Corinthians, second epistle to the (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. External TraUilion. 2. Transmission of the Text. 5. Internal Evidence and GenuineneBA. 4. Elements of the Historical Situation^ (a) Timothy, (6) Titus and the A.>'/«, (c) the troubles at Corinth, (d) the Offender, (c) the Judaizers, (/) St. Paul's plans of travel, (^) letters of St. Paul, (h) visits of St. Paul to Corinth, (i) summary. 6. The Situation reconstructed. 6. Chronological Relation of 1 and 8 Oo. 7. Purpose of the Epistle. 8. Intejjrity of the Lpi-stle. 9. Contents and Analysis. 10. ImporUmce of the Epistle. 11. Apo(-Ty)ihal Correspondence o( St. Paul and the Oorin< thians. 12. Select Bibliography. 1. The traces of this Epistle in the post-apostolio age are as slij^ht as those of the first Epistle are exceptionally strong. Clement of Koine does not quote it. Where the Epistle would have fur- nished him with most apposite material {e.g. Clem. ad. Cor. v. 6), he makes no use of it. It is not referred to by Ignatius. Polycarp, on the other hand, distinctly quotes 2 Co 4''' (Polyc. ad Phil. ii. 4, A M iydpas . . . xal iiiiaa tyepel), ami ap- parently 8^' (ad Phil. vi. 1, comparing Pr S). The letter to Diognetus v.' shows a knowledge of 2 Co e'"'" l(fi. The reference of Athenagoras (de Resurr. 18) ^o v.'" is fairly clear; two refer- ences, at least in Theonhilus (ad Antul. i. 2, iii. 4), to 7 11' are quite distinct. The 'Presbyters' quoted by Iren;eus (V. v. 1) refer to 12. More- over, the Epistle was in the canon of Marcion, and appears to have been used by the Sethites, (ap. Hippol. Philos. V. iii. 19, p. 21(5, Cruice) and by the Ophites, who quoted 2 Co 1'2, (ih. p. 160). I'he above references fairly cover' the period prior to the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Ale.xandria, and Tertullian, all of which authorities bear full witness to the Epistle. Tlie utmost we can say is that there is no evidence that our Ep. was absent from any list of writings of St. Paul. This would hardly hold good if we were to follow Zalin (Kanon, 2. 83.3(1.) in his view that a deiini- tive collection of Pauline Epp. had been compiled before the date of Clemens Honi.-inus. For, as we have seen, his knowledge of our Epistle is more than doubtful. 2. The text of the Epistle has been transmitted by the same versions and MSS as 1 Co (see last art.), with the following exceptions: — A lacks 4" (-vov iriaTema) -12' kclI t. ; C lacks all from 10; it is contained entire in FGKL; H contains 4-'', lO""'^ '"- H'-'a-lo-, th.) first fragment at St. Petersburg, the rest at Mt. Athos ; V contains no part of our Epistle; M contains the first fifteen ver.se.s of chapter 1, and 10"-12» (l?rit. Mus.); O lias l»'-2"; P lacks only 2'-'->« ; Q has no part of the Ep. ; R has 1 !»-'». I'or the old Latin, r lacks 2"- 31S 52.79 gi3_9» iiM_i2<» IS""- 3. Althou^;h inferior in its external attesta- tion to the first Epistle, the internal character of 2 Co removes it far above any susjiicion as to it." authenticity. On whatever ground its integrity may be called in question (see § 8), the several parts of the Epistle are acknowledged as Pauline by all sober criticism (.see 1 Cor. § 3). In fact, in ita individuality of style, intensity of feeling, inimit- able expression of the writer's idiosyncrasy, it may be said to stand at the head of all the Pauline Epistles, Galatians not excented. Moreover, iti 492 II. CORINTHIANS II. CORINTHIANS historical references are so unstudied, so manifold, BO intricate, tliat difficult as it is to reconstnict with any certainty the fiistorical situation (§§ 4, 5), the difficulty is rather analogous to the 'subtilitas Naturae,' than such as would result from the inconsistencies of a literary fabrication. It is the most personal, least doctrinal, of all the Ejiistlea except Philemon ; but at the same time it is saturated with the characteristic theological conceptions of St. Paul. The personal relation of the apostle to the comnmnity is viewed in the light of the apostolic otKce as such, and this in turn in that of the distinctive ciiaracter of the gos|jel : the profoundest conceptions of grace, reconciliation, consummation, thus enter into the very tibre of chs. 1-7. This interpenetration of practical detail with first principles of the faith Is a characteristic which our Epistle shares with 1 Co. But here it is even more strongly marked. Not only do the relations between the Old and New Covenants (3), the Earthly and the Future Life (4), not only do the doctrines of Redemption and the Incarnation (5. 