[1] Judge, E. A., ‘Paul's Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, Australian Biblical Review (October, 1968) 37–50.Google ScholarBetz, H. D., Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1972).Google Scholar For reasons which will become clear later, it is highly unlikely that Paul was attacked as being a fraud or an imposter. Travis, S. H., ‘Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10–12’, Studia Evangelica, Vol. 6 (1973) 527–32.Google ScholarZmijewski, J., Der Stil der paulinischen ‘Narrenrede’ (Peter Hanstein, Köln, 1978).Google Scholar

[2] See, for example, 2 Cor 11. 12, 18, 21. See also ch. 10. 10–13.

[3] 2 Corinthians 10. 1, cf. 2 Corinthians 1. 15–17.

[4] 2 Corinthians 10. 10. P. Marshall, Enmity and other Social Conventions in Paul's Relationship with the Corinthians, forthcoming in the series W.U.N.T., discusses letters of commendation, conventions of friendship and enmity, and the use of invective in relationships of enmity. It is in part to him that I owe the idea that ‘comparison’ as a topic within rhetoric would throw light on the obscurities of chs. 10–12. Betz, op. cit. 119–20, raised the issue, but left it undeveloped.

[5] For Betz's development of this theme, see Der Apostel Paulus… 118–31, ‘Paulus im Vergleich mit anderen Aposteln.’

[6] E. A. Judge, art. cit., mentions these various forms of irony, and refers to the lack of evidence for conventions of self-praise. This is only partly correct. Certainly our evidence is confined to the question of how one may praise oneself without incurring odium, but the details are still extremely suggestive, and in the context of Paul's ‘boasting’, highly illuminating.

[7] The characterisation of Paul by his opponents as a flatterer or sycophant is one of the several points clarified by P. Marshall. Paul's characterisation of his opponents as άλάζονες is briefly mentioned by him, but not developed, as he sees the primary issues in Paul's counter-attack as being his opponents’ ῠβρις and his own moderation. These two approaches, as I hope to show, are closely linked.

[8] See Herodotus, 111. 80–84, Xenophon, Mem. 11. 4.5, and for the normal usage of the word, Isocrates, Panegyricus 4, Panathenaicus 200, Evagoras 12 and N.B. 34, Busiris 17, and the Callimachus and Aegineticus generally. The loss of Isocrates’ Techne Rhetorike deprives us of what may have been very interesting material. See also below the comments of later writers on Herodotus and Isocrates identifying several of these passages as examples of σύγκρισις though Herodotus and Isocrates do not themselves use the word. Isocrates does use the almost synonymous παραβάλλω in Evagoras 34.

[9] Παραβάλλω (or related term); Rhetorica 1393b 4, 1419b 35.

[10] Rhetorica 1368a 21 ff. N.B. the virtually synonymous use of the terms ⋯ντιπαραβάλλεω, συγκρώεω and παραβάλλεω here.

[11] Ps. Aristotle, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1426a 23 ff.

[12] Athenaeus, , Deipnosophistae, 4–159a.Google Scholar

[13] See the translation of Hubbell, H. M., ‘The Rhetorica of Philodemus’, in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 23 (1920) 243–382.Google Scholar See specifically 308, 332 ff., and 343.

[14] Roberts, W. Rhys, ‘Caecilius of Calacte’, American Journal of Philology, vol. 18 (1897) 302–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Plutarch, Life of Demosthenes 3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Three Literary Letters, ed. Roberts, W. Rhys (C.U.P., 1901).Google Scholar (N.B. 90–97.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Isocrates 3.17, On the Style of Demosthenes 2, 9–10, 17, 23, 33; On Thucydides 16, 35, 36, 37, 41.

[15] Smith, T. D., in his unpublished Ph.D. thesis, which is unavailable to me, ‘Studies in the Pseudo-Dionysian Techne Rhetorike’, University of Pennsylvania, 1973Google Scholar: see Dissertation Abstracts 34 (1974), 5136A–5137A.Google Scholar Smith argues that the passages of interest here are to be dated not later than the first century Russell, A. D. and Wilson, , Menander Rhetor (Oxford, Clarendon, 1981)Google Scholar, Appendix, 362, disagree and place it in the third century or later.

