Abstract
This article addresses the debate over Paul’s use of self-commendation in 2 Corinthians. The diversity of instances in which Paul promotes himself within this text – whereby he in some cases commends himself explicitly (2 Cor. 1.12; 4.2; 6.4), denies that he is doing so in others (3.1; 5.12; 12.19) and elsewhere claims that he is compelled to boast (11.1–12.13) – raises the question of whether Paul’s practice regarding self-commendation is guided by a coherent set of principles, or is simply self-contradictory. Beginning with an analysis of a representative sample of each ‘species’ of self-commendation, this study argues that, although Paul does have certain principles regarding self-commendation that he attempts to apply with a measure of consistency, he is more than willing to bend or suspend his own ‘rules’ in order to suit his more pressing rhetorical concerns.
In Paul’s day, self-praise was a dangerous rhetorical game. In On Praising Oneself Inoffensively, Plutarch writes: ‘In theory … it is agreed that to speak to others of one’s own importance or power is offensive, but in practice not many even of those who condemn such conduct can avoid the odium of it’ (Plutarch, De laude ipsius 539A-B [De Lacy and Einarson 1959]). This statement aptly summarizes the position in which Paul finds himself throughout 2 Corinthians. 1 Facing a congregation with flagging loyalties, Paul is constantly concerned with defending the legitimacy of his ministry. In order to do so, he finds it necessary to engage in various forms of self-commendation. 2 In these instances of self-promotion, Paul’s statements can at times appear contradictory. On some occasions he plainly commends himself, while on others he denies that he could be engaging in such behaviour, and still elsewhere Paul states that he is compelled to boast. Such diversity raises the issue whether Paul’s usage of self-commendation is guided consistently by clear principles or whether he is merely engaging in rhetorical acts that leave him open to self-contradiction.
Interpreters have attempted to reconcile the apparent tension within Paul’s various uses of self-commendation in several ways. Scott Hafemann argues that to understand Paul’s seemingly inconsistent use of self-promotion in 2 Corinthians, the principle that Paul lays out in 2 Cor. 10.18 – ‘For it is not those who commend themselves that are approved, but those whom the Lord commends’ (NRSV) – becomes the interpreter’s starting-point and exegetical key (Hafemann 1990: 74). 3 Hafemann then goes on to explain the apparent inconsistencies in Paul’s practice as the outworking of this principle across various situations (1990: 84-87). 4
While Timothy Savage, like Hafemann, understands Paul as upholding the principle of ‘boasting only in the Lord’, Savage requires a deeper aim to reconcile the ‘apparent anomaly’ created by Paul’s rejection of his rivals’ – and the Corinthians’ – boasting and Paul’s own practice (1996: 62-64). He argues that Paul’s boasting in 2 Cor. 10–12 must be understood within Paul’s stated desire to edify the Corinthians (1996: 62-64; see 2 Cor. 12.19). Savage reconstructs a Corinth obsessed with self-display, in which the church is actually frustrated by Paul’s unwillingness to join in the boasting that they so enjoy (1996: 54-62). 5 Within this context, Paul presents his own practice as a model to correct the Corinthians’ wrong impressions of self-promotion (see Savage 1996: 64).
Moving away from principle, another trend in scholarship posits different rhetorical moves to rescue Paul from the charge of inconsistency or, as E.A. Judge puts it, from appearing ‘pathologically concerned about his own status’. 6 H. Windisch first noted connections between Paul’s use of self-praise and Plutarch’s treatise De laude ipsius, stating that Paul shared Plutarch’s broader ‘Anschauungen’ (1924: 345). Hans Dieter Betz strengthens this position, arguing that Paul follows closely the rhetorical rules of periautologia (Betz 1972: 74-79; 1978: 379, 386, 389-90, 392-93). Others have since followed Betz in purporting that Paul ‘uses boasting’ in conformity to ancient convention (Watson 2003: 90-95; see also Lyons 1982: 72; Marshall 1987: 354-56; Watson 2002; Witherington 1995: 432-33). 7 Paul’s consistency may not be directly discussed in such works, but there is a strong implication that, thanks to Paul’s rhetorical aptitude, the interpreter should see nothing amiss in Paul’s self-promotion.
In Forbes’s account, it is irony that absolves Paul of the charge of self-praise. 8 Paul’s choice to boast in his weaknesses is a parody of his opponents that ‘radically inverts the content’ of their self-promotion (1986: 19). 9 While Forbes acknowledges that Paul’s ironic boasting can ‘contain serious points’, Paul is, essentially, not really boasting at all (1986: 20-21).
Ryan Schellenberg’s analysis represents a distinct break from scholarship that finds different ways of ironing out the apparent discrepancies in Paul’s use of self-promotion. Schellenberg’s primary concern is to critique the evidence typically brought forward to demonstrate that Paul received formal training in rhetoric, and as such he does not enter into a discussion of whether Paul is consistent or inconsistent. However, significantly, Schellenberg argues that Paul’s boasting in 2 Cor. 10–13 displays no formal awareness of rhetorical convention or use of sustained irony. It is simply boasting (2013: 97-121, 170-75).