7. 8) find classical expression, but tliere is not the smallest matter mentioned in the letter which does not carry us ba.^k to the highest and most ultimate laws ; the mere organization of the \oyla is sowing for eternity (9), a carrying out of the principle of the Incarnation (8) ; ' from the surface of things he everywhere penetrates to the depths.' The Epistle is a letter of many moods, but all under strong control. ' Joy and hea^nness, anxiety and hope, trust and resentment, anger and love, follow one another, the one as intense as the other. Yet there is no touch of changeablecess, nor any cuntradiction. The circumstances dictate and justify it all, and he is master of it all, the same throughout, and always his whole self. An extra- ordinary susceptibility of feeling and impression, such as only an extraordinary character can hold in control ' (Weizsacker, Apost. Ztlter, p. 328 ; cf. the whole section). In the discussions (art. 1 CORINTHIANS, § 4) raised by the Dutch hypercritical school, and by Steck, on the genuineness of the ' Haupt-briefe,' our Epistle has played a somewhat subordinate part (see Knowling, ubi supra, pp. 192, 174). We may therefore dispense with any discussion on the subject, and postpone the question of Integrity until we have dealt witii the difficulties connected with the historical situation. 4. As we have seen above (on 1 COR. § 7), the complete elucidation of the circumstances of 1 Co depends on the recovery of the thread of events connected with and ascertainable from the second Epistle. Here we enter upon what the most accurate of explorers has compared to a 'track- less forest.' The problem is especially tantalizing, because the abundance of material at once stimul- ates and mocks the attempt at a complete com- bination. The broad question. How does the historical situation in 2 Co differ from that in 1 Co? how many letters, how many visits, of St. Paul to Corinth, how many estrangements and recon- ciliations, are to be traced or assumed? depends for its solution on our success or failure in un- ravelling several distinct threads. Such are the movements of Timothy, the movements of Titus, the history of the \ayia (1 Co 16^ at Corinth, the sequel of the case of the ofl'ender of 1 Co S'"', the progress of party spirit and of opposition to St. PaiU at Connth, and, la.stly, St. Paul's references to his plans of travel, and to letters and visits of his own. We will briefly sketch the position of each of these questions, and then consider the possibilities of a satisfactory reconstruction of the history. (a) As to Timothy, the case is comparatively simple. We have seen (on 1 CoR. § 7) that Timolliy left St. Paul at Ephesus for Macedonia, probably not long before the dispatch of 1 Co. He was to reach Corinth eventually (1 Co 4"), though St. Paul implies some doubt {iav f\6ri, 16'") as to the prospect of his doing so. St. Paul expected him to return to Ephesus with the bearers of 1 Co (16") by Pentecost (16'^). His return from Corinth would in that case be by sea direct. The expression of Luke (Ac 19^ els rijv JIait. onlj') is, however, easily understood if he failed to reach Corinth. Liglitfoot (Bibl. Ess. 275 ff.), who maintained that he probably did not do so, suggested that Titus might have overtaken him on the way to Corinth, or, if he went thither by sea, have met Timothy on the way back. Cfertainty on this point is not possible ; we have to weigh the total silence of St. Paul in 2 Co (in the face of 1 Co 4") as to any result of Timothy's mission to Cor., against the absence from 2 Co of any explanation (in face, again, of 1 Co 4") of the non-arrival of a messenger so impressively announced. The latter argument seems to the present writer to be slightly outweighed by the former. 