[16] Dionysios von Halikarnassos, Opuscula, ed. Usener-Radermacher, (Leipzig, N.D.) 257–8Google Scholar, and Russell and Wilson, op. cit. 362 ff.

[17] Usener-Radermacher, op. cit. 260 lines 14–15.

[18] For such a ‘poetical comparison’ see Demetrius, , On Style, 23.Google Scholar

[19] Polybius, , Histories 1–11; 6.XLVII.Google Scholar

[20] Common usages: De Spec. Leg. 1.73, 111.202, IV.42, IV.179. Praem. et Poen. 134, 143. De Vita Contemplativa 58. In Flaccum 58, 59, 128, 162, 187. De Sacrificiis 14. De Plantatione 68. De Sobrietate 8. De Confusione 20. De Somniis II.24. De Abrahamo 36. De Vita Mosis 1.83. De Virtutibus 85. De Aeternitate Mundi 46. De Legatione 78, 165. Denials of propriety: De Posteritate 105. De Agricultura 155. De Ebrietate 43, 45. De Vita Contemplativa 3, 9, 56. De Opficio Mundi 97, 138. De Gigantibus 41. De Virtutibus 203. Exceptions: De Ebrietate 187. De Vita Mosis II. 194, II. 198.

[21] Mussies, G., Dio Chrysostom and the New Testament (Leiden, Brill, 1972)esp. 178–9.Google Scholar On the picture of Paul as a travelling sophist see Hock, R. F., The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1980).Google Scholar

[22] Dio Chrysostom, Discourses IV.123. VIII.2 (noted by Mussies, op. cit. 178). XII.48. XVIII. 13. XXIX and XXX generally. XXXI.102, 126–7. XXXII.60. XXXV.19. XLVI.7. XLVII.6: various Greek terms are used.

[23] Lucullus and Cimon, for example, are held to be approximately equally great, while Pelopidas is adjudged superior to Marcellus. The subject has been fairly thoroughly treated in the standard works on Plutarch, and evidently derives from the rhetorical practice we have been discussing.

[24] Plutarch, De Profectibus in Virtute 84d. This material is usefully collected in Betz, H. D., ed. Plutarch's Ethical Writings and the New Testament (Leiden, Brill, 1978) 29, 119–21Google Scholar, 194, 218–9, 383.

[25] See, for example, Plutarch's, De Cohibenda Ira 463e.Google Scholar

[26] The De Fraterno Amore 485c ff. makes a very similar point.

[27] Epictetus, Discourses 2.XVIII.21; cf. 2.XXIV.24.

[28] Epictetus, , Encheiridion 33.Google Scholar

[29] Epictetus, Discourses 3.XXII.60.

[30] There is doubt as to the attribution of that of Hermogenes. However, it most probably does fall within the early second century. Though the work of Aelius Theon is, to my knowledge, the earliest extant example of the genre, one reference would appear to demonstrate that the genre itself is far older. The writer of the pseudo-Aristotelian Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (1436a 25)Google Scholar, discussing the various methods and figures which have just been defined, and the examples given, suggests that his readers will be able to use them effectively ‘if we habituate and train ourselves to repeat them on the lines of our preliminary exercises (progymnasmata).’ It would appear, then, that at least a recognisable body of educational material existed under this title in the third century B.C., though perhaps it did not reach its codified form until later. The Progymnasmata tradition carries on until at least the fifth century A.D., with Aphthonius and Nicolaus the Sophist, for whom see Spengel, L., Rhetores Graeci (Frankfurt, 1854), vols. 2 and 3Google Scholar. In view of the extremely standardised forms and definitions in these works, I see no problem with assuming that they reached a standard form before the work of Aelius Theon. The question of the place of the Progymnasmata in rhetorical education will be dealt with later.

[31] L. Spengel, op. cit. vol. 2, 112–15. Translation Prof. R. J. Mortley.

[32] Translation of Baldwin, C. S., Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (Macmillan, New York, 1928) 23 ff.Google Scholar

[33] Spengel, op. cit. vol. 2, 14–15; Baldwin, op. cit. 33–4.