Further along this continuum, we find Terrance Callan, who argues that Paul’s use of self-commendation is thoroughly inconsistent. Callan sees Paul’s pre-Christian life as marked by a streak of self-reliance and a drive to compete with and compare himself to others that never quite disappears following his conversion – though the apostle will become critical of it (1986: 139-41). This newfound distaste for self-promotion coupled with a personality that still carries a strong drive toward the same creates something of a contradiction in Paul. Callan argues that when Paul recognizes himself as engaging in the sorts of boasting that he generally disagrees with, he legitimizes his actions by identifying himself with God, or Christ (1986: 143-45, 147), whereas elsewhere Paul is simply unaware of the fact that his boasting is inconsistent with his own views on the subject (see Callan 1986: 141, 147-48). Apparently, Paul cannot escape his own personality. 10
The present study seeks to address this issue of self-commendation in 2 Corinthians from a different angle than previous scholarly treatments. Beginning with practice rather than principle, my approach will involve an analysis of a representative sample of each ‘species’ of self-commendation that Paul employs. In doing so, I will not only concern myself with the task of identifying common and diverging factors between instances where Paul self-consciously engages in self-commendation (2 Cor. 4.2), denies that he is promoting himself (5.12) and boasts under a claim of duress (11.16-29), but also with how the way Paul approaches self-commendation functions within his overall argument in each case. 11 It is only after determining the extent to which an underlying principle concerning self-commendation can be derived from Paul’s practice that we will address the issue of how closely Paul’s behaviour fits with his thought on the subject as expressed in 2 Cor. 10.12-18 (esp. vv. 17-18) and elsewhere in his letters. 12
The advantage of this method is its ability to address the question not in terms of whether Paul is consistent, but in terms of extent. If there is indeed a middle ground between strict adherence to a complex set of principles and utter inconsistency, this approach seeks to find it. Ultimately, I shall argue that although Paul’s self-commendation is guided by a set of principles that he attempts to apply with a measure of consistency, Paul has more pressing rhetorical concerns that at times lead him to work around his own rules, if not break them. In order to discern which concerns are most formative in shaping Paul’s self-commendation, we must first listen to the diverse ways in which he does – and does not – commend himself.
‘Commending Ourselves’ (2 Corinthians 4.2)
In 2 Cor. 4.2 Paul self-consciously engages in self-commendation by discussing the ways that his own actions and the actions of his fellow workers support the validity of his ministry. However, far from being a straightforward act of self-promotion, Paul’s explicit self-commendation in 4.2 is marked by a number of factors that similar passages hold in common.
In this instance, Paul’s commendation of himself implicitly depicts his own ministry in opposition to that of his opponents. Paul constructs this contrast by first stating actions that he and his co-workers refuse to engage in, ranging from shameful deeds to the crafty adulteration of God’s message (4.2), while implying that his rivals are guilty of such behaviour. 13 This comparison carries on in 4.5, as Paul contrasts his conduct with those who ‘preach themselves’. In this manner, Paul’s self-commendation establishes his behaviour as a foil to that which he claims is characteristic of his opponents.
As a representative case, 2 Cor. 4.2 reveals that, even when Paul makes explicit the fact that he is commending himself, he does not allow his self-promotion to stand without qualification. Rather than simply listing his credentials, Paul lets his actions speak for the legitimacy of his ministry, avoiding direct self-promotion, potentially suggesting some discomfort with it. Additionally, Paul appeals to his ethical conduct for support, directing his self-commendation ‘to every human conscience before God’ (4.2). 14 Such an appeal contains an implicit argument for the validity of Paul’s apostleship, as it suggests that those listening to the dictates of their conscience should naturally accept what he says (Barrett 1973: 129).
In addition to commending himself to the conscience, Paul also qualifies his self-promotion further by portraying it as done ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ (4.2). His actions are therefore legitimized by God because they are done in his presence. 15 Paul’s focus on God’s role in his self-commendation leads him to downplay his own, so as to emphasize divine activity in his ministry. God therefore becomes the overseer of Paul’s activity and, it is implied, the guarantor of his sincerity. It is not difficult to see how such a rhetorical move supports Paul’s apostolic legitimacy – as God is his witness – and so works to Paul’s commendation. He asserts, ‘we are not preaching ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants on account of Jesus’ (4.5). 16 Here, Paul claims that the fact that he subordinates his own interests to the interests of Christ demonstrates his legitimacy as Christ’s servant. It is also worth noting the place given to the ‘your’ in δούλους ὑμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦν (4.5). Paul seeks to make it clear that his divinely motivated, selfless service of Christ is something that is rendered for the benefit of the Corinthians. 17
Taken together, Paul’s indictment of his opponents and his various means of qualification coalesce to serve the overall purpose of his explicit acts of self-commendation. In his analysis of confidence expressions in ancient epistolography, Stanley Olson identifies a trend whereby the sections of self-commendation found in many ancient letters and speeches are designed to foster a positive relationship with the addressees and, if counsel is to be given, to prime the audience to accept what is advised by eliminating any factors which may bias the audience against the author or speaker (1984: 587-88). Although advice is not given at this point in the letter, Paul’s explicit self-commendation well suits this description. By framing his commendation with an implicit critique of his opponents, Paul seeks their discredit, and for his audience to accept his position more readily.
Additionally, the ways in which Paul qualifies his self-promotion seek to convince the Corinthians that he is a valid servant of the glorious ministry that he has just been describing in 3.7-18. Not only does allowing his actions to commend him to their consciences serve to make Paul’s self-commendation appear less directly self-serving, it also implies that for the Corinthians to accept him would be a mark of the authenticity of their consciences. The primacy of God’s role to the diminishing of Paul’s in his self-commendation likewise functions rhetorically to bolster Paul’s claims about the validity of his ministry, since Paul establishes weakness which is then empowered by Christ as a legitimizing factor for apostleship (Lambrecht 1996: 342). Thus, through these means of qualification, Paul creates distance between himself and the direct self-promotion in which he engages. However, as this gap consists of divine and Corinthian interests, being less direct only serves to bolster the apostle’s claims.
