^{page 550 note 1} Kierkegaard, Sören, Edifying Discourses, Vol. 11, Tr. Swenson, David F. and Swenson, Lilian Marvin (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962) 164Google Scholar. Kierkegaard thought it would be impossible to ‘mention all the ingenuity and foolishness which has been expended in explaining or trying to explain this passage’.

^{page 550 note 2} Deissmann, Adolf, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Tr. Wilson, William E. (New York: Harper & Row, Publisher [Harper Torchbooks] 1957; first published 1912) 60, n. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 550 note 3} Lenski, R. C. H., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: The Tyndale Press, 1961) 798Google Scholar. Similarly, Hughes, Philip E., declares the ‘realm of conjecture … [is] the realm of inconclusiveness’. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 442Google Scholar.

^{page 550 note 4} Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 248Google Scholar.

^{page 550 note 5} Keck, Leander E., Paul and His Letters (Proclamation Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) 106Google Scholar.

^{page 550 note 6} Lenski, Second Corinthians, 1301Google Scholar.

^{page 550 note 7} Mullins, Terrence Y., ‘Paul's Thorn in the Flesh’, JBL 76 (Dec. 1957) 299Google Scholar.

^{page 550 note 8} Tertullian, , De Pudic, 13. 6Google Scholar. Against Marcion, Book V, chapter xii where Tertullian notes that Marcion cannot understand that God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh and that God did not remove the thorn. Cf. also De Fuga in Persecutione, IX2 where σκλοψ is understood to be a ‘stake’.

^{page 551 note 1} Chrysostom, Homilies on II Corinthians, Horn. XXVI.

^{page 551 note 2} Lightfoot, J. B., The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, 1972; reprint of 1865 edition)Google Scholar.

^{page 551 note 3} Betz, Hans Dieter. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ‘Apologie’: 2 Korinther 10–13 (BHT 45. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972)Google Scholar. Also see Betz, , Paul's Apology II Corinthians 10–13 and the Socratic Tradition. Protocol of the 2nd Colloquy. Ed. Wuellner, Wilhelm (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1975)Google Scholar and ‘Eine Christus-Aretalogie bei Paulus (2 Kor. 12, 7–10)’, ZTK 66 (1969) 288–305Google Scholar.

^{page 551 note 4} See Spencer, Aida Beancon, ‘The Wise Fool (and the Foolish Wise)’, Novum Testamentum 23, 4 (1981) 349–60Google Scholar.

^{page 551 note 5} Martin, Ralph P., 2 Corinthians (Word Biblical Commentary). Eds. Hubbard, David A. and Barker, Glen W. (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publishers, 1986) 413Google Scholar. ‘We will probably never know the truth (or, at least, never know for sure that we have the truth)’, 416.

^{page 551 note 6} For a more complete historical review, see Windisch, Hans, Der Zweite Korintherbrief (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament; Meyer, 1924, newly edited 1970) 385–8;Google ScholarPlummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960; first published 1915) 348–51;Google ScholarHughes, Philip E., Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 443–6;Google ScholarAllo, Ernest Bernard, Seconde épître aux Corinthiens (2nd ed., Etudes Bibliques, 1956) 313–21Google Scholar.

^{page 551 note 7} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel and Paul's ApologyGoogle Scholar where he places the ‘apology’ in the Socratic tradition (p. 2) and says Paul is in complete ‘agreement with the Greek humanistic tradition, even with Delphic religion’ (p. 11) and ‘corresponds fully to what a Cynic mind would welcome’ (p. 12).

^{page 551 note 8} Rigaux, Béda, The Letters of St. Paul:_Modern Studies, ed. and tr. Yonick, Stephen (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968) 123Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 1} Stowers, Stanley K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity, ed. Meeks, Wayne A.. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986) 173Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 2} Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 68, n. 113; 222, n. 30Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 3} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel, 14Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 4} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel, 79Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 5} For discussions of tribulation lists see Hodgson, Robert, ‘Paul the Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists’, ZNW 74 (1983) 1/2, 59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 552 note 6} Judge, E. A., ‘Paul's Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, Australian Biblical Review (10, 1968)Google Scholar. Judge thinks ‘boasting’ is a parody of the forms of rhetorical self-advertisement current in Hellenistic society. See Travis, S. H., ‘Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12’, Studia Evangelica, Vol. 6 (1973) 530Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 7} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel, 89–100Google Scholar. Also see Betz, , Aretalogie, 288–305Google Scholar.