'It is patent th.at the mission had in some way miscarried' (Waite) ; but that Timothy had failed painfully at Corinth is hardly to be assumed (as by Jiilicher, Einl. p. 61) without more proof than we possess. Anyhow, Timothy was with St. Paul wTien he wrote 2 Co. They may have met either at Ephesus or in Macedonia. (6) Of Titus (Gal 2^) we do not hear by name in 1 Co. From 2 Co we learn that he was the bearer of our letter (8°- '^■-■'), accompanied by two unnamed brethren, one of whom, ' whose praise is in the Gospel,' may or may not have been Luke. From 2 Co 12' we see that Titus had been to Corinth before, as we should also gather from 8' Koflus irpoevripiaTO. This also follows independently from 7"-' 2'^ Titus, then, paid at any rate two visits to Corinth ; and on one of them, previous to 2 Co, he had been accompanied by a (single, unnamed) brother (2 Co 12'"). We will come back to Titus after briefly con sidering the history of the Xoyio at Corinth. The directions given 1 Co 16'" were possibly in answer to some inquiry on the part of the Corinthians (supra, 1 Cor. § 7). They had offered (2 Co 9» Trpo- (irriYY(\lj.itir]>') to contribute, and, ace. to 8", Titus had assisted in the preliminary organization of their efforts (8'°, cf. v.' irpoer^pfaro). To this reference appears to be made 2 Co 12" (cf. iirXe- oviKT-qafv with 9°). Why not, then, identify (as Lighlfoot, Bibl. Ess. 281) Titus and ' the brother' with ' the brethren ' who carried 1 Co ? (supra, 1 Cor. § 7). This combination seems free from any objection, and the note of time, avb -nipmi (8'" 9"), pushes back this \dsit of Titus to a date in any case very near 1 Co (see 1 CoR. § 6). Titus visited Corinth, then, in connexion u-ith the \oyia on two occasions j on the second occasion he was one of the bearers of 2 Co ; on the first, not improbably he was one of the bearers of 1 Co. ((•) The person of Titus (cf. in/r. §§ 6, 7) forms the link between the \oyia and the more painful ijuestions between St. Paul and the Church of Corinth. The question whether Titus paid yet a third visit thither depends upon the consideration of the troubles which threatened to estrange St. Paul and the Corinthi.ans. Firstly, the ca.se of incest (1 Co 5'") was dealt with in 1 Co, and the expulsion there ordered would naturally follow upon the airi al of the letter. Did it? It is the preva.ent view (the grounds for it are stated with admirable conciseness by Holtzmann, Eiii/.' p. 25.t) that 2 Co 2'-" ( =7"") records the seiiuel. Stung by St. Paul's summons, the Corinthians, by a majority IL CORINTHIANS IL CORINTHIANS 493 (2), inflict a punishment wUich St. Paul pronounces luflicient, and, lest the pain of it should drive the ofl'ender to desperation, advises the Corinthians to relax. The punishment had been inflicted in the presence and at the summons (7'°) of Titus, who reported the contrition, zeal, and loyalty wrou''ht by the letter he had bonie. This letter would accordintjly be 1 Co, unless we should have, on further consideration, to infer that the in- att«;ntion or disali'ection with which that letter had been leceived, or some other cause, had necessitated the dispatch by the hand of Titus of a sharper summons (see below, g). [d) liut a closer examination of the pa.ssages we are considering makes it doubtful whether they really relate to the ofleuder of 1 Co 5'. The object in view, in St. Paul's treatment of the case now in question, had been to prove the loyalty of the Corinthians to himself ("'-'' 2'-'). To have persisted in withholding pardon would have been to give Satan an advantage over them all, St. Paul included ; i.e. to have inten.silied the very evil St. Paul was combating. Moreover, St. Paul is specially careful to depreciate the grief inflicted upon himself (2'), which strongly suggests that the iStKijOfls of 7" is also none other than himself. The oix foexev toC i5iK-q(ramo! of the latter verse contradicts the tva of 1 Co 5"" even more sharply than the notion of a personal wrv7u/, the prominent thought in 2 Co 2. 7, contrasts with that of a sin against God, such as the vopytia of 1 Co 5. There are, then, weighty grounds for eliminating from these verses any reference to the incestuous offender (who may none the less be glanced at among the irpoijMapTTjvAres of 12^' 13-), and for referring tliem to some other individual. Here, again, it is a question of probability ; but the view adopted by very many scholars, that the ofl'ender of 2 Co 2. 