‘We Are Not Commending Ourselves’ (2 Corinthians 5.12)
In contrast to what he claims earlier, 2 Cor. 5.12 sees Paul denying that he is engaging in self-commendation. 18 However, the very presence of his denial demonstrates that Paul is conscious that he appears to be engaging in this behaviour (Barrett 1973: 165). 19 Despite the fact that here Paul professes to be doing the opposite of what he did in 4.2, this non-commendation is characterized by many of the same factors as Paul’s explicit self-commendation. 20
Paul’s denial of self-promotion is framed by claims that his behaviour is divinely motivated. Paul begins 5.11 by claiming that the ‘fear of the Lord’ drives his actions, while in 5.14 he uses the strong term συνέχει to express the constraining force that Christ’s love has on his behaviour. This desire to connect his behaviour with the will of Christ may also be operative in Paul’s somewhat enigmatic statement in 5.13. While it is difficult to determine to what Paul is specifically referring when he states, εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ, it is quite plausible that Frank Matera is correct to view the essence of what Paul is saying in 5.13-14a as expressing that Christ’s love is the force that guides Paul’s behaviour, legitimizing his conduct whether he appears to be in a state of ἐκστάσις or σωϕροσύνη (2003: 133). 21
It is also possible, however, to take ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive (2 Cor. 5.14). This interpretation changes the argument somewhat, but the general thrust remains the same. The emphasis on compulsion continues in 5.14, whether it is Paul’s love for Christ, or Christ’s love for Paul that is the apostle’s controlling influence. 22 Regardless of how one takes the genitive, can the Corinthians really challenge Paul, with such noble motivations constraining his actions? Rudolf Bultmann perhaps best summarizes the rhetorical effect of the passage when he says that here ‘the decision for the gospel and for Paul are one and the same’ (1985: 148). 23
Like the explicit self-commendation of 4.2, opposition to his rivals also characterizes Paul’s denial that he is commending himself in 5.12. Mason Lee understands this passage as Paul’s response to challenges to his authority brought on by his opponents (2014: 3). This observation explains Paul’s clear offensive against his opponents in this section, as he depicts himself as giving the Corinthians a sort of ‘ammunition’ to use in his defence (Dukes 1989: 98). While it may not be viable to suggest, based solely on Paul’s claim, that his adversaries were indeed in the habit of boasting about appearances (as in Harris 2005: 415-16), it is clear that Paul perceives this as being the case and therefore sets up his own denial of self-commendation in opposition to what he sees as their inappropriate boasting.
Although in 4.2 Paul does not dwell on the idea that his self-commendation is done for the sake of his audience’s benefit, in 5.12 he is emphatic on this point. 24 Paul claims, ‘We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you an opportunity to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast in outward appearance and not in the heart’. He is quick to deflect the charge that he is commending himself, instead portraying what might be taken as his own promotion as an ἀϕορμὴν καυχήματος that he is giving to the Corinthians – for their benefit, not for his own – so that they might be empowered to speak in his defence (5.12). 25 At least on the surface, Paul does not give any indication that he is anything other than confident that the Corinthians fully support him. Such confidence is itself rhetorical, 26 as in this case Paul assumes that the Corinthians support him in order to further convince them to take his side. Thus in 5.12, Paul, in an attempt to persuade the Corinthians to adopt his position, skilfully takes a perceived criticism and repackages it as a gift confidently given for the benefit of his congregation.
‘I too Shall Boast a Little’ (2 Corinthians 11–12)
Throughout much of 2 Cor. 11–12 27 Paul launches into a new sort of self-commendation, which he portrays as forced upon him. Paul begins by claiming that his boasting is necessitated ‘because many are boasting according to the flesh’ (11.18). Here Paul has his rivals in mind (Matera 2003: 257). In this statement, as well as in 11.21, Paul makes it clear that this boasting, which he considers foolish, is being forced upon him by the boasting of his opponents. Thrall writes that Paul feels compelled to ‘compete with’ his opponents, and does so as a fool in order to appropriate their style of boasting (1994: II, 709). 28 Furthermore, after repeatedly reiterating that it is necessary for him to boast (11.30; 12.1), Paul goes on to claim that it was not only his opponents who necessitated his boasting, but the Corinthians themselves who should have commended him and not thought of him as at all inferior to his rivals (12.11). This portrayal of his self-promotion as forced upon him represents a marked departure from both the qualified self-commendation of 4.2 and the denied self-commendation of 5.12.
Although Paul’s claim to boast under duress in 11.16-30 is hitherto unprecedented, it is in Paul’s rhetorical shifting of the blame for his foolish boasting that this act of self-promotion shows the greatest similarity to the other kinds of self-commendation in which he engages. As has been the case elsewhere, Paul’s boasting functions here as a clear attack on his rivals. In addition to critiquing the boasting of the ‘super-apostles’, Paul also gives a hyperbolic and scathing account of his opponents’ character, implicitly accusing them of everything from enslaving the Corinthians to beating them in the face (11.20). Laurence Welborn argues that, in this instance, Paul is portraying his opponents in accordance with the stock character known from ancient comedy as the parasite, ‘who puts on airs and abuses his hosts and other guests’. Such an interpretation is quite plausible, as it accounts for Paul’s use of hyperbole in this description. By casting his opponents in this way, Paul not only criticizes them, but also the Corinthians for playing host to such parasites (Welborn 2009: 39).
Overall, the ways in which Paul prefaces his ‘foolish’ boasting achieves a number of expedient rhetorical effects. Not only does the idea of necessity allow Paul to boast freely of things for which he criticizes the ‘super-apostles’, but also by claiming to be engaging in the same kind of boasting as his opponents, Paul deflects onto them the offence of what he is saying. Additionally, should Paul’s audience still take offence at his ‘forced’ assumption of his opponents’ practice, they are reminded that it is their fault that he is boasting in the first place. 29
Another way in which Paul breaks from his previously established pattern in 11.16-30 is by portraying his boasting as antithetical to God’s will. Paul makes this fact clear by stating that he is not speaking κατὰ κύριον but instead ‘in foolishness’ necessitated by the boasting of his opponents (11.17-18). In this way, Paul is claiming that his subsequent acts of self-commendation are not done according to the will or leading of Christ (see Harris 2005: 781), but are instead an appropriation of the habits of his rivals (Thrall 1994: II, 708). Paul is absolutely emphatic that his self-serving boasts are acts of foolishness, in which one behaving under God’s will would not freely engage.
