¹ Käsemann, E., ‘Die Legitimität des Apostels. Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10–13’, ZNW 41 (1942) 33–71, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 50.Google Scholar

³ Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 56 f., 58–60.Google Scholar

⁴ See, e.g., Bultmann, R., ‘Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes’, Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments (ed. Dinkler, Erich; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1967) 298–322, 313 f;Google ScholarBeker, J.Christiaan, Paul the Apostle, The Triúmph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 296–302;Google ScholarKlaiber, Walter, Rechtfertigung und Gemeinde. Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Kirchenverständnis (FRLANT 127; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 209–11 and the literature cited there;CrossRefGoogle ScholarEichholz, Georg, Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss (2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977) 37;Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 269;Google ScholarFurnish, Victor P., II Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1984) 246 f., 354, 482 f;Google ScholarLietzmann, D. Hans and Kümtnel, W. G., An die Korinther I/II (HzNT 9; 5th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1965) 209Google Scholarand Barth, Gerhard, ‘Die Eignung des Verkündigers in 2 Kor 2,14–3,6’, Kirche, Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Lührmann, D., and Strecker, G.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1980) 257–70, 259 f., 268 f.Google Scholar

⁵ Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 59.Google Scholar

⁶ Quoted by Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 59.Google Scholar

⁷ For the classic statement of the persistence of sin in our lives and its relationship to our justification, see Martin Luther's Vorlesung über den Römerbrief 1515/1516 (Ausgewählte Werke, Ergänzungsreihe Zweiter Band; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1965) 131–5;Google Scholarfor a recognition of the problem see Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975) 95.Google Scholar

⁸ See Käsemann, , ‘Legitimistät’, 59–62, 68–71 and his ‘Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit’, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (Erster Band; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964) 224–36.Google Scholar

⁹ Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 59–61, quote from 61.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 60.Google Scholar

¹¹ Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 71.Google Scholar

¹² See, e.g., Schoeps, H. J., Paul, The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961) 81;Google ScholarTheissen, Gerd, ‘Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare’, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1979) 201–30, 223–6, who in speaking of Paul's ‘Funktionale Legitimation’ states, ‘woimmer Paulus angegriffen wird, verweist er auf sein “Werk”’ (223).Google Scholar

¹³ See too most recently, Christopher Forbes, ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986) 1–30, 1, who points to 10.12 ff. as ‘the key to the whole “boasting” passage in 2 Corinthians’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See, e.g., Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 36;Google ScholarPrümm, Karl, Diakonia Pneumatos, Der Zweite Korintherbrief als Zugang zur Apostolischen Botschaft. Auslegung und Theologie (Bd. 2, Zweiter Teil: Das Christliche Werk, Die Apostolische Macht; Rome: Herder, 1962 and Erster Band: Theologische Auslegung des zweiten Korintherbriefes, 1967) II.347; I. 593; R. Bultmann, ‘Exegetische Probleme’, 320 f., where the theme of self-commendation is completely subsumed under that of ‘boasting’;Google ScholarBetz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition. Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ‘Apologie’ 2 Korinther 10–13 (BHTh 45; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1972) 18, 100, 122 n.576, 132 in comparison with the extensive development of the theme of boasting on 74–100;Google Scholarand Black, David Alan, Paul, Apostle of Weakness. Astheneia and its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (American University Studies, Series VII, 3; New York: Peter Lang, 1984) 130 f., who on the basis of the number of times the theme of boasting recurs in chapters 10–13 concludes that ‘καυχσθαι the main concept of these chapters’ (131). For a more balanced treatment of the two themes, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 475–83.Google Scholar

¹⁵ On the place of 4. 1 and 5. 11 f. within the overall logical structure of 2 Cor 2. 14–6. 13, see now the helpful analysis by Furnish, II Corinthians, 226, 245, 321.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Malherbe, Abraham J., ‘Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War’, HTR 76 (1983) 143–73, 168, 172.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For the former point, see Malherbe, ‘Antisthenes’, 166 n.131; for the latter, see my work, Suffering and the Spirit, An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14–3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence (WUNT 2.Reihe 19; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1986) 18–39, 51–64.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Georgi, , Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. Studien zur Religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike (WMANT 11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1964) 242, who concludes from the statistics concerning its use in 2 Cor alone that ‘συνιτάνιν ist also Schlagwort in der korinthischen Auseinandersetzung…’. But as Georgi goes on to point out, it is actually the concept of συνιστάνειν έαυτόν which provides the ‘weiteren Begriff der konkurrierenden Propaganda der Gegner in Korinth’ (242).Google Scholar