^{page 552 note 8} Beardslee, William A., Human Achievement and Divine Vocation in the Message of Paul (Napierville: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1961) 79Google Scholar.

^{page 553 note 1} Cf. 1 Cor 15. 9–11; Gal 1. 6; also see Rom 2. 16; 16. 25; 2 Cor 4.3; 2 Thess 2. 14; 1 Cor 15. 1; Gal 1. 11; 2. 2; 2. 7; 1 Thess 1. 5 where his apostolic message is characterized as ‘my/our gospel’.

^{page 553 note 2} Bèardslee, William A., Human Achievement, 79Google Scholar.

^{page 553 note 3} Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, ‘άπόστολος’, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Gerhard, tr. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 437Google Scholar.

^{page 553 note 4} Campenhausen, H. V., ‘Der Urchristliche Apostelbegriff’, Studia Theologica 1 (1948) 111Google Scholar.

^{page 553 note 5} Käsemann, Ernst, ‘Die Legitimät des Apostels’, ZNW 41 (1942) 33–71Google Scholar. See also Munck, J., ‘The True and False Apostles’, Paul, 168–95;Google ScholarMunck, J., ‘La Vocation de l'Apôtre Paul’, Studia Theologica, 1 (1948) 131–45;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMunck, J., ‘Paul, the Apostles and the Twelve’, Studia Theologica 3 (1950) 96–110;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCambier, J., ‘Le Critère Paulinien de l'Apostolat en 2 Cor. 12, 6’, Biblica 43 (1962) 481–518Google Scholar.

^{page 553 note 6} Rengstorf, H. K., ‘άπόστολος’, 421Google Scholar. It is found only once each in Mt, Mk and Jn, but 29 times in Paul (if we include 4 times in Eph and once in Col, but exclude 5 times in the Past), and 34 times in Lk (28 in Ac and 6 in Lk); the remaining occurrences are once in Hb, 1 Pet and Jd; twice in 2 Pt and 3 times in Rev.

^{page 553 note 7} For good summaries of attempts to identify Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians, see Friedrich, G., ‘Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief’, in Abraham unser Vater, ed. Betz, O., Hengel, M. and Schmidt, P., Festschrift far Otto Michel (Leiden: Brill, 1963) 192–6;Google Scholar and Georgi, Dieter, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 7–16Google Scholar.

^{page 553 note 8} Baur, Ferdinand Christian, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine, 2 vols. Tr. Menzies, A. from the 2nd ed. by Edward Zeller (London: Williams and Norgate, 1873–5)Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 1} Lütgert, Wilhelm, Freiheitspredigt und Schwärmgeister in Korinth (BFCT. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1908)Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 2} Lake, Kirsopp, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivington's, 1914)Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 3} Windisch, Hans, Der Zweite Korintherbrief (Meyer-Kommentar. Gottingen, 1924)Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 4} Bultmann, Rudolf, Exegetische Problem des 2 Korintherbrief (Upssala: Wretsmans, 1947, reprint 1963)Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 5} Schmithals, Walter, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians. Tr. Steely, J. E. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; original, 1956)Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 6} Käsemann, Ernst, ‘Die Legitimät des Apostels’, 33–71Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 7} Georgi, Dieter, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. See especially his conclusions on pages 301–5Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 8} Barrett, C. K., Second Corinthians, 30Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 9} K, W. G.ümmel, Introduction to the NT, 284Google Scholar.

^{page 554 note 10} Munck, Johannes, Paul, 186Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 1} Dahl, Nils Alstrup, ‘Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content and Structure’, SBL Seminar paper (1973) 39Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 2} Howard, George, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1979Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 3} Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians, 69, n. 126Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 4} Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians, 67, n. 103Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 5} Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians, 68, n. 113;Google Scholar cf. 222, n. 30.

^{page 555 note 6} Lyons, George, Pauline Autobiography: Toward A New Understanding. SBL Dissertation Series 73 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) especially see chapter 2, 75–122Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 7} Betz, Hans Dieter, Paul's Apology, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 8} Betz, Hans Dieter, Paul's Apology, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 9} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel, 44Google Scholar.

