2 Corinthians 11:1

ὄφελον (אBD1MP) rather than ὤφελον (D3FGKL); and ἀνείχεσθε (אBDFGLMP) rather than ἀνέχεσθε (K 37, 73, Theodoret), which comes from the following ἀνέχεσθε, or than ἠνείχεσθε (cursives); and μικρόν τι (אBDM, f Vulg. Pesh. Goth.) rather than μικρόν (FGKLP, d g r); also ἀφροσύνης (אBDP 17, Vulg.) rather than τῆς� (FG) or τῇ� (KL, Copt., Chrys.).

1. The opening is abrupt. After what has just been said about the worthlessness of self-praise, the inconsistency of glorying about himself seems to be glaring. He allows that it is foolish, and he asks for toleration. After all, he is only imitating his critics.

”Οφελον. See critical note. In this late Greek, this 2nd aor., without augment, has become a mere particle, an interjection expressing a wish, would that, as to what might have happened, but has not, or of what might happen, but is scarcely expected. Here and Revelation 3:15 it is followed by imperf. indic.: 1 Corinthians 4:8 by aor. indic., as several times in the LXX., especially in the phrase ὄφελον�: Galatians 4:12 by fut. indic. In classical Greek it commonly has the augment and is followed by the infin.; ὀλέσθαι δʼ ὤφελον τῇδʼ ἡμέρᾳ (Soph. O. T. 1157). Winer, p. 377.

ἀνείχεσθέ μου μικρόν τι�. See critical note. The double augment, usual in classical Greek, is commonly a correction of the true text, where it is found in the N.T. Here and in 2 Corinthians 11:4 ἠνείχεσθε is certainly a corruption. Would that ye bore with me in a little somewhat of folly; not utinam tolerassetis (Calvin), but utinam toleraretis (Beza) or sustineretis (Vulg.). The construction is doubtful. In classical Greek ἀνέχεσθαι is commonly followed by the acc. both of person and thing; in Biblical Greek by the gen. of both. Here μου is the gen. after ἀνείχεσθε, and ἀφροσύνης is the gen. after μικρόν τι, which is the accus. of reference, ‘bore with me with regard to a little bit of folly.’ The gen. of the person, without a participle, occurs even in classical Greek; εἰκότως ἄπαντος� (Plat. Protag. 323 A). Others take μικρόν τι as acc. after ἀνείχεσθε, and make both μου and ἀφροσύνης depend upon μικρόν τι, comparing οὐδὲ γὰρ ὑμῶν φθέγμα (A reads φθέγματος) ῥήματος� (Job 6:26). But it is unlikely that the second μου should depend upon the verb, as it must, and the first μου not.

ἀλλὰ καὶ�. Here, as in 2 Corinthians 10:7, there is doubt whether the verb is indic. or imperat. Most English Versions make it imperat., so that what is first expressed as a wish not likely to be fulfilled is then made an entreaty. But in that case neither ἀλλά nor καί is quite suitable. The ἀλλά corrects what precedes, and the καί gives emphasis to what follows. ‘But I ought not to consider this as an unattainable wish; you really do bear with me’: or, ‘But I have no need to wish this; you do bear with me.’ Comp. Cic. ad Att. xii. 37, tu meam stultitiam consuesti ferre. With the thought of the verse comp. εἰς�, εἰς� (Dion. Alex. in Eus. H. E. VII. xi. 2).

It is worth while distinguishing in translation the two words for senselessness which are found in the N.T., ἀφροσύνη (2 Corinthians 11:17; 2 Corinthians 11:21; Mark 7:22), insipientia, ‘folly,’ and μωρία (1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 3:19), stultitia, ‘foolishness.’ The former word, being primarily negative, is the lighter in meaning; the latter is the more severe, pointing to an essential or deeply rooted characteristic: comp. μωραίνειν (Romans 1:22; 1 Corinthians 1:20). Both the Vulgate and the A.V. are inconsistent in rendering ἀφροσύνη in Mark 7:22 as they render μωρία elsewhere. See on ἄφρων, 2 Corinthians 11:16.

1. How came Damascus, which was in the Roman province of Syria, to be guarded by the ‘ethnarch’ of Aretas IV., who was king of Arabia Petraea B.C. 9 to A.D. 40, with Petra as his capital? Damascus cannot have been left independent by the Romans, when they occupied the Nabataean territory in B.C. 65, 64; for Damascene coins from B.C. 30 to A.D. 33 bear the name of Augustus or of Tiberius. Damascene coins from A.D. 34 to 62 are wanting: there are none extant for the reigns of Caligula and Claudius: but after 62 we have them with the name of Nero. That Aretas took Damascus from the Romans is hardly credible: and it is improbable that Tiberius handed it over to Aretas, for when he died in March, A.D. 37, he was compelling Vitellius to take measures against Aretas on behalf of Herod Antipas. Antipas had offended Aretas by divorcing his daughter (A.D. 29) in order to marry Herodias; and about this and some frontier disputes Aretas had gone to war with Antipas and completely defeated him (c. A.D. 32), a defeat which the Jews regarded as a judgment on Antipas for the murder of the Baptist (Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 2 Corinthians 11:1-2). Antipas complained to Tiberius, who promised redress; and by his orders Vitellius was unwillingly marching against Aretas, when at Pentecost in Jerusalem he heard of the death of Tiberius. He at once stopped the march on Petra. His new master, Caligula, disliked Antipas, and reversed the policy of Tiberius respecting him; and he may have expressed his disapproval of Antipas by handing Damascus over to Aretas, his chief enemy. In this way an ethnarch of Aretas may have been governor of Damascus, when S. Paul had to fly from it. This statement is important for dating the conversion of S. Paul.