Despite his insistence that he will, against his will, engage in foolish boasting, Paul does not remain there for long, but quickly shifts to a somewhat paradoxical boasting in weakness, 30 which he sees as more divinely sanctioned. Paul begins his boasting in 11.22 by listing characteristics that apply equally to himself and his opponents (Thrall 1994: II, 731). He then goes on to demonstrate the ways in which he is a better servant of Christ (11.23-29). Although he does state that comparing one servant of Christ to another is an act of foolishness beyond any he has engaged in so far, 31 the credentials that he uses to back up his claim appear to be unlike καυχῶνται κατὰ σάρκα (11.18), and more like boasting in weaknesses (see Furnish 1984: 532-33, 535-36). These weaknesses include inward and outward trials ranging from beatings and shipwrecks to Paul’s concern for his churches (11.23-28). Paul views this sort of boasting as more divinely sanctioned than appearance-based, self-serving boasting, as he not only claims that the validity of what he is saying is supported by God, but will later state that it is in weaknesses that the power of Christ is revealed to be dwelling in him (11.31; 12.9).
In contrast to this view, Matera regards Paul’s hardship catalogue as a serious exposition of his credentials over and against his opponents. From this perspective, Paul is boasting about the trials he has overcome in his service of Christ; it is a story of victory rather than weakness (2003: 261-62; see also Hodgson 2009: 61, 64-65, 80). Such interpretations do not, however, account for the likely cultural response to the kinds of hardships that Paul lists. Jennifer Glancy writes that, in Roman culture, ‘whipping was the archetypical mark of dishonor’ and therefore has no place in actual self-praise. She argues that by boasting in dishonourable beatings, Paul is no longer commending himself in the same manner as his opponents. Instead, he boasts in weaknesses, conceiving his scars as a sharing in the sufferings of Christ (Glancy 2004: 107, 120, 133-34). 32 Thus Paul’s boasting flies in the face of Plutarch’s recommendations for periautologia, the purpose of which is to avoid being humbled in the first place (μέγεθος ἀρετῆς διαδείκνυσι τῷ μὴ ταπεινοῦσθαι ταπεινούσης καὶ χειρουμένης τὸν ϕθόνον, De Laud.: 540D). 33
Though atypical, paradoxical and, according to Plutarch, inadvisable, Paul’s boasting in weakness does function as a means of self-commendation, albeit in a roundabout way. In order to accomplish this rhetorical about-face, Paul must, over the course of his discussion, redefine what it means to be a servant of Christ. By the end of 12.9-10, it is weakness precisely that provides evidence that he is divinely empowered. While Forbes acknowledges that Paul’s boasting in weaknesses ‘may contain serious points’ insofar as it ‘is presenting a case for a radically different conception of apostolic authority through … irony’, he views 11.23-29 as a satirical use of irony that criticizes the priorities of Paul’s rivals (1986: 20). 34 I would like to suggest that it is worth taking Paul’s ‘serious points’ a step further. Once Paul’s ‘foolish’ boasting has redefined what it means to be a valid apostle, the same weaknesses that once seemed to function to Paul’s discredit now straightforwardly commend him. This interpretation better explains Paul’s embarrassment at the end of the fool’s speech: ‘I have been a fool! You forced me to it. Indeed, you should have been the ones commending me …’ (12.11 NRSV). He is well aware of the fact that, despite any irony or paradox, the foregoing discussion was still an attempt to defend his apostolic legitimacy. 35
Theory and Practice: Paul’s Principle
Having identified three distinct types of self-commendation in 2 Corinthians, we may now analyse the consistency with which Paul approaches this issue in practice. These insights may then be put into conversation with Paul’s principles regarding the subject as stated in 2 Cor. 10.17-18 and elsewhere, especially Rom. 1–5.
The strongest evidence that Paul’s use of self-promotion is guided by an underlying principle is the appeal to the divine that runs throughout his various uses of self-commendation. In all but one of the forms of self-commendation in which he engages, Paul depicts his actions as somehow legitimized by God. The only exception occurs in Paul’s unrestrained boasting οὐ κατὰ κύριον (11.17), which Paul takes pains to frame as a self-conscious critique of his rivals. As a result, even Paul’s ‘foolish’ boasting supports the contention that Paul believes that all legitimate boasting must be done with God in view. 36
Plutarch states that one can lessen the offence of their self-praise by giving credit to God, fortune or luck (De Laud.: 542E; cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 11.1.23). Paul’s insistence that his self-promotion is done in accordance with God’s will certainly seems to be analogous to Plutarch’s suggestion, though Schellenberg is quick to point out that ‘For Plutarch, giving credit to God allows one to set aside the burden of glory … for Paul, on the contrary, to invoke God’s commissioning is precisely to make a status claim’ (2013: 114). While this distinction is certainly worth making, it should be noted, at the very least, that Paul’s ‘thought’ concerning self-commendation derived from his practice has not broken any of Plutarch’s rules. 37
Whether or not it is fully in line with De laude ipsius, Paul’s consistent appeals to God’s will suggests that he is operating generally within a moral framework showing congruity with what he states explicitly when he writes, ‘“Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord”. For it is not those who commend themselves that are approved, but those whom the Lord commends’ (10.17-18 NRSV).
Such a principle is detectable, and more specifically articulated, outside of 2 Corinthians. Writing from Corinth after the composition of the Corinthian letters, Paul pays specific attention to the subject of boasting in Rom. 1–5, although at this point Paul is not in a situation where he must boast or promote himself in any way, but is commenting on the boasting of others. 38 As a more sustained discussion, this section will be helpful for discerning how clearly and consistently Paul fleshes out the theory behind his practice of self-commendation.