[34] On the subject generally the best account is now Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome (Methuen and Co., London, 1970), esp. 250–76Google Scholar; see also Clarke, M. L., Higher Education in the Ancient World (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1971) 25–6.Google Scholar Our sources for the changing status of the early portions of the Progymnasmata are all in Latin; but themselves note that Greek teachers resisted the tendency to downgrade the early exercises more than the Romans. See Quintilian, Institutes, 1.IX. 1–6, 2.1.1, 11.IV.1–40, 11.V.2, and Suetonius, , De Grammaticis 4.Google Scholar

[35] P. Oxy. 2190, lines 23–28, trans. E. Lobel, C. H. Roberts and E. P. Wegener.

[36] Note that it is the extravagance of their boasting, as well as the fact itself, that Paul condemns: they boast ‘beyond measure’. P. Marshall, op. cit., has argued, with Betz, Der Apostel Paulus …, that Paul condemns his opponents as ‘hybristic’. As we shall see, ‘going beyond measure’ is one of the key elements of this characterisation. I will argue that the attack is probably better understood in terms of the conventional figure of the άλαζών or pretentious imposter.

[37] Philodemus, , Peri tou kath’ Omeron agathou Basileos, ed. Olivieri, A. (Leipzig, 1909)Google Scholar Column 21, Columns 26–31.

[38] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Letter to Pompeius, in W. Rhys Roberts, op. cit. 92, line 28 ff.

[39] Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, , On Lysias 17.Google Scholar This is certainly true of Speeches Nos. 16, 21, 24, and 25 of the Loeb edition.

[40] Cited by Betz, H. D. in The Centre for Hermeneutical Studies Colloquy No. 2 (1970)Google Scholar, ‘Paul's Apology, Corinthians 10–13 and the Socratic Tradition’. See especially p. 17. See also Der Apostel Paulus… 132. I will be drawing slightly different conclusions to those of Betz.

[41] Cf. Plutarch's σύγκρισις of Cato and Aristides where he says: ‘But I regard the man who is often lauding himself as less complete in excellence than he who does not even want others to do so.’

[42] Dio, Chrysostom, Discourse LVII.7, line 2.Google Scholar

[43] Spengel, , op. cit., vol. 3, p. 4Google Scholar, line 9.

[44] For this combination of terms see Aristotle, , Ethica Nicomachea, 1124a.Google Scholar For the self-praise of popular sophists and teachers see also Epictetus, , Discourses 2.XXIV.24; 3.XXII.13; 3.XXIII. 23–24Google Scholar; 4.VIII.26 ff.; Fragment 18; Fragment 21; and Encheiridion p. 21. Compare Dio Chrysostom, Discourses LV.7; LVII generally; and LXIV.22.

[45] For detailed discussion, with references, see Markantonatos, G., ‘On the Origin and meanings of the word Eirwneia’, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica, vol. 103 (1975) 16–21.Google Scholar Hermogenes is inexplicably omitted. See also Bergson, L., ‘Eirōn und Eirōneia’, Hermes, vol. 99 (1971) 409–22Google Scholar, and Pavlovskis, Z., ‘Aristotle, Horace and the Ironic Man’, Classical Philology, vol. 63 (Jan. 1968) 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar J. A. K. Thomson, in Irony, an Historical Introduction, argues that the traditional figures of the⋯03BB;αζών and the είρων form the basis of the stereotyped characters who come into conflict in Aristophanic comedy. Citing Cornford's, F. M.The Origin of Attic Comedy (Anchor Books edition, 1961)Google Scholar, he suggests that άλαζονεία plays precisely the role in comedy that is played in tragedy by βρις. ‘The essence of both is “going too far”.’ (34) On Thrasymachus' reaction, see Plato, , Republic 337aGoogle Scholar, and see generally the excellent survey of Pavlovskis.

[46] For Aristotle's, views see Rhetorica 1379bGoogle Scholar 31;1419b 8; Ethica Nicomachea 1108a; 1124b 30, 1127 b; and note P. Oxy 410.

[47] Aristotle, Ps., Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1434aGoogle Scholar and 1441b 23.

