Fitzer, “τολμάω,” 184 n. 17.

¹⁴⁷ Barrett, Second Corinthians, 250; Schweizer, Eduard, “σάρξ,” TDNT 7 (1971) 126Google Scholar: “the earthly life in its totality”; Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951) 1. 235: “in the sphere of the obvious, or the earthly-human, or the natural.”Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Schweizer, “σάρξ,” 128.

¹⁴⁹ Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief, 297; Plummer, Second Corinthians, 276.

¹⁵⁰ Thus Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953) 184. The construction would then be a Hebraism.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Thus Windisch, Zweite Korintherbrief 297; Barrett, Second Corinthians, 251, and most commentators.

¹⁵² Note the association of God's power with the so-called peristasis catalogues in 4:7– 11 and 6:4–7.

¹⁵³ See 11:30–12:10 and cf. 13:3–4.

¹⁵⁴ Cf. the ironic references to his weakness which enclose the list of hardships in 11:21–29.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. Leivestad, R., “‘The Meekness and Gentleness of Christ’ II Cor X.I,” NTS 12 (1966) 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁶ For the use of Stoic (and Cynic) terminology, see Grant, Robert M., “Hellenistic Elements in I Corinthians,” in Wikgren, Allen, ed., Early Christian Origins: Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughby (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961) 60–66Google Scholar. For the terminology in Paul's response to the Corinthian slogans, see Stowers, Stanley K., “A ‘Debate’ over Freedom: 1 Corinthians 6:12–20,” in Ferguson, Everett, ed., Christian Teaching: Studies in Honor of LeMoine G. Lewis (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University, 1981) 59–71Google Scholar. Note the parallel between the attitude expressed in Lucian Hermotimus 81, that the Stoic, if he learns Stoic cosmology properly, will be “the only rich man, the only king, and the rest slaves and scum (καθάρματα) compared to (him),” and 1 Cor 4:8, “Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings!” followed by a peristasis catalogue which concludes, “we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things (ὡς περικαθάρματα τοȗ κόσμου γενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα ἓως ἄρτι).” Windisch (Zweite Korintherbrief, 25) lists a number of similarities between the ways Paul describes his opponents in 1 and 2 Corinthians, a major difference being that in 2-Corinthians the opoosition is more vehement and personal and the details of the opposition are different in some respects.

¹⁵⁷ Νόημα always has a negative connotation in 2 Corinthians; cf. 2:11; 3:14; 4:4; 11:3.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. 12:6, where, although he speaks of his speech and boasting, he again draws attention to what people can see in him.

¹⁵⁹ See Malherbe, , “The Beasts at Ephesus,” JBL 87 (1968) 71–80, and idem, “Gentle as a Nurse.”.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ “Antisthenes bei Paulus,” Hermes, 98 (1970) 459–71.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Polybius 18.11.5–6. Cf. Elliger, Winfried, Paulus in Griechenland (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978) 202.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Strabo 8.6.21. Cf. Rhys Carpenter and Antoine Bon, Corinth. 3.2: The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1936).Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Cf. Plutarch Aratus 18.3–4; 21.2.

¹⁶⁴ See Plutarch Reg. et imp. apophth. 190EF (cf. 190A); Apophth. Lac. 215D. Cf. 212E, 221F, 230C; Valerius Maximus 3.7.8. See n. 29.