How we interpret Paul’s treatment of boasting in Rom. 1–5 depends on the answers given to two related interpretive questions. First, what sort of boasting does Paul exclude in Rom 3.27? And second, in light of this exclusion, how do we understand Paul’s discussion of the Christian’s boasts in 5.2-3, 11? Of course, a detailed exposition of boasting in Romans would require a considerable monograph, but a brief survey of these questions should be sufficient to clarify Paul’s thought further on the issue of self-promotion.
In Rom 3.27, Paul states that ἡ καύχησις has been excluded because of the ‘law of faith’ (NRSV). James Dunn and J.A. Fitzmyer rightly point out that Paul’s language here hearkens back to his earlier critique of boasting in 2.17, 23 (Dunn 1988: I, 185; Fitzmyer 1993: 362), where his hypothetical Jewish interlocutor is said to boast ‘in God’ (2.17), and also in the law (2.23). At first glance, καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ looks exactly like what Paul recommends in 2 Cor. 10.17-18. Unsurprisingly, then, Douglas Moo sees this Jewish boast in God as ‘not in itself wrong’, along with the other Jewish ‘privileges’ listed in the verse (1996: 160). 39 Paul’s ultimate assessment of such ‘advantages’ as being mere fronts for hypocrisy (2.21-24) suggests, however, that we are meant to have been hearing criticism all along (see Jewett 2007: 221). 40 Thus this supposed ‘boast in God’ is revealed to be mere boasting in the law (2.23), 41 a confidence in one’s status before God on the basis of Torah observance (Gathercole 2002: 202-203, 215), or glorying in Israel’s privileged status to the exclusion of the Gentiles (Dunn 1988: I, 115; Jewett 2007: 223, 229).
While Paul, with Rom. 3.27, has certainly shut the door on boasting in Jewish privilege, both as it relates to national selection and legal observance, there is also evidence that his critique of boasting goes even further. Agonistic self-promotion was certainly a mainstay of Graeco-Roman culture, with Rome itself full of monuments to imperial self-aggrandizement (Jewett 2007: 295-96). 42 Hearing the letter in such a space, it is likely that Paul’s audience would pick up a critique of ‘competitive boasting’ more generally. 43 As Schlier puts it, ‘Self-glorying and its associated self-aggrandizement have been shut out completely. There is no place for them in the realm of salvation. God has closed the door on them’ (1977: 116). 44
Following this critique of boasting, it seems strange to find Paul, at the climax of his argument, 45 claiming that the Christian boasts ‘in hope of the glory of God’, as well as in afflictions (Rom. 5.2-3), before going on to declare that Christians are καυχώμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (5.11). Some resort to semantics to resolve this apparent tension, claiming that here καυχάομαι terminology is simply being used in a more positive sense, better translated with something like ‘exult’. 46 This view seems to do little more than avoid the issue, not reckoning with the fact that Paul is using the same words here as earlier in the same discussion. 47
Understanding Paul as having dismantled the forms of boasting characteristic of his cultural context before reconstructing a specifically Christian boast provides a more nuanced account of Paul’s language. Christian καυχώμενοι are a paradox (Fitzmyer 1993: 396), having their grounds for glorying in experiences that would not accrue honour in the broader economy of status, namely: ‘the hope of God’s future revelation of glory’ and afflictions (Jewett 2007: 351). Thus, in principle, Paul’s problematizing of the cultural practice of agonistic boasting – which is based on human action – remains. The Christian boast is boasting reconceived and redefined, having its focus on what God has accomplished through Christ.
This conception of boasting in Rom. 1–5 is largely consistent with what we find elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, including Paul’s discussion of self-commendation in 2 Cor. 10.12-18. Other locations in Romans, such as 4.2, 15.17, as well as discussions of Jew/Gentile distinction elsewhere in Paul (Gal. 6.13-14; Phil. 3.3), all tell the same story: boasting in anything other than God (through Christ) is unacceptable. 48 The way that Paul talks about boasting and self-commendation is, then, mostly consistent, indicating that these are issues to which he has given some serious thought. 49 As we have observed, Paul’s practice of self-promotion also reflects these ideas (albeit somewhat dimly) communicating the general idea that legitimate self-commendation must be done with God in view, without reaching the more nuanced formulations that we find in 2 Cor. 10.17-18 or Romans.
Consistency Isn’t Everything
Even if Paul is careful to show his self-promotion as backed by the approval of God, there remain certain inconsistencies which cannot be explained with reference to his articulated principles. As I have demonstrated, in terms of form, Paul’s straightforward self-commendation is very like his denial of it 50 – though the latter requires somewhat more qualification. Even when he is claiming not to commend himself, Paul states that he is acting in line with the fear of the Lord (2 Cor. 5.11) and Christ’s love (5.14), before going on to reaffirm that he is not prone to fleshly understanding (5.16). These factors ‘commend’ Paul to the Corinthians, even if he wants to press the point that he is not engaging in self-commendation. Furthermore, the very denial of self-commendation in this passage functions to support Paul’s legitimacy over against his opponents, who are described as prone to boasting about appearances (5.12). Paul’s rivals might do such things, but surely not he! Therefore, even Paul’s denial of self-commendation is itself a form of self-commendation.
When in the guise of a fool, Paul will go on to boast in a manner that he himself sees as inappropriate. This is especially true of 11.21b-23a, where Paul meets his opponents on their own terms for the sake of comparison, despite having just claimed: ‘We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves’ (10.12 NRSV). However, despite any irony, parody or paradox, even Paul’s boasting in weakness will eventually be used to support the validity of his status as an apostle (12.9-10). Paul’s insistence that such boasting is necessary (11.30; 12.1, 11) and foolish (11.17, 21, 23) may rationalize his behaviour, but it does not change it. The fact that Paul’s foolish boasting is inconsistent with his own principles, as laid out in 10.12-18 and Rom. 1–5, should be entirely unsurprising. Although he (and Christ) may not approve of it, Paul says that he will boast (2 Cor. 11.16-18, 21; 12.1), so he does (see also Schellenberg 2013: 121).