^{page 555 note 10} The ‘charge’ of inconsistency (ταπεινός and θαρρεîν) in 10. 1 need not have come from ‘opponents’ since Paul had come to the Corinthians not ‘with superiority of speech or wisdom’ but ‘in weakness and in fear and in much trembling’ (1 Cor 2. 3) having determined to know nothing except ‘Jesus Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor 2. 2). Thus, the ‘charge’ probably derived from the Corinthians themselves.

^{page 556 note 1} One can hardly deny the presence of ‘troublemakers’ in Corinth, but Paul's obsession is clearly with the Corinthians.

^{page 556 note 2} See 12. 20–21 where he fears the worst has happened.

^{page 556 note 3} Ironically he has humbled himself () so they may be exalted () and preached without charge (δωρέαν). He robbed (έσύλησα, literally booty from a war) others of their wages (όψώνιον, a soldier's pay) so as not to burden (κατενάρκησα, literally ‘anesthetize’) anyone. Ironically in refusing to be a burden to Corinth he has been a burden to others but Paul does not seem to sense that tension. He has no intention of taking money from them even though they appear to have been insulted (11. 9, 12).

^{page 557 note 1} An analysis of 2 Cor 2 and 7 confirms this conclusion. The ‘troublemaker/s’ in 2. 7 is surely from the Corinthian Church since ‘the majority’ punished him (2. 6). His letter about this situation was written with ‘many tears’ because of his love for them (2. 4). Though apparently insulted by this person (or these persons), this insult was to the entire church (2. 5). The painful letter, referred to again in 7. 8 led to μετανοία (7. 9) and so Paul rejoices (7. 10) and his letter was not written for the ‘offender’ or the ‘offended’ (Paul?) but for the whole church (7. 12).

^{page 557 note 2} Baur, W., Lexicon, 127Google Scholar.

^{page 557 note 3} Betz, H. D., Paul's Apology, 9Google Scholar. While it epitomizes the spirit of the ἃφρων/εἴρων in foolish discourse, one wonders at Betz's calling this brief statement a discourse.

^{page 557 note 4} Sedgewick, G. G., Of Irony, Especially in Drama (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1935) 7Google Scholar. In this use of εἴρων, I disagree with Betz who sees the άλαζών in the Fool's Speech. See Betz, , Der Apostel, 75 ffGoogle Scholar. The εἴρων is the counterpart and enemy of the άλαζών the εἴρων passes himself off for less than he is while the άλαζών vaunts himself as more. (Paul Duke, D., Irony in the Fourth Gospel [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985] 9.)Google Scholar

^{page 557 note 5} Betz, Hans D., Der Apostel, 75Google Scholar.

^{page 557 note 6} Kierkegaard, Sören, The Concept of Irony, tr. Capel, Lee M. (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 265Google Scholar.

^{page 557 note 7} Quintilian, The Institutio of Quintilian, tr. Butler, H. E. (The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953) 9, ii, 46Google Scholar. Socrates came to typify and later to dignify the term εἴρων.

^{page 558 note 1} That άνέχεσθε is ironical in 11. 1 is indicated by 11. 20a where irony becomes sarcasm.

^{page 558 note 2} This statement recalls Plutarch who says, ‘It is agreed that to speak to others of one's own importance or power is offensive, but … not many even of those who condemn such conduct avoid the odium of it.’ Plutarch, ‘On Praising Oneself Inoffensively’, Moralia, tr. Bobbit, Frank Cole. Loeb Classical Library (539A–B)Google Scholar. Consider also that already in 1 Cor 1. 31 and 2 Cor 10. 15, Paul has quoted Jer 9. 23–1.

^{page 558 note 3} άνέχεσθε in v. 20 indicates the character of the άφρόνων of 11. 19 and shows that when άφροσύνης is applied to Paul, it is used ironically.

^{page 558 note 4} Demosthenes similarly claims to have been thrust into a no-win situation in which to praise himself would lead to public disapproval but to fail to defend his reputation would seem to suggest that he was incapable of doing so. Demosthenes, De Corona, tr. Vince, C. and Vince, J. H. (Loeb Classical Library)Google Scholar.

^{page 558 note 5} On irony, see Duke, Paul D., Irony, especially pp. 1–62;Google Scholar also see Spencer, Aida Beancon, ‘The Wise Fool (and the Foolish Wise)’, Novum Testamentum 23 (1981) 4, 349–60Google Scholar for a study of irony in Paul, especially 2 Cor 11. 16–13. 13.