7 is a personal opponent of St. Paul, who has grossly slandered him, and has temporarily succeeded in undermining the loyalty of the Corinthians, has much to recommend it. On this view, which is as old as Tertullian, de Pud. xiii. U'., this mission of Titus, and the letter then carried by him, must be quite independent of, and subse- quent tu. 1 Co. The ayvovs of 2 Co 7" then har- monizes iu sen.se witli H". («) Tbp rxl'itaTa of 1 Co 1-4 have undergone a changB of aspect in 2 Co. Of the watchwords Paul, Apollos, Cei)haa, we hear no more. It is otherwise with the name of Christ. In the section 10-13'° a distinct group of opponents are iu view who arrogate the distinction X/)«rTo5 (hat (10'). The final consideration of this movement must be deferred (see below, § 7). For our present pur- pose it is enough to dwell on the marked change of situation. In 1 Co indeed we trace tlie ten- dency to arraign (ivaKplvuy, 4") the apostle, and to question his apostolic rank ('J'"-) But it is disposed of briefly and quietly ; it is not as in 2 Co the subject of a long and passionate indictment. The first (1-7) and last (10-13"') sections of the Epistle present somewhat dill'erent aspects of the case. In the former, wo have references to ' the many who tradic in the word of God ' (2" ; cf. 4') ; to ' certain, who need letters of introduction ' to the Corinthians (3') ; to imputations against the apostle of tleslily motives, of duplicity (l"' " 4^ 6"). Inese imputations proceed, it would seem, from diTKrToi, men blinded by worldliness to the light of the gospel (4), who yet, as we infer from 5'", lay great stress on having known Christ after the flesh. The last two points throw light on the • It Ib well put by Dr. Llewelyn Davies in Smith's DD, g.r. Paul, It had been maintained tjy Bieelc. Cre'iner, Olnhaiiaen. Neander, Kwald ; and is also aflnpt«d by llilj;enfcld, Weiz- l.acker, Jiilicher, Otxiet, etc. Krenkel and Clemen Hvippnse tlmt the Blander wan directly aimed, not at St. Paul, but at a fellow- worker. Sm Schmiedcl, Exa. oo 2 Co 2U. purpose of such passages as 1" 2''", above all a"-'" S"". The Judaizing tendencies faintly trace- able in 1 Co have assumed a doctrinal character. Still, the polemic of these chapters is not direct ; St. Paul assumes that his readers are with him ; so far as they are concerned (ef ns iv Xpiirrv, con- trast IS'-') 'old things are passed away, and new things have come.' We seem to hear 'not the threatenings of a coming so much as the rumblings of a departing storm.' But wlien we turn to the concluding chapters (10-13'") the brightness and confidence of tone is gone. The features of the opposition of 1-7 are still there. St. Paul is charged with fleshly motives (10^), with lording it over the Church (10« 13'» ; cf. l"), with decei (IP'). llis opponents still come armed with letters of introduction (lO'""), they are — not now iiriiTTOi but — ministers of Satan, false apostles (1113-15) . they preach another Jesus, another gospel (11^); they claim to be ministers of Christ, to be ' Christ's ' (IF-" 10' ; cf. 1 Co I'-). All the features of the opponents of 1-7 are here, but they are heightened, and the polemic against them is more jiainfuUy intense. Their accusations against St. Paul, too, are more direct and audaciou.s, — em- bezzlement (12'""), bullying by letters (lO'") in contr:ist with weakness when lace to face, reck- less folly (11"), are imputed to him ; if he refuses direct sustentation, it is because he knows he has no right to it, being no true apostle (11° 12"-"'). liut, worse than all, St. Paul is conscious that his readers are not with him ; their loyalty is under- mined. Their obedience is unfulfilled — ' Ye look at the outside of things ' (10°- '). They are in imminent peril of being corrupted, in fact they tolerate an- other gospel, — yes, gladly tolerate the yoke of ' the fools' who are tyrannizing over them (ll'"-'", "") ; they accept the invidious construction put upon St. Paul's conduct, are prepared to doubt his love for them (11''"; cf. 12'""'"). They are wavering in faith, Christ can hardly be in them ; St. Paul drcails to think of the impenitent state in which he will find them, dreads the humiliation which awaits hira at Corinth, dreads the unsparing severity he will have to e.\ercise (12'-13'"),— his last hope is tliat the letter may pave the way to better things. Note that St. Paul is addressing the community as a whole throughout, not the Judaizing rii-^s, not a minority still under their influence ; of this the chapters give no hint. Can the situation still be that of 1-7, or even that of 8. 