[48] Pavlovskis, Z., art. cit. 26.Google Scholar

[49] Theophrastus, Characters 1.2. The Flatterer is the second Character.

[50] Plutarch, , Moralia 52b–53d.Google Scholar

[51] H. M. Hubbell, art. cit. 299, at heading ‘Col 23’.

[52] Cited in Pavlovskis, art. cit. 26.

[53] ibid. For the Stoic and Cynic references, see also 27.

[54] Tryphon, On Tropes, in Spengel, , op. cit. vol. 3, 205–6.Google Scholar See also, for brief definitions, E. A. Judge, art. cit.

[55] For the various references we conveniently the Index Rhetoricus of Spengel.

[56] Quintilian, Institutes, 9.1.29. See also 6.111.85.

[57] Quintilian, Institutes, 8.VI.57–59; 11.1.20.

[58] Hermogenes, On Rhetorical Forms, 2.VIII., in Spengel, op. cit. vol. 2, 384 ff. I am indebted to Dr. A. P. Treweek for his help with the translation of this passage.

[59] Demosthenes, , On the Crown, 180.Google Scholar The thought could be paraphrased: ‘Then indeed it was perfectly clear that “Stammerer” was of more value to Athens than all the grand manner and tragic presence of Aeschines, the tragic actor, in one of his roles.’ Oenomaus was the king of Pisa and father of Hippodameia in legend, and it seems that Aeschines had at one stage played the part of his murderer. We do not know the play in question. Cf. On the Crown 127, 129, 242.

[60] For the early references: Aristophanes, Ranae 919; Hippeis 290;903, Nubes 102, Xenophon, Mem. 1.VII.5, Plato, Gorgias, 525a, Demosthenes XXII.47, Isocrates XII.20; XII.74. See also Thomson, op. cit., and the references there.

[61] Aristotle, , Rhetorica 1384a.7Google Scholar; N.B. the link here with βαρύτης.

[62] Dio Chrysostom, Discourses XLIII.2; XLV; LV.7, 13; LVII generally; LXIV.22; LXX.10. Epictetus, Discourses 3.XXIV.43 and 4.VIII.26. Philodemus, , Art of Rhetoric 2–149.Google Scholar

[63] See also Philo, , De Migratione Abrahami 136Google Scholar, De Spec. Leg. 1.10; 1.293.

[64] The reader is referred especially to the summary of E. Earle, Ellis, ‘Paul and his opponents’, in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. Neusner, J. (Leiden, Brill, 1975)Google Scholar, on the various proposed identities and theologies of the opponents.

[65] So Hock, op. cit. 61, among others.

[66] So Marshall, op. cit. 277.

[67] See 1 Corinthians ch. 9, though the term ‘burden’ is not used there.

[68] 1 Corinthians 4. 14–16; 2 Corinthians 6. 11–13; 11.2; 12. 14–15.

[69] 2 Corinthians 5. 20.

[70] Hock, op. cit. 35 ff.

[71] On the question generally, see Barrett, C. K., The Signs of an Apostle (London, Epworth Press, 1970) 36–7Google Scholar, and A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2nd ed. (London, 1979) 287 and 320.Google Scholar See also Ellis, art. cit. 290 ff.

[72] Whether any continuity existed between the Corinthian ‘faction’ which Paul had alienated, and, for example, the ‘Christ-party’ of 1 Corinthians ch. 1, is not clear, though 2 Corinthians 10. 7 might suggest it. On this see Ellis, art. cit. 287.

[73] For the charge of inconsistency, and related matters, see 2 Corinthians 1. 17–24;4. 1–2. For Paul's replies to it, see 2 Corinthians 1. 12; 5. 11–12; 6. 11–13; 7. 2–3; 10. 1 and 10–11.

[74] 2 Corinthians 10. 12–13.