¹⁹ So too, e.g., Barrett, C. K., Second Corinthians, 185, commenting on 6. 4: ‘How does a servant of God commend himself? The answer is in the epistle as a whole’;Google Scholarand Windisch, Hans, Der zweite Korintherbrief (KEK 6; 9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924, reprinted 1970) 102, who refers to 2 Cor 10–13 as ‘die umfassendste, herausforderndste und über-zeugendste “Selbstempfehlung” oder “Selbstberühmung”’ that we have from Paul.Google Scholar

²⁰ So Belleville, L. L. in an unpublished paper delivered at the 1987 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Boston, MA entitled, ‘A Letter of Apologetic Self-Commendation: 2 Cor 1:8–7:16’.Google Scholar

²¹ On the meaning ofσυνίσ^tgr;εμι/συνιστάνω in the NT, see W. Kasch, ‘συνιστεμι, συνιστάνω’, TDNT 7 (1971) 896–8, who points out that ‘Paul uses the trans, συνιστεμι primarily in the good classical sense “to commend”’ (897). I am indebted to my student Robert F. Lay for pointing out a similar use of συνιστάνω in polemical contexts ‘as a key verb in the description of the actions… of an antagonist whose purpose is treacherous or deceptive’ (unpublished manuscript). See, e.g., Polybius, Histories, 4,5,6; Diodorus of Sicily 13,91,4; Josephus, Antiquities, 7,49 and 1 Mace 12. 39–49.Google Scholar

²² Barrett, , Second Corinthians, 129 and Furnish, II Corinthians, 219 distinguish what Paul does in 4. 2 from the negative practice of self-commendation because of its association with άλεθειας, συνείδεσιν, and ένώπιον το θεο. But these qualifications all relate to the means and audience of Paul's self-commendation and are not an apology or disqualification of the practice such as we find in 2 Cor 11. 1–12. 12 concerning boasting — which is disqualified as ‘foolish’.Google Scholar

²³ For this point, see too Oostendorp, D. W., Another Jesus, A Gospel of Jewish-Christian Superiority in II Corinthians (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1967) 33, who also points to 4. 2 and 6. 4 as evidence of the fact that ‘there is a proper kind of self-recommendation, so that in itself is not the issue!’ Oostendorp understands the charge against Paul to be the fact that what Paul said in recommending himself was simply not true so that he had to praise himself to cover up the ‘real flaws’ in his work (34). But as I will argue below, the issue actually centres on two different criteria for commendation as such, since what Paul asserts concerning his own ministry could hardly be disputed, i.e. that he preached without pay, founded the church in Corinth, served in weakness and suffering, and performed signs and wonders in Corinth.Google Scholar

²⁴ It is the existence of these positive ‘self-commendations’ in 4. 2 and 6. 4 ff. (cf. 12. 11?) that speak against those who, like , A. Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1925, reprinted 1978) 76;Google ScholarBarrett, , Second Corinthians, 106;Google ScholarLietzmann, , An die Korinther, 109;Google Scholarand Schoeps, , Paul, 79, argue that the issue in 2 Cor 3.1 is ‘self-commendation’ itself, since it is to be equated with a negative type of boasting, pride, or an attempt to praise oneself. This is not to deny that the idea of boasting in 2 Cor 10–13 is closely related to the opponents’ practice of selfcommendation, but that the nature of this relationship cannot be assumed to be one to one.Google Scholar

²⁵ See the position of E. Käsemann outlined above.Google Scholar

²⁶ The ground-breaking work using this approach to Paul's apologetic is that of Betz, H. D., Apostel Paulus. For the most recent contribution, see that of Christopher Forbes, ‘Comparison’.Google Scholar

²⁷ To give just one more example, see Lincoln, A. T., ‘“Paul the Visionary”: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture to Paradise in II Corinthians XII. 1–10’’, NTS 25 (1979) 204–20, 208: ‘The apostle's boasting is not to be taken in a straightforward sense’ (cf. p. 209).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ For a detailed exposition of 2 Cor 10.17 against the backdrop of Jer 9. 22 f. see now Schreiner, Josef, ‘Jeremia 9, 22.23 als Hintergrund des paulinischen “Sich-Rühmens”’, Neues Testament und Kircke, Für Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed. Gnilka, J.; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 530–42.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. e.g. Windisch, , Zweiter Korintherbrief, 314 f.;Google ScholarBarrett, , Second Corinthians, 269;Google ScholarBultmann, , Zweiter Korintherbrief, 199 and his Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes zu 2. Kor 5. 1–5; 5. 11–6. 10; 10–13; 12. 21, Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses, Vol. 9, (1947) 21;Google Scholarand Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 57–9 (though Bultmann and Käsemann disagree over who is accusing whom of such boasting!).Google Scholar

³⁰ Malina, Bruce J., The New Testament World, insights from cultural anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) 27–9.Google Scholar