9? There is sorne plausibility, priind fiicie, in the severance of 10- 13'" from the rest of the Epistle. But in any case the situation in these chapters is a new one as compared with that in 1 Co ; and from its nature can hardly have been revealed to St. Paul by the arrival of Titus in Macedonia, for ho brought news of quite a dill'erent kind (7"). (/) St. Paul entertained, at dillerent times, two distinct plans of travel. The simpler of the two is that announced in 1 Co 10°, and carried out Ac 20', viz. from Ephesus to Macedonia and thence to Corinth. But from 2 Co l'"-" we learn that he had at one time entertained, but (v." in order to spare the Corinthians) had abandoned, the more conmlicated plan of proceeding direct from Asia to Corinth, thence to Macedonia, and thence to Corinth again. This plan had been communicated to the Corinthians, at least in the form of a promise of a prompt visit. This is not satisfied by 1 Co 4"; for if so, the withdrawal would be announced in 1 Co 10°", a passage totally out of correspondence (v.') with the situation presupposed in 2 Co l-'^. Moreover, in defemling his change of plan (2 Co 1""), St. Paul would not have failed to appeal to the clear statement of his intentions in 1 Co 16'. The inference seems irresistible that the change of plan was tubscquent to 1 Co, and that the 494 n. CORINTHIANS IL CORI^'THIANS Complicated Plan was formed in consequence of Bomething that had transpired after 1 Co was dispatched, and that further events caused St. Paul to fall back upon the original Simple Plan. (g) We have now to take note of St. Paul's references to letters written by himself to Corinth. That there were three such is certain, viz. the two canonical letters, and the 'pie-canonical' or lost letter referred to in 1 Co 5'. But we have seen that the Complicated Plan of travel was com- municated to the Corinthians after 1 Co ; whether this was by letter or not, depends on the inter- pretation of 2 Co l"^"'. At any rate the promise of a direct visit was given in the confidence {ireTol- tfi)(ri5,v.'')of happy relations between the apostle and the Corinthians, and the promised visit was looked forward to as a 'joy'(xapii). But something occurred to npset this conhdence, and to demand that the visit, if paid, should be one of stem judgment. St. Paul decided ' to spare ' them, and not to return to them in sorrow (2'). And this he had stated in a letter (2^-), written in affliction and distress of heart and many tears, — a letter calcu- lated to cause pain, and one which he for a time regretted having written (V-), but which, aided by the presence of Titus (supra, c, rf), produced a happy revoliution in the temper of the Corinthians. Two questions arise — (1) Did the letter announce the abandonment of the Complicated Plan, or did the latter merely follow tacitly by way of post- ponement? This depends on the sense of toDto oi>t4 (2), which may merely mean ' for this very cause ' (cf. 2 P l" ; Winer, III. § xxi. /n.). (2) Can this letter be our 1 Co? Certainly not, if, as we have argued, it arose out of a situation subsequent to that of 1 Co. But, quite independently of this, 1 Co is hardly a letter which St. Paul could even temporarily have repented \vTiting. Stern passages it contains, but they are relieved by frequent encouragement, calm discussion, quiet practical advice ; its emotioiuil tension is not to oe com- pared with that of 2 Co 10-13, or even 1-7 ; it does not correspond to the description 2 Co 2 (see Waite, p. 383). This is a vital point, but it seems hardly doubtful. The one stronjj counter- argument, the supposed identity of reference in 2 Co 2- and 1 Co 5^-, has already been examined (rf), and found to be of very dubious validity. We must therefore insert a stem and highly painful letter between 1 and 2 Co ; and if 2 Co J13-U refers to a letter at all, it is certainly not to 1 Co, and still less to the painful letter just men- tioned. St. Paul then, who in any case \vrote not fewer than three, can be fairly proved to Iiave written /our, and may very probaMy have written Jive letters to the Corinthians, including our two canonical Epistles (cf. Clemen, Einheitl. p. 66 ; and see below, § 8). (h) Lastly, we consider the references to his visits to Corinth. First of all, in 