[75] Munck's observation (Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, Richmond, John Knox Press, 1959, 168Google Scholar), that ‘although “apostles” of Jewish origin had arrived, they did not try to Judaise’ is very questionable. The similarity between Paul's description of their preaching (another Jesus, a different Spirit, a different Gospel, ch. 11. 4), and his description of the Galatian heresy as ‘another Gospel which is really no gospel at all’ makes it quite plausible that ‘Judaising’ doctrines were being taught. However, the thrust of the mission of the ‘super-apostles’ was to detach the loyalty of the Corinthians from Paul personally. From this, of course, doctrinal consequences would follow, but it was easier for them to fight a ‘personalities’ campaign than one based purely on issues. Cf. Hickling, C. J. A., ‘Is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians a Source for Early Church History?’, Z.N.T.W., vol. 66 (1975) 284–7.Google Scholar N.B. 287: ‘In II Corinthians it is personal factors which emerge strongly, not doctrinal ones.’ See also his strictures on the uncontrolled use of Paul's language as a quarry for evidence about his opponents.

[76] See the references in note 73. This understanding would seem to favour the interpretation of v. 7 as indicative, ‘You are looking only on the surface of things’, (N.I.V.) against the imperative, ‘Look at the things immediately before you’ (Barrett, C. K., A Commentary… 255–6Google Scholar). His opponents should realise that he can refute their charges, and so should the rest of the Corinthians. The weight of scholarly opinion still favours the imperative, however: see the list of opinions in Héring, J., The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, translated by Allcock, and Heathcote, (London, Epworth Press, 1967)Google Scholar to which add Tasker, Bruce, Barrett, and, with reservations, Hughes.

[77] Accepting here the longer reading of the text. Héring, op. cit. 73, argues that the ‘Western text’, omitting ουσυνιασω ηµεīς δέ is superior, in which case the sense would be, they compare themselves with others, whereas we at least only compare ourselves with ourselves. Therefore we do not go beyond limits, whereas they have a case of αλαζονεία. This reconstruction makes adequate sense, but the weight of the textual evidence is against it, as is the grammar of the sentence (Barrett, , A Commentary… 264Google Scholar). Paul ironically disclaims comparison because his opponents had used it with no other standard than themselves: on such a basis, how could he hope to measure up?

[78] Worth noting here is Dio's description of self-praise as self-commendation. It is also possible, though not proven, that Paul knew of the tradition which made self-comparison a tool for the development of self-knowledge (Plutarch, Epictetus). It is therefore also possible that his reaction to the comparisons and the ‘mutual measuring’ of his opponents is anger that a process intended to develop self-knowledge had been perverted to the point where it produced the opposite: alazoneia. For as we have seen, the two defining characteristics of ⋯λαζονεία were its boastful attitude in general, and its pretension to qualities which it did not, in fact, possess. It is to precisely these two points that Paul directs his counter-attack: immoderate boasting and false claims to apostleship. However, perhaps more likely is the suggestion that Paul's reaction is simply to the ⋯λαζονεία, (as he sees it) itself, rather than the process which produced it. The boastful attitude of his opponents is proof of their lack of real understanding of the nature of apostleship. Compare Marshall (op. cit. 614–5): ‘The rival apostles portrayed themselves as cultivated men and made qualities such as position, achievements and eloquence the standard of apostleship in Corinth.’ See also Barrett, C. K., ‘Paul's Opponents in II Corinthians’, N.T.S. vol. 17, 241.Google Scholar He correctly says that Paul does not deny the right of the Corinthians to judge between rival apostles: he merely denies the validity of the terms of reference they have used in this case.

[79] 2 Cor 12, v. 6 cf. Ch. 10.13–17. See Marshall, op. cit. 545–63, on Paul's opponents and his characterisation of himself as a ‘man of restraint’.

[80] It is probably worth noting that ὺπερλίαν itself is a more than superlative form, and is probably Paul's own ironic coinage. It is not easy to do it justice in translation. Perhaps ‘hyper-apostles’ catches something of the ambivalence.

[81] For similar⋯οτεïσμός in Dio we Discourses XII. 15, N.B. XXXII. 39, where Dio is denying a charge of flattery, and XXXII. 42–3, 46; XLII generally. See also Hermogenes on conceding the exaggerations of one's enemies.

