2Co_11:23. In the case of those three Jewish predicates the aim was reached and the emotion appeased by the brief and pointed
κἀγώ
. Now, however, he comes to the main point, to the relation towards Christ; here
κἀγώ
cannot again suffice, but a
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
must come in (comp. Theodoret), and the holy self-confidence of this
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
gushes forth like a stream (comp. 2Co_6:4 ff.) over his opponents, to tear down their fancies of apostolic dignit.
παραφρονῶν
λαλῶ
] also ironical, but stronger than
ἐν
ἀφροσ
.
λέγω
: in madness (Herod. iii. 24; Dem. 1183. 1; Soph. Phil. 804) I speak! For Paul, in the consciousness of his own humility as of the hateful arrogance of his foes, conceives to himself a:
παραφρονεῖ
! as the judgment which will be pronounced by the opponents upon his
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
; they will call it a
παράφρον
ἔπος
(Eur. Hipp. 232)!
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
] He thus concedes to his opponents the predicate
διάκονοι
Χριστοῦ
only apparently (as he in fact could not really do so according to 2Co_11:13-15); for in
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
there lies the cancelling of the apparent concession, because, if he had granted them to be actually Christ’s servants, it would have been absurd to say: I am more! Such, however, is the thought: “servants of Christ are they? Well, if they are such, still more am I!” The meaning of
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
is not, as most (even Osiander and Hofmann) assume: “I am a servant of Christ in a higher degree than they” (1Co_15:10), but: I am more than servant of Christ; for, as in
κἀγώ
there lay the meaning: I am the same (not in reference to the degree, but to the fact), so must there be in
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
the meaning: I am something more. Thus, too, the meaning, in accordance with the strong
παραφρονῶν
λαλῶ
, appears far more forcible and more telling against the opponents.[335]
ὑπέρ
is used adverbially (Winer, p. 394 [E. T. 526]); but other undoubted Greek examples of this use of
ὑπέρ
are not found, as that in Soph. Ant. 514 (
ὁ
δʼ
ἀντιστὰς
ὑπέρ
) is of doubtful explanatio.
ἐν
κόποις
περισσοτέρως
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] Paul now exchanging sarcasm for deep earnest, under the impulse of a noble
μεγαληγορία
(Xen. Apol. i. 2) and “argumentis quae vere testentur pectus apostolicum” (Erasmus), begins his justification of the
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
, so that
ἐν
is to be taken instrumentally: through more exertions, etc. The comparative is to be explained from the comparison with the
κόποι
of the opponents. The adverb, however, as often also in classic writers, is attached adjectivally (sc.
οὖσι
) to the substantive. So also de Wette.[336] Comp. Luk_24:1; 1Co_12:31; Php_1:26; Gal_1:13; see Ast, ad Plat. Polit. p. 371 f.; Bernhardy, p. 338. Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, and the older commentators incorrectly hold that
εἰμί
is to be supplied: “I am so in a yet much more extraordinary way in labours.” Apart from the erroneous explanation of
ὑπὲρ
ἐγώ
, which is herein assumed, the subsequent
πολλάκις
is against it, for this with
εἰμί
supplied would be absurd. Hofmann would make a new series begin with
ἐν
θανάτ
.
πολλάκις
; but this is just a mere makeshift, which is at variance with the symmetrical onward flow of the passage with
ἐν
. Beza, Flatt, and many others supply
ἦν
or
γέγονα
; but this is forbidden by 2Co_11:26, where (after the parenthesis of 2Co_11:24-25) the passage is continued without
ἐν
, so that it would be impossible to supply
ἦν
or
γέγονα
furthe.
ἐν
πληγ
.
ὑπερβαλλ
.] by strokes endured beyond measure.
ἐν
φυλακ
.
περισσοτ
.] by more imprisonments. Clement, ad Cor. i. 5 :
ὁ
Παῦλος
ὑπομονῆς
βραβεῖον
ἀπέσχεν
ἑπτάκις
δεσμὰ
φορέσας
, in which reckoning, however, the later imprisonments (in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome) are include.
ἐν
θανάτοις
πολλάκις
]
πολλάκις
γὰρ
εἰς
κινδύνους
παρεδόθην
θάνατον
ἔχοντας
, Chrysostom. Comp. 1Co_15:31; 2Co_4:11; Rom_8:36; and Philo, Flacc. p. 990 A:
προαποθνήσκω
πολλοὺς
θανάτους
ὑπομένων
ἀνθʼ
ἑνὸς
τοῦ
τελευταίου
, Lucian, Tyr. 22; Asin. 23. See on this use of
θάνατος
in the plural, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 46 C; Seidler, ad Eur. El. 479.
[335] So that the absolute
ὑπέρ
is not to be explained
ὑπὲρ
αὑτούς
, but
ὑπὲρ
διακόνους
Χ
. Our view is already implied in the plus (not magis) ego of the Vulgate. Luther also has it, recently Ewald; and Lachm. writes
ὑπερεγώ
as one word. Comp. also Klöpper, p. 97.
[336] In the Vulgate this view has found distinct expression at least in the first clause; “in laboribus plurimis.”