^{page 558 note 6} See Forbes, Christopher, ‘Comparison, Self Praise and Irony, Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986) 1–30;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBultmann, Rudolf, ‘κανχάομαıκτλ’, TDNT 3: 645–54Google Scholar.

^{page 559 note 1} Plutarch, , Moralia, ‘On Praising Oneself Inoffensively’ [539A–547F]Google Scholar. Also see Lyons, George, Pauline Autobiography 5 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Betz, H. D., ed. Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4. Leiden: Brill, 1978)Google Scholar.

^{page 559 note 2} Aristotle, , The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. Rackham, H. (Loeb Classical Library) 4.7.2–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 559 note 3} In 2 Corinthians 1–9 there are 9 occurrences of κανχάομαı, κτλ but in chapters 10–13 there are 19 occurrences of the same terms.

^{page 559 note 4} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der ApostelGoogle Scholar.

^{page 559 note 5} Judge, E. A., ‘Paul's Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, Australian Biblical Review (10, 1968) 37–50Google Scholar.

^{page 559 note 6} Travis, S. H., ‘Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12’, Studia Evangelica 6 (1973) 527–32Google Scholar.

^{page 559 note 7} Betz, Hans Dieter, Paul's Apology, 9Google Scholar. See Forbes, , ‘Boasting’, 22Google Scholar, for a similar view but also see Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 5:Google Scholar ‘If Betz is correct in his analyses of Paul's supposedly apologetic letters, 2 Cor 10–13 and Galatians, the apostle must have read extensively in pagan authors.’ Also see critique of Betz (Paul's Apology, 17–30)Google Scholar, where Dillon (p. 17) finds Paul ‘insuperably alien to what I find in Greek culture’. Judge, E. A., ‘St. Paul and Classical Society’, JAC 15 (1972) 36Google Scholar argues that Paul was in violent reaction to much that was central to the classical way of life’.

^{page 560 note 1} Dillon, John, ‘Critique of Betz’, in Betz's Paul's Apology, 18Google Scholar.

^{page 560 note 2} Cf. Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘κανχάομαı, κτλ.’, 646–7Google Scholar. ‘Philo's statements [against self-glory] are closest to those of Paul and he sketches Philo's view’ (647–8), Philo makes no special use of κανχάσθαı instead we find , etc.

^{page 560 note 3} Paul even denies having defended himself (άπολογούμεθα, 12. 19). However, Betz is correct that in spite of this suggestion, Paul's argument is indeed an ‘apology’ (Paul's Apology, p. 1)Google Scholar. Plutarch's essay, ‘On Praising Oneself Inoffensively’, calls attention to the tension between the theory and practice of περιαντολογıα – ‘Not many even of those who condemn such conduct avoid the odium of it.’ (Moralia, 539A–B)Google Scholar. Paul can speak affirmatively of other kinds of boasting in different contexts.

^{page 560 note 4} The difficulty of consistent theory and practice, mentioned by Plutarch, is seen in Paul. In no way does he consider himself inferior to the ύπερλίαν άποστόλων (11. 5), even if ούδέν είμί is added the second time (13. 5). Certainly there is σύγκρίσις in his εύγενεία (11. 22) as he responds with κάγώ and makes himself superior as a servant of Christ: ύπρ γώ (11. 23). Though done ‘in foolishness’, Paul compares himself with the ύπερλίαν άπόστολοι and ψευδαπόστολοι in boldness (11. 21).

^{page 561 note 1} Calvin, John, Epistles of Paul, 148Google Scholar.

^{page 561 note 2} Bultmann, Rudolf, Second Corinthians, 218Google Scholar.

^{page 561 note 3} Furnish, Victor Paul, II Corinthians, 521Google Scholar.

^{page 561 note 4} Bultmann, Rudolf, Second Corinthians, 218Google Scholar.

^{page 561 note 5} Barrett, C. K., Second Corinthians, 303Google Scholar.