[82] Barrett, , A Commentary… 287.Google Scholar The distinction has recently been developed in detail by Thrall, M. E., ‘Super-Apostles, Servants of Christ, and Servants of Satan’, J.S.N.T. No. 6 (1980) 42–57.Google Scholar Exactly the same point applies. That the distinction is unnecessary has been correctly noted by Lincoln, A. T., ‘“Paul the Visionary”: the setting and significance of the rapture to paradise in II Corinthians XII. 1–10’, N.T.S. vol. 25, 204 n. 3.Google Scholar

[83] Schütz, J. H., Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (C.U.P. 1975) 169–71Google Scholar, 183–6.

[84] Travis, S. H., art. cit. 529Google Scholar, n. 3, and the references cited there.

[85] Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, , On the Style of Demosthenes 17 ff.Google Scholar, and On Isocrates 17.

[86] See above, note 34.

[87] It is probably not necessary to sever all connection between 2 Corinthians 11. 29 and 1 Corinthians 9. 22, as does Barre, M. L., ‘Paul as Eschatologic Person: a New Look at 2 Cor.11.29’, C.B.Q. vol. 37 (1975) 500–26.Google Scholar In neither case is Paul's usage of the term ‘weakness’ to be understood psychologically. In 1 Corinthians 9. 22 the phrase ὅα τουύ άσθενεīς κερδήσω rules out that interpretation. Those ‘weak in faith’ need to be received in fellowship (Romans 14. 1), to have their weakness borne by their ‘stronger’ brethren (Romans 15. 1), to be helped and held on to (1 Thessalonians 5. 14), etc. They do not need to be ‘saved’ or ‘gained’. To be ‘weak in faith’ necessarily implies having faith to be weak in. Of the commentators Barrett and Grosheide are the most cautious, but they and most others still hold to the psychological interpretation. Against this, I believe we are free to we a link between 2 Corinthians 11. 29 and 1 Corinthians 9. 22. In both cases ‘the weak’ are the humble, those without status in a status-conscious world, to whom the apostle comes as such a one himself. Hence the paraphrase suggested.

[88] Compare Spittler, R. P., ‘The Limits of Ecstasy: an Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12.1–10’, in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. Hawthorne, G. (Eerdmans, 1975) 259–66.Google Scholar ‘The thrust of his polemic is by no means an attempt to outdo his opponents by detailing a superior ecstatic experience. Rather, and still speaking ‘as a fool’, he inverts the very criterion of his opponents by saying in essence that ecstasy is no proper cause for kauchesis nor does it provide any adequate apostolic accreditation.’ (261) ‘Paul rejects apostolic accreditation by ecstasy as well as the ecstatic conception of Jesus such a view presupposes.’ (264) Note also that Barre is correct to argue, in the article cited above, that 'Paul can boast of asthenein because it does not simply express some kind of condition, but rather summarises his apostolic trials and characterises them as confrontations in the eschatological struggle, where in each case Christ has been victorious in him …’(513) The fact that the ‘weakness’ does this because it is a state of humiliation which reflects that of Christ (crucified in weakness, 1 Corinthians 1. 18–25, 2 Corinthians 13. 4), is the point which Barre does not stress. On the question of topics for boasting see Ps. Aristotle, , Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 144 lb.Google Scholar See also note 108: again it is criteria for apostleship which are at stake.

[89] Ch. 12, vv. 5–7. The suggestion of Herrmann, L., ‘Apollos’, Revue des sciences religieuses, vol. 50 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar that the visionary described in these verses is not Paul but Apollos is not only based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, but also flies in the face of vv. 6–7. On the whole passage see, most recently and most satisfactorily, A. T. Lincoln, art. cit.

[90] Barre, M. L., ‘Qumran and the Weakness of Paul’, C.B.Q. vol. 42, No. 2 (1980) 216–27.Google Scholar Barre's accumulation of O.T. parallels seems to me more impressive than the theory of Price, R. M., ‘Punished in Paradise’, J.S.N.T. No. 7 (1980) 33–40Google Scholar, that the ‘angel’ was an actual angel, in Paradise, which cast Paul out of the presence of God. While the theory is possible, Price does not seem to have provided an exact parallel for the term ‘angel of Satan’–in most of his cases the angels are plainly angels of God. Further, Price's cases apply to a person who was not worthy to be found in the presence of God. Worthiness is not a topic Paul is even considering here. His ‘angel’ attacks him, not to punish him for presumption but rather δι⋯ïνα μηύπεραίρωμαι, so that he will not become presumptuous. Price's later evidence may well be dependent on interpretations of this passage. Barre's suggestion matches the general character of the passage very well.