³¹ Dewey, Arthur J., ‘A Matter of Honor: A Social-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10’, HTR 78 (1985) 209–17, 210.Google Scholar

³² Dewey, , ‘Matter of Honor’, 212–13.Google Scholar

³³ Taking βλέπετε as an imperative in 10. 7a with the conditional statement in 10. 7b construed to be supporting this admonition. Paul is not simply describing what the Corinthians are doing, but what he wishes they would do, for his apostolic lifestyle of suffering is ample proof of his legitimacy once it is properly interpreted. I have argued for this at length in my work, Suffering and the Spirit, 41–87, 103–76.Google Scholar

³⁴ Taking the γάρ of 10. 8 to be inferential in a statement of exclamation or strong affirmation, cf. Bauer, W., Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., and Danker, F., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 152.Google Scholar

³⁵ So too Betz, , Apostel Paulus, 67 ff. and Forbes, ‘Comparison’, 16.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 43. But, as will become clear below, I differ from Käsemann in my understanding of wherein this difference lies.Google Scholar

³⁷ Contra those who, like Barrett, , Second Corinthians, 262, argue that ‘Paul has no time for self-commendation’ as such.Google Scholar

³⁸ Contra those who have suggested that the error of Paul's opponents was the fact that they pointed to themselves, thus evoking a ‘human standard’ rather than the approval of God; cf. Schutz, John Howard, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (SNTS Monograph Series 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 211; or that they simply believed they had such a standard to begin with, when no such external standard or criterion is possible ‘in the Lord’;Google Scholarcf. Käsemann, , ‘Legitimität’, 56 f., 60 and Georgi, Gegner, 230 f. and 230 n.l.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘METPON ΠΙΤΕΩ∑ in Romans XII. 3’, NTS 8 (1960–1961) 345–51, 348, 350. For the other uses in Paul, see Rom 12.3; Eph 4. 7, 13, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Deissner, K.,‘μέ^tgr;ρον κ.τ.λ.’, TDNT 4 (1967) 632–4, 632Google Scholarand Beyer, H. W., ‘κανών’, TDNT 3 (1965) 596–602, 599 n. 12; see too Furnish, II Corinthians, 465, 471.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Beyer, , ‘κανών’, 599 n. 20, points out that κανών never bears the sense of an ‘assigned (geographical) sphere’ so that the attempts of many commentators (e.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 471, 474) to understand 2 Cor 10.13 to be a reference to the sphere or space allotted to Paul by God for his ministry cannot be supported lexically. James F. Strange's apparent overthrow of Beyer's conclusion in his article, ‘2 Corinthians 10:13–16 Illuminated by a Recently Published Inscription’, BA 46 (1983) 167–8, actually further supports Beyer's point. For the fact that part of the content of the canon in this inscription happened to be a territorial commitment is merely coincidental to this particular situation and not part of the semantic range of κανών itself. The other passage usually pointed to in this regard, 1 Clement 41. 1, also offers no exception to Beyer's conclusion. Upon close examination, κανών in this passage also refers to a standard or criterion for determining behaviour which must then be filled with the appropriate content (in this context to certain appointed places, persons, and times; cf. 1 Clem 40. 2–3).Google Scholar

⁴² So too Deissner, , ‘μέτρον’, 633 and most commentaries.Google Scholar

⁴³ For the first translation, cf. Liddell-Scott, , A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) 82;Google Scholarfor the second, Zerwick, M. and Grosvenor, M., A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Vol. 2; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979) 555 and Furnish, II Corinthians, 465, 471.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ So Beyer, , ‘κανών’, 599 n. 12. See too Schlatter, A., Paulus, Der Bote Jesu, Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969) 624, who takes the phrase to mean ‘durch den Maßstab, κανών, wird das Maß, μέτρον, abgemessen’.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ So too Beyer, , ‘κανών’, 599.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Apostel Paulus, 130 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Stuhlmacher, P., Das paulinische Evangelium I, Vorgeschichte (FRLANT 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 87 n. 5, who emphasizes that κανών here ‘ist in Analogie zu hebräischem zu interpretieren (vgl. 1QH 1:28; 3:27; 18:11; Test. Napht. 2:3;äth.Hen. 61:lff.) und meint das die Schöpfung von Gott her prägende Gerichtsmaß, ist also wesentlich mehr als bloß ein “Maßstab”’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ To my knowledge, this understanding of the canon of 10. 12 f. has been suggested in recent literature only by Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit, A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1975) 274. Dunn emphasizes that 2 Cor 10–13 is the key text for this Pauline perspective (cf. 274 f.), though he does not develop this in detail (cf. 276 f.).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Whether the verb ϕθάνω in verse 14 itself implies priority as Barrett, Second Corinthians, 267 suggests, or not, as Furnish, II Corinthians, 472, concludes, Furnish himself points out that the context makes this meaning implicitly clear.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘κανών’, 599.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Schreiner, , ‘Jeremia 9,22.23’, 532.Google Scholar