2 Co 12" 13' he says, lioi> rplrov tovto erotfitvt ^w {\dtiv wpbs vfiat . . ■ TpiTov TOVTO ipxo^iax vpits v/xaSp Taken by themselves, these words would be held by any- one to establish two previous visits. And the more natural interpretation of 2' (Kpiva. . . . rii ixri TrdXiK if Xi/TTj/ Tpbi v/ias iXBtlv, connects iriXiv with {y XinrTj rather than with tXdtiv. If so, a previous visit iv Xwrj) is implied ; the attempt to explain this by 1 Co 2' i\duv rpbt u/iaj, is unworthy of serious discussion. We are therefore obliged to assume provisionally that, when the painful letter was written, St. Paul had visited Corinth twice, and the second time iy Xirrj). Only if this assumption proves so improbable as to outweigh the more obvious sense of the passages just quoted, shall we be justified in throwing into the scale against them the Sevrtpa xip" of 1", the ut irapwr rd Bev- repof of 13'. As a matter of fact, the a-ssumption of a visit iy \virrj does encounter hopeless obstacles, whether we seek to place it before or after 1 Co. Let us consider the latter possibility first. St. Paul abandoned his direct visit (i.«. the Complicated Plan) ' in order to spare ' the Corinthians. This excludes at once from consideration the period between the painful letter and 2 Co. Let us suppose then that St. Paul, on receiving from Corinth unfavourable news (probably connected with the offender of 2^ 712), after he had dispatched 1 Co, proceeded thither in person. If so, St. Paul, unsuccessful (12^) at Corinth, returns to Ephesus (still i Xi^>i) ; receives better news ; announces another immediate visit (i.e. the Complicated Plan) 'i» irnrgtdr.ini' {l^); another estrange- ment, connected again with the offender of 2^ 712, breaks out ; St. Paul writes again i» KCrv^ and this time with more per- manent success, which he at last learns from Titus in Mace- donia. The improbability of this duplication of events condemns the entire hypothesis,, and drives us back on the other alterna- tive, that St. Paul's visit i» Xv^ti must have preceded 1 Co. But here we are encountered by the total ignorance of such a visit which that Epistle betrays. Not only is there not a single trace ' of it (Weizsacker, pp. 277, 300) ; we are compelled to asK, and ask in vain, to what, on this assumption, was the Xuw; due ? Not to the rx'^f'^Tx, of which St. Paul knew only from Chloe's people. Not to the Tepuiet nor to the disorders in their ' assem- bling together,' of which he knew only by report (61 lli»). Not to the litigiousness (1 Co 6) nor to the denial of the Resurrec- tion, of both of which he speaks with indignant surprise. If the distressing second visit preceded 1 Co, the xiiTri which occasioned it was dead and buried when I Co was written, it had nothing to do with any of the subjects touched upon in 1 Co, and St. Paul's references to it in 2 Co are inexplicable. In fact, the main ground on which Weizsiicker, Clemen, and others place it after 1 Co is the inadmissibility of placing it earlier ; while Schmiedel follows Neander, Olshausen, Reuss, Wiiseler, Meyer, Klopper, and many others in placing it earlier, because the attempt to find room for it later breaks down. He justly obsen'es that in a complicated h\-pothesis we cannot expect to harmonize all details satisfactorily, but must be con- tent with certainty where possible. But this may justify us in questioning the finality of the inferences drawn at first sight from 2 Co 21 12" 131. Against the probability of either of the two hypotheses just discussed, we must weigh that of the interpretation of those verses ailopted by Paley (Horae Paul.), Baur, de Wette, Renan, Hilgenfeld, Davidson, Farrar, and others, that by rplroy tovto IpXofmi St. Paul means ' this is the third time I am coming' (i.e. meaning to come), while 2' simply states his resolve that his new visit (iriXiF iXSeiy) shall not be iv Xi'irj). This interpretation is at first sight of inferior probability to the more obvious sense of the words, but it harmonizes well with 13' (RVm) and with the ouKin of 1=^ (RV ; AV is against the idiom). (t) Summary. — Timotliy's visit, then, hardly enters into our problem ; Titus visits Corinth three times, first (possibly as bearer of 1 Co) to organize the Xo7ia, the second time to cope with the troubles there, thirdly as bearer of 2 Co, and to complete the Xo^