[91] For Paul's conception of his own mission and sufferings and their relationship to Christ's, see Fudge, E., ‘Paul's Apostolic Self consciousness at Athens’, J.E.T.S. (1971) 193–8.Google Scholar See also Stanley, D. M., ‘The Theme of the Servant of Yahweh in Primitive Christian Soteriology and its Transposition by St. Paul’, C.B.Q. vol. 16 (1954) 416 ff.Google Scholar The best treatment of the verse is that of O'Collins, G. G., ‘Power made Perfect in Weakness’, C.B.Q. vol. 33 (1971) 528–37Google Scholar, where, however, the specifically social characteristics of ‘weakness’ are not noted.

[92] For full references see Kittel, , ed. T.D.N.T. Vol. 3, 648.Google Scholar Bultmann's summary is excellent: ‘The true sin of self-glorying is man's failure to acknowledge God as the Author and Lord of all being..the righteous man avoids such boasting (Vit. Mos. II.96, Spec. Leg. 1.10–12, Praem. Poen. 47). He seeks to serve God alone (Spec. Leg. IV.131), for he knows himself (Migr. Abr. 136–138, Spec. Leg. 1.10), his asthenia (Spec. Leg. 1.293, Virt. 165), and he realises that he is dust and ashes… the humble stand high with God; he is their only glory…’ The one important passage that appears to have been missed in all this is Vita Mosis 1.69, where Philo interprets the episode of the burning bush. He describes the bush as a call for Israel to endure under hardship with the call: ‘Do not lose heart: your weakness is your strength.’ This is the only really close parallel to Paul's language that I have been able to find.

[93] Contra G. O'Collins, G., art. cit. 534.Google Scholar Of course Paul is speaking of his own apostolic situation in this passage, but the intimate link between Paul's sufferings, Christ's sufferings and the motif of ‘imitation’ in his thought means that we cannot limit the principle here to the apostle. See especially 1 Corinthians 4. 8–16, Philippians 3. 7–18, 1 Thessalonians 2. 14–16.

[94] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma 83a.

[95] Contra E. A. Judge, art. cit., who accepted the attribution to Gamaliel the Elder in Norden, E., Antike Kunstprosa (1958Google Scholar reprint by the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt). Strack-Billerbeck vol. 2, 637 argues, presumably from the absence of the epithet ‘the Elder’, that Gamaliel II must be meant. See also Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (S.C.M. Press, 1979) 80–2.Google Scholar

[96] On the possible authenticity of the tradition see Sevenster, J. N., Do You Know Greek? (Leiden, 1968) 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the references given on p. 52.

[97] J. N. Sevenster, op. cit. 49, and 60. See also Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism, vol. 1, 173Google Scholar, 440, and esp. 76–7, and Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (S.C.M. Press, 1979) 81–2.Google Scholar ‘Not only traditional Jewish wisdom schools and schools of the Torah, but also Greek schools, were to be found in Jerusalem from the 3rd Century B.C. onwards’. Fischel, H. A. has argued, in ‘The Use of Sorites (Climax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period’, H.U.C.A. vol. 44 (1973) 119–51Google Scholar, that at least some portions of the progymnasmata were known to the Tannaim. Unfortunately, the belief that any real Greek education that Paul might have received must have been in Tarsus still remains common: see, for example, Johnson, S. E., ‘Tarsus and the Apostle Paul’, Lexington Theological Quarterly vol. 15, No. 4 (1980) 105–13.Google Scholar

[98] Marshall, op. cit. 616.

[99] Marshall, op. cit. 617. The best treatment is Hock, op. cit., but the matter is not settled yet. The level at which Paul worked in his mission does not necessarily tell us where he felt most at home. (Cf. Hock, 35.) See the still relevant article of Judge, E. A., ‘The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community: Part II’, J.R.H. vol. 1, No. 3 (June 1961) 125–37.Google Scholar