⁵² Schreiner, , ‘Jeremia 9,22.23’, 532.Google Scholar

⁵³ Schreiner, , ‘Jeremia 9,22.23’, 537. As examples, Schreiner points to Deut 10. 21; 26. 19; Judg 4. 9; Ps 89.18; Lam 2.1; Jer 13. 20; Isa 4. 2; 13.19; 20. 5, etc.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ So Schreiner, , ‘Jeremia 9,22.23’, 541, in commenting on this point in the book of Sirach: ‘Die Gottesfurcht wirkt sich in einem rechtschaffenen Leben aus, das in der Erfüllung des Willens Gottes besteht.’ Schreiner points to Sir 31(34). 9 f.; 44. 6 f.; Prov 16. 31; 17. 6 f. as examples.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Forbes, Christopher, ‘Unaccustomed as I am’: St Paul the Public Speaker in Corinth’, Buried History 19 (1983) 11–16,14.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Travis, S. H., ‘Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12’, Studia Evangelica, Vol. 6 (ed. Livingstone, Elizabeth A.; Berlin: Akademie, 1973) 527–32, 527, 528. Of course, as Travis, 527, points out, the OT and Paul (elsewhere) both condemn that kind of boasting which expresses self-confidence (cf. Gal 6. 14; Eph 2. 9; Phil 3. 3 and Rom 3. 2). But there is no reason to think that Paul violates this perspective in 2 Cor 10–13 as Travis, following Dodd, suggests.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hasler, Victor, ‘Das Evangelium des Paulus in Korinth, Erwägungen zur Hermeneutik’, NTS 30 (1984) 109–29, 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor this same point, see Rom 15. 15–21 (cf. UlrichWilckens, , Der Brief an die Römer, 3. Teilband. Röm 12–16 [EKK VI/3; Zurich: Benziger, 1982] 119).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ For yet another presentation of this pervasive view, cf. Ridderbos, H., Paul, An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 140 f.Google Scholarand Bultmann, R., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 360; 8th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1980) 242 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Contra, e.g. Bultmann, R., Exegetische Probleme, 13–15 and most recently Furnish, II Corinthians, 323–5, who argue with the majority that Paul is refusing to boast in external evidence. For a discussion of έν καρδίᾳ (cf. 2 Cor 3. 2; 5. 12) as a reference to Paul's concern for the Corinthians as evidenced in his suffering on their behalf, rather than a reference to inward, invisible attributes, see my Suffering and the Spirit, 188–92.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Suffering and the Spirit, 219–21.Google Scholar

⁶¹ I.e. because of the close semantic relationship between the meaning of συνίστημι with and without the reflexive pronoun. See Kasch, ‘συνίτημι’, 897 f. Kasch observes concerning this relationship that the two ideas are related ‘to the degree that the basis of genuine commendation is for (Paul) the achievement which is publicly evident, cf. 2 C. 3:lff.’. See too Rom 3. 5; 5. 8; Gal 2. 18 and Kasch's conclusion that ‘for Paul it is acts which are determinative in the judgment of God, the apostle, and men generally… this fact…decisively controls the anthropology of the apostle…’ (898, emphasis mine).Google Scholar

⁶² This point has been well made by Lincoln, A. T., ‘Paul the Visionary’, 208–10. In his words, ‘What is…specifically at issue in II Corinthians xii is what is to count as evidence for the legitimacy of claims to apostleship’ (207). Paul thus refrains from citing other visions because they are not the sort of evidence which can be verified since they are ‘removed from the realm of that which others can perceive through seeing or hearing… Paul will rely on the evidence that is plainly before the Corinthians’ eyes (cf. also x. 7; xi. 6)’ (210).Google Scholar

⁶³ See now the extensive work of Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen, Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum; WUNT 2. Reihe 9; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1983 and the very insightful article by Charles H. Cosgrove, ‘Jusification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection’, JBL 106 (1987) 653–70.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Is it merely coincidence that in the texts where Paul speaks negatively of ‘commending oneself’ (i.e. 3. 1; 5. 12; 10. 12, 18) he uses the expression έαντόν συνιστάνειν (reflexive pronoun preceding verb), while in those texts where he speaks of it approvingly (i.e. 4. 2; 6. 4, cf. 7. 11 and 12. 11), he uses the expression συνιστάναιν έαυτόν (reflexive pronoun following verb)?Google ScholarCf. Bernard, J. H., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (The Expositor's Greek Testament III; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 52.Google Scholar