^{page 561 note 6} Exegesis is not advanced by the harmonizing tendencies of scholars like Hughes (Second Corinthians, 424)Google Scholar, who thinks the two accounts ‘serve to supplement each other’. In Paul's account the ethnarch under King Aretas guarded (φρονρεîν) the city to arrest Paul but unnamed persons let him down in a basket (σαργάνη) through a window in the wall (2 Cor 11. 32–33). The Lucan account says Jews plotted against Paul; they watched (παρατηρεîν) the gates day and night intending to kill Paul but his disciples let him down through the wall by night in a basket (σπνρıς)(Acts 9. 23–25).

^{page 562 note 1} Judge, E. A., ‘Conflict’, 45Google Scholar. See S. H. Travis, ‘Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12’.

^{page 562 note 2} In 2 Cor 10. 4, 5 Paul seems to have Proverbs 21. 22 in mind: ‘A wise man scales the cities of the mighty to bring down the stronghold in which the godless trust.’

^{page 562 note 3} For a good discussion of the etymology and literary genre, aretalogy, see Smith, Morton, ‘Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels of Jesus’, JBL 90 (1971) 174–99Google Scholar. Generally ‘aretalogy’ refers to ‘miracle stories’. See Reinach, S., ‘Les aretalogues dans l'antiquité’, Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 9 (1885) 257 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Crusius, F., ‘Aretalogy’, Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (2nd ed.; Stuttgart, 1894 ff.);Google ScholarNorden, E., Agnostos Theos (Berlin, 1923) 149 f., 154, 164Google Scholar who followed Crusius in the acceptance of Reinach's understanding of aretalogies as ‘miracle stories’ but Norden neglects the profane side of the subject. Strangely, no text identified in the manuscript as an âρεταλoγια has come down to us.

^{page 562 note 4} See Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel, 89–100Google Scholar, where he has demonstrated form-critically that 2 Cor 12. 1–5 is an aretalogy, a ‘Himmelfahrt parodiert’.

^{page 562 note 5} Examples of rapture in a body: 1 Enoch 12. 1; 14. 8; 39. 3–4; 2 Enoch 38. 1–2; Test. Abr. 8; 3 Apoc. Bar. 11. 1–2. In Greek thought, translation into another realm usually involves a flight of the soul from the body: Myth of Er in Plato's Republic, 641B;Google Scholar also for bodiless rapture see Philo, Dreams; Josephus, , Wars 7.vii.7Google Scholar and even 1 Enoch 71. 1, 5. Seven heavens are found in Apoc. of Mos. 35. 2; 2 Enoch 3–20; Asc. Isa.; Apoc. Paul. In 2 Enoch there is a progression as follows: chapter vii has two heavens; chapter viii, two; chapter xi has four; chapter viii has five on to the tenth. Beginning at ii.2 the Gnostic Apoc. Paul has ten heavens; 1 Apoc. Jas. 26. 2–19Google Scholar are seventy-two heavens; 3 Baruch moves from one to five heavens. Paradise is located in the third heaven: Secrets of Enoch 7. 1–3;Google Scholar 43. 3; 2 Enoch viii and Apoc. Mos. 37. 5Google Scholar. The Testament of Levi 18. 5, 6, 10Google Scholar distinguishes the heavens from Paradise.

^{page 563 note 1} Third person narration indicates irony because ‘distancing is central to the ironic perspective’. Duke, Paul D., Irony in the Fourth Gospel, 31Google Scholar. It is also consistent with Plutarch's ‘inoffensive praise’, which is permissible for persons who ‘praise others whose aims and acts are the same as their own and whose general character is similar’ (‘Inoffensive Praise’, 542 C-D). See Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 69Google Scholar.

^{page 563 note 2} We may have further indication here of irony such as one may see in Socrates who claims ignorance. Socrates ‘was called eiron because he assumed the character of an ignorant man’. Quintilian, The Institutio of Quintilian, tr. Butler, H. E. (The Loeb Classical Library)Google Scholar. Hans Dieter Betz has a similar understanding of the distancing in this passage (Der Apostel, 75–82)Google Scholar. For a different opinion, see Lincoln, Andrew T., ‘Visionary’, 206Google Scholar.