Therefore, although certain principles regarding self-commendation are discernible in Paul’s practice, they are not always adhered to and remain insufficient to explain the rhetorical variety that we find across Paul’s uses of self-promotion. Paul’s primary concerns in these cases must be sought elsewhere.
More Pressing Concerns
Throughout Paul’s acts of self-promotion in 2 Corinthians, certain elements remain constant, suggesting their influence on the ways that Paul engages in self-commendation.
Whether commending himself directly, under duress, or denying that he is promoting himself doing so, Paul presents what he claims about himself as an act of opposition to his rivals. Lambrecht argues that ‘boasting concretely functions in Paul’s defensive self-commendation’ and can be an appropriate tool within that context (1996: 326). Certainly, Paul sees boasting as a valid tool for the defence of his own ministry 51 and wants his boasts to impact his listeners in his favour. Plutarch too sees self-praise as ethically permissible in situations of self-defence or necessity (De Laud. 540C-D), 52 though Schellenberg rightly points out that one need not require a rhetorical education to react defensively to criticism (2013: 105-106).
Paul’s focus on his opponents throughout the various forms of his self-commendation is not merely defensive, but also has a polemical edge. This aspect is at odds with Plutarch’s recommendations for boasting, who states, ‘when a man intermingles praise of himself with censure of another, and uses another’s disgrace to secure glory for himself, he is altogether odious and vulgar’ (De Laud. 547A [De Lacy and Einarson]; see also Quintilian, Inst. 11.1.29). Implying that his opponents practise ‘shameful things’, or ‘boast in outward appearance and not in the heart’ (4.2; 5.12 NRSV) would likely fall under Plutarch’s censure, to say nothing about Paul’s servants-of-Satan quip (11.13-15; see also 11.19-20)! This marked breach of protocol creates problems for interpreters who would see Paul’s self-praise as meeting the hypothetical approval of Plutarch, 53 while also raising an important question: why does Paul transgress Plutarch’s principles for self-praise, as well as his own? 54 I shall address this question presently, again by observing Paul in practice.
Regardless of what form Paul’s self-commendation takes, he presents himself as acting within the best interests of the Corinthians. In 4.2, Paul, the servant of his congregation (4.5), commends himself to his audience’s conscience, while 5.12 depicts the apostle’s actions not as boastful self-promotion, but as a gift. In these cases, Paul’s insistence that what he is doing is for the sake of his audience not only functions rhetorically as further inducement for them to accept the validity of both his position and the way he defends it, but also demonstrates the priority that Paul places on restoring the rift in his relationship with the Corinthians.
This desire to win over his audience is also strongly present in Paul’s ‘foolish’ boasting. At first glance, this case appears antithetical to the others, as here Paul claims that the Corinthians forced him into foolishness when they should have been commending him (12.11). However, not only does Paul preface the fool’s speech with the claim ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς θεοῦ ζήλῳ (11.2), he also follows it with a declaration of his love and willingness to ‘spend and be spent’ for their sake (12.14-15), before going on to state that he has not been trying to defend himself, but that ‘everything we do, beloved, is for the sake of building you up’ (12.19 NRSV). Therefore, in every way that Paul commends himself, he aims to bring his relationship with his audience back onto good terms. The contention that this goal is paramount for Paul is further supported by other passages in 2 Corinthians where he expresses deep emotion for his congregation and a strong desire to be reconciled to them (see 6.11-13; 7.2-4; 11.11).
If Paul’s desire to win the Corinthians’ support – which involves the refutation of his opponents – is the primary concern influencing his self-commendation, how can Paul hope to achieve this end if he has so flagrantly contradicted Plutarch’s rules for inoffensive self-praise? 55 Here it is worth remembering that De laude ipsius is a moral treatise, not a rhetorical handbook (see the discussion in Schellenberg 2013: 99-102). 56 Paul’s polemic against his opponents within the context of his self-commendation is not necessarily a bad rhetorical decision. It is simply unethical, by Plutarch’s standards as much as Paul’s own. Paul chooses polemic because he believes it will work, and so he builds himself up, tears down his opposition, and will boast in a fashion that contradicts his own stated principles. He may feel uncomfortable transgressing his own ‘rules’, but this does nothing to hinder him. 57 It is because Paul so badly wants the Corinthians on his side that he will commend himself in some cases, deny it in others – while still working for his own promotion – and elsewhere boast beyond his own comfort level under a claim of necessity. 58 In boasting ‘a little too much’ (10.8), Paul may risk offending his audience; however, for Paul this risk is worth taking if it means being reconciled to his church. 59
Conclusion
In 2 Corinthians the interpreter is confronted by a diversity of practices regarding self-commendation. The fact that Paul at times straightforwardly promotes himself, disavows doing so at others and also boasts under the auspices of a fool, creates an exegetical problem well summarized by Hafemann: ‘Either Paul was hopelessly inconsistent at this point, or the reconciliation of the apparent discrepancy between Paul’s rejection of self-commendation and boasting and his own practice of them must be sought elsewhere’ (1990: 73-74). Scholars have sought to reconcile this apparent inconsistency in different ways. Some, Hafemann included, describe Paul’s various uses of self-commendation as the outworking of certain principles across different situations. Others have appealed to ancient rhetorical conventions to smooth out the rougher edges of Paul’s practice, whereas Callan, in contrast, opts for seeing inconsistency. For Callan, the unifying factor explaining Paul’s disparate uses of self-commendation is his own personality: ‘Paul himself was the sort of person, at least in his basic tendencies, that he most vigorously criticized, i.e., a self-reliant and self-promoting person’ (1986: 151).