^{page 563 note 3} άρπάζειν in vv. 2 and 4 occurs only here and in 1 Mess 4. 17 in Pauline literature. See Apoc. Mos 37. 5; Wisd. Sol. 4. 11; Acts 8. 39; Rev 12. 5. Also see Lincoln, Andrew T., Paradise Now and Not Yet (Cambridge: University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 563 note 4} ‘Ea quere dicta non sunt’ translates ἃρρητα λογıα in some mss of Ben Sira 36. 13(19) and is followed by the Vulgate ‘inenarrabilibus verbis’. Cited by Smith, Morton, ‘Prolegomena’, 174Google Scholar. Plummer, A., Second Corinthians, 345Google Scholar thinks the expression is a play on words, but, Martin, R. P., Second Corinthians, 405Google Scholar does not notice paradoxical language. Käsemann, E., ‘Legitimät’, p. 57Google Scholar interprets ‘the language of the heavenly sphere’. On being unable to report a revelation, see Apuleius, Metamorphoses xi.23 ‘I would tell you if I were permitted to tell.’

^{page 563 note 5} Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel, 173Google Scholar.

^{page 563 note 6} Spittler, R. P., ‘The Limits of Ecstasy: an Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12:1–10’, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. Hawthorne, G. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 261Google Scholar.

^{page 564 note 1} Smith, Morton, ‘Prolegomena’, 196Google Scholar.

^{page 564 note 2} Betz, Hans Dieter, ‘Christus-Aretalogie’, 289Google Scholar. Consult commentaries on the problems of the correct versification of vv. 6–7 and use of διό in v. 7.

^{page 564 note 3} Betz himself recognizes some problems with the parallels to be found in the contemporary forms of such aretalogies. ‘Christus-Aretalogie’, 297–303. See also O'Collins, Gerald G., ‘Power Made Perfect’, 530Google Scholar. There are no other healing stories in the New Testament where the sick person is also the healer.

^{page 564 note 4} Furnish, Victor Paul, 2 Corinthians, 500Google Scholar.

^{page 564 note 5} Lightfoot, J. B., Galatians, 190Google Scholar.

^{page 564 note 6} Mullins, T., ‘Paul's Thorn’, 30Google Scholar. He adds that, ‘Even if the two phrases were proved to be identical, the case for the bodily ailment theory would be inconclusive.’

^{page 565 note 1} Delling, Gerhard, ‘σκόλοψ’, TDNT, ed. Friedrich, Gerhard, tr. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 7:409Google Scholar. Also see Bauer, W., Lexicon, 756Google Scholar.

^{page 565 note 2} Delling, G., ‘σκόλψ’, 409–10Google Scholar. Delling cites Luc. Judicium Vocalium 12 where άνακολπıζειν undoubtedly means putting to death on a T shaped cross.

^{page 565 note 3} Perhaps, Mullins, , ‘Paul's Thorn’, 302Google Scholar, overstates his case: ‘The phrase itself is one which any Jew of Paul's time would have recognized as a literary idiom for an enemy.’ Strack, Hermann and Billerbeck, Paul, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Zweiter Band (Munchen: C. H. Beck's, 1961; original 1922) 3, 534Google Scholar, state that in Rabbinic usage ‘thorn’ is used for what causes pain, not especially for sickness.

^{page 565 note 4} Kittel, Gerhard, ‘ἃγγελος’, TDNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 1: 74–87Google Scholar. I am depending heavily on Kittel in this paragraph.

^{page 566 note 1} Martin, R. P., Second Corinthians, 413;Google ScholarMullins, , ‘Paul's Thorn’, 302Google Scholar.

^{page 566 note 2} Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: American Book Company, 1886) 6;Google ScholarBauer, W., Lexicon, 8Google Scholar.

^{page 566 note 3} See Ep. of Barnabas xviii.1 where the are opposed to the . See also Enoch 3. 3 and Jubilees 10. 2.

^{page 566 note 4} Plummer, A., Second Corinthians, 352Google Scholar. Similarly, Earle, R., Word Meanings, 160Google Scholar.

^{page 566 note 5} Lenski, R. C. H., Second Corinthians, 1303Google Scholar. The NIV tries to overcome this difficulty by rendering κολαφıζω ‘to torment’.

^{page 566 note 6} Schmidt, K. L., ‘κολαφıζω’, TDNT, 3: 818Google Scholar.

^{page 566 note 7} Bauer, W., Lexicon, 441Google Scholar. See Schmidt, K. L., ‘κολαφıζω’ 819–21Google Scholar where he gives an extended discussion of various maladies which doctors have shown might be experienced as beatings.

^{page 567 note 1} Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931) 265;Google ScholarBultmann, R., Second Corinthians, 225Google Scholar.