By taking an analysis of Paul’s various practices concerning self-commendation as a starting-point, this study has sought to avoid taking a dialectical approach to the issue of Paul’s consistency. The data from 2 Cor. 4.2, 5.12 and 11.16-30 reveals consistency at some points and diversity at others. Paul’s constant reference to the divine suggests that he does have some basic principle regarding self-commendation that he seeks to uphold – legitimate self-commendation must be done coram deo. Passages such as 2 Cor. 10.17-18 and Rom. 1–5, while formulated with a degree of complexity that cannot be discerned from Paul’s actual self-promotion, aptly summarize the standard that Paul seeks to uphold. However, Paul will, despite his own misgivings, throw out this principle and boast οὐ κατὰ κύριον (11.17) when he sees it as necessary. Though Paul seeks to legitimize his boasting through massive qualification, by portraying it as an act of foolishness forced upon him by his opponents and congregation, this self-promotion remains just that. It is an argument for the legitimacy of Paul’s position.
I argue, however, that there is a measure of consistency even within Paul’s inconsistency. The observed diversity in the apostle’s practice is best explained by recognizing the primacy of Paul’s desire to win the Corinthians over to his position. 60 That this goal is central to Paul’s purpose in commending himself is readily visible in his constant claim to be acting for his audience’s benefit – which runs throughout his various uses of self-promotion – as well as being more generally present in his heartfelt appeals for the Corinthians’ support throughout the letter (see 6.11-13; 7.2-4; 11.11; 12.14-15, 19). With this concern at the fore, Paul’s disparate uses of self-commendation in 2 Corinthians become readily explicable. Paul chooses whether to commend himself, deny that he is commending himself or boast without restraint, depending on which of these options he deems to be most rhetorically advantageous. He has certain convictions about self-commendation, but he need not adhere to them slavishly. Paul may bend or suspend his own ‘rules’, as well as social convention, as it suits his more pressing concerns, namely, winning the support of his beloved church. What we find in the text is not a disinterested theologian who first systematizes a perspective and then employs it, but a highly-invested party willing to adjust his approach to self-commendation as he finds himself in need of its use.
Footnotes
1.
This study does not seek to address the unity of 2 Corinthians, as the results will not be affected greatly under any of the major partition theories.
2.
3.
Hafemann’s work is itself an answer to a problem posed by Ernst Käsemann, who recognized an apparent discrepancy between Paul’s insistence on divine, non-objective evidence to establish the legitimacy of his apostolate and his claim that the Corinthians themselves demonstrate the same (i.e. 2 Cor. 3.2). Käsemann himself reconciles this tension by spiritualizing the evidence (see 1942: 59-60; 
: 66-69).
4.
In an unpublished dissertation, George Brown Davis also argues that Paul’s use of self-commendation and boasting is consistent with his stated principles (1999: 181-84, 188, 195). For a more general defence of Pauline consistency, see : 671-78.
5.
See also Judge 2008: 66. While Savage’s discussion of self-laudatory Corinthian inscriptions is interesting and in some ways illuminating (: 35-37, 41), it should be noted that the presence of a population that was eager to promote itself does not suggest that the same population would admire this behaviour in others. The literary evidence that Savage cites is more problematic, drawing too heavily on Petronius’s comedic stereotyping of freedmen, a class forming a major component of Corinth’s population (1996: 38-39). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that Paul, on multiple occasions, tries to deflect the suggestion that he is commending himself suggests that he believes he would be criticized if he were found to be doing so (see 2 Cor. 3.1; 5.12; 12.19).
6.
7.
I shall address the ancient discussions of self-praise later in this article, as they pertain to our interpretation of Paul’s thought and practice.
8.
Forbes’s work builds on and expands Betz’s discussion of Socratic irony in the fool’s speech (Betz 1972: 80, 86-89) in a number of interesting ways, bringing several other ancient voices into the discussion of Paul’s use of irony (see : 10-13).
9.
So too Watson 2003: 85-86, 94; see also : 432, 436.
10.
11.
For other instances where Paul self-consciously engages in self-commendation, see 2 Cor. 6.4 and (to a lesser extent) 1.12. For other occasions when he denies engaging in self-commendation, see 3.1 and 12.19. For a more extensive picture of Paul’s boasting under claimed duress, see 11.1–12.13.
12.
Focusing primarily on his discussion of boasting in Rom. 1-5.
13.
Barrett (1973: 128) argues that here Paul is renouncing behaviour that he has never practised, and is either refuting charges brought against him or criticizing opponents who he believes practise these things (see also Furnish 1984: 246). However, as others note, criticism appears to be a more natural reading here than apology (Matera 2003: 100; Thrall 1994: I, 301; : 85), as nowhere else is there any indication that Paul has received censure for the things mentioned, whereas he does criticize his opponents elsewhere for something very like δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (see 2 Cor. 11.4).
14.
See Barrett 1973: 129 and : I, 302, who identify the fact that Paul is not simply commending himself to the Corinthians’ consciences but is making a universal appeal to the human conscience.
16.
Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of biblical texts are my own.
17.
It is probable that this concern to appear as acting for the Corinthians’ benefit is, to some extent, present across the other explicit instances of self-commendation in 2 Corinthians. In 1.12 Paul emphasizes the sincerity of his conduct toward the Corinthians, while later on Paul follows the self-commendation of 6.4-10 with a powerful assurance of his affection for them (6.11-13). However, such an emphasis on Paul’s actions being done for the Corinthians’ benefit will figure much more centrally in the instances where he denies engaging in self-commendation.
18.
Cf. Thrall (1994: I, 217-18, 403-404), who does not see Paul here as denying self-commendation in the sense of boastful self-praise, but instead understands Paul as denying that he needs to reintroduce himself to the Corinthians. While this line of reasoning resolves the tension between Paul’s rejection of self-commendation on some occasions and use of it in others, it does not suit the present context. In 5.12 the ἀϕορμὴν καυχήματος provided by Paul functions as a foil to the boasts of those who ‘boast in appearance’, which suggests that there is at least enough similarity between the two – at the very least in terms of form – to require clarification that they are indeed not the same. οὐ πάλιν likewise supports the idea that Paul is answering a charge that he is in the habit of engaging in inappropriate self-commendation (see also : 147).