^{page 567 note 2} Mullins, T., ‘Paul's Thorn’, 301Google Scholar.

^{page 567 note 3} Furnish, v. P., Second Corinthians, 529Google Scholar.

^{page 567 note 4} Martin, R. P., Second Corinthians, 417;Google ScholarA Plummer, 2 Corinthians, 353Google Scholar. But cf. Bauer, , LexiconGoogle Scholar, who finds in the Sim. Her. 7:7 the meaning ‘to withdraw an affliction’ (p. 127). T. Mullins, ‘Paul's Thorn’, notes the personal referent for σκόλοψ, ἃγγελος, and κολαφıζειν but not άφιτάναι.

^{page 567 note 5} Baur, W., Lexicon, 127Google Scholar.

^{page 567 note 6} Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Tr. and rev. Funk, Robert W. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962) pars. 188 and 199Google Scholar.

^{page 567 note 7} Spencer, A., ‘The Wise Fool’, 356Google Scholar. That Paul refers back to his rapture story is suggested by διό.

^{page 568 note 1} See Blass, F. & Debrunner, A., Greek Grammar, par. 196Google Scholaron the dativus causae. ‘Extra ordinary quality’ assumes a ύπέρ – of quality rather than a ύπέρ of quantity. Despite the plural of άποκάλνψις in vv. 1 and 7, Paul narrates only one experience.

^{page 568 note 2} Betz, Hans Dieter, Paul's Apology, 11Google Scholar.

^{page 568 note 3} Duke, Paul D., ‘Irony in the Fourth Gospel’, 17Google Scholar.

^{page 568 note 4} Hughes, P. E., Second Corinthians, 447Google Scholar misses the irony and his tier of meaning is the same as that of the Corinthians! He sees a body helplessly impaled ‘transfixed, painfully held down and humiliated’.

^{page 569 note 1} Plutarch, ‘Inoffensive Self Praise’ (542F. 13) says one should ‘throw in certain minor shortcomings, failures, or faults, thus obviating any effects of displeasure or disapproval’. Also, when his ‘success’ is assigned to the grace of God in 2 Cor 12. 8–10 Paul is consistent with Plutarch (542E–543A).

^{page 569 note 2} Aristotle, , Rhetoric, 3. 19 in The Rhetoric of Aristotle, tr. Cooper, Lane (Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1932)Google Scholar.

^{page 570 note 1} Betz, H. D., 'Christus-Aretalogie’, 288–305Google Scholar.

^{page 570 note 2} Betz, H. D., ‘Christus-Aretalogie’, 294–7Google Scholar.

^{page 570 note 3} Betz, H. D., ‘Christus-Aretalogie’, 304Google Scholar.

^{page 570 note 4} See Philo, Dreams 1, 130–1Google Scholar where Philo interprets the affliction placed upon Jacob (Gen 32. 25) and says that when the soul attains certain powers and perfection it must be saved from pride by a certain disablement.

^{page 570 note 5} See Philo, Moses 1, 69:Google Scholar ‘When the enemy is surest of ravaging you, then your fame will shine forth most gloriously.’ Even more striking is the remark in the same passage where Philo comments on what Moses had learned at the burning bush in Exod. 3: ‘Your weakness is your power.’

^{page 571 note 1} See Delling, G., ‘σκόλοψ’, 409–10Google Scholar where he cites evidence that σκόλοψ and στανρός are used interchangeably, especially the corresponding verb forms. See Plummer, A., Second Corinthians, 350Google Scholar for similar citations.

^{page 571 note 2} For a review of partition hypotheses, see Betz, H. D., 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 3–36;Google Scholar cf. p. 36 where he observes: ‘Despite two hundred years of scholarly debate, it [Semler's hypothesis] still awaits confirmation or refutation.’ The most radical proponent is Schmithals, W., ‘Die Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung’, ZNW 643/4 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 571 note 3} The most radical proponent, Hughes, P. E., 2 CorinthiansGoogle Scholar.

^{page 572 note 1} Clement of Rome, I Clement 47, with specific reference to 1 Cor 1. 10 ff.

^{page 572 note 2} Cited in Pavlovski, Z., ‘Aristotle, Horace and the Ironic Man’, Classical Philology, Vol. 63 (01 1968) 22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.