20.
: 259) attempts to resolve the tension between Paul’s use and dismissal of self-commendation by drawing a distinction between negative and positive self-commendation (ἑαυτόν συνιστάνειν vs συνιστάνειν ἑαυτόν, respectively). Although Harris rightly identifies a pejorative shift in emphasis in cases where the reflexive pronoun precedes the verb, suggesting a categorical shift in terminology over such a simple change in word order reaches too far.
21.
For perspectives on the behaviour to which Paul refers, see the discussions in Furnish 1984: 324-25 and : I, 405-407.
22.
Nor does the affinity with 2 Cor. 4.2 disappear in the case of an objective genitive, as 2 Cor. 5.9-11 establishes that Paul’s knowledge that he will be accountable for his conduct before God drives his behaviour.
25.
The same point can be readily seen in 12.19, where Paul asserts that he has not been defending himself for his own sake, but instead does everything for the Corinthians’ ‘up-building’. Paul’s denial of self-commendation in 3.1-3, however, takes a somewhat different approach. Here, instead of engaging in self-commendation for the Corinthians’ sake, the Corinthians themselves provide all the commendation the apostle needs, making any self-promotion on Paul’s part superfluous.
26.
27.
For the purpose of this study, we will focus primarily on 11.16-30 as an example of this kind of self-promotion.
28.
For Plummer, in ‘answer[ing] fools according to their folly’, Paul avoids the charge of being ‘grossly inconsistent’ when it comes to boasting (1915: 291; see also : 181-84, 195). As we shall see, the reality of the situation is somewhat more complicated.
29.
Here we must recognize that there is more going on rhetorically than a mere attempt to edify the Corinthians (cf. : 62, 64). Claiming that his boasting is necessitated by his congregation (2 Cor. 12.11), and even for their own good (12.19), both shifts blame and has the potential to apply liberal quantities of shame to anyone who criticizes Paul’s use of self-praise.
30.
Compare Rom. 5.3; see also Schütz 1975: 178; : 323-24.
31.
In παραϕρονῶν λαλῶ, the prefixed παραϕρονῶν functions as an intensification of the ἀϕροσύνη that Paul has been claiming up to this point (11.1, 17, 21, 23).
32.
See also Forbes 1986: 19; : 86.
33.
With Schellenberg (2013: 108-109) and contra Betz 1978: 388; Watson, 2003: 92. Plutarch does allow for boasting about hardships, but here the praise comes from the way a man can take a punch, scorning hardships and standing strong on his own two feet (De Laud. 541A-C). Paul, very much the opposite, emphasizes his weakness as a means of demonstrating God’s strength (2 Cor. 4.7-11).
34.
The position that Paul’s ‘foolish’ boasting is a critical parody of his opponents and/or social convention is relatively widespread (see, e.g., Judge 2008: 67; Moxnes 1988: 70; : 63).
35.
The same can be said for the visionary experience of the ‘person in Christ’ (12.2 NRSV). Though Forbes states that Paul’s use of the third person amounts to a refusal to boast in his spiritual attainments (: 21), the veil here is a bit too thin. If Paul did not want to use his visionary experiences to support his apostolic legitimacy, he did not need to bring it up.
36.
Or, considering 4.2, perhaps it would be better to say ‘in the view of God’.
37.
39.
Moo is not the only interpreter to see such a ‘boast in God’ as not essentially worthy of critique (see Cranfield 1975: I, 164-65; : I, 148).
40.
This is especially true if 2.17 can rightly be classified as beginning a section of diatribe (Dunn 1988: I, 116; Fitzmyer 1993: 315; Jewett 2007: 221; : 96-98).
42.
For further discussion of the place of boasting in Graeco-Roman honour culture, see Esler 2003: 168; : 70.
43.
44.
‘Der Eigenruhm und seine Selbsterbauung sind ausgeschlossen worden und stehen draußen, haben keinen Platz mehr im Heilsbereich. Gott hat sie ausgeschlossen.’
46.
So Cranfield 1975: I, 251; Michel 1978: 178; Moo 1996: 301-302; : 161-63, 176.
47.
While Paul does employ various terms for ‘boasting’ in this discussion, there is no significant difference in meaning between them (Fitzmyer 1993: 362; : 115).
48.
See also 1 Cor. 1.29, 31; 3.21; 4.7.
49.
It is quite likely that Paul’s discussion of boasting in Romans is influenced by the situations surrounding the writing of the Corinthian letters. However, the references to boasting as early as Galatians suggest that Paul had at least developed his thought on self-promotion to some extent beforehand.
50.
Insofar as both contain criticism of Paul’s opponents, and are qualified as being divinely motivated/authorized and for the Corinthians’ benefit.
51.
Though certainly not for his opponents, whose legitimacy, in Paul’s view, depends on entirely different criteria; they can only be usurpers of his own legitimate authority (see Käsemann 1942: 57-61; see also Hafemann 1990: 66-67; : 84).
52.
See also Quintilian’s defence of Cicero’s defensive boasting (Inst. 11.1. 17-18).
53.
54.
55.
Both through his polemic and boasting in weaknesses, though the former is the more significant transgression.
56.
The assertion of Betz, and others, that Plutarch is drawing on the rhetorical tradition lacks evidential support (Betz 1972: 75-76, 1978: 366; see also Sundermann 1996: 35-36; Wojciechowski 2006: 109). Additionally, Quintilian too shows a preference for ethics over eloquence (Quintilian, Inst. 11.1.8-9, 14; : 116).
57.
58.
59.
The fact that Paul writes Romans some time after 2 Corinthians from Corinth suggests that this risk did eventually pay off.
60.
While this perspective does not preclude the possibility that Paul had some sort of competitive streak inherent to his personality, as Callan argues, it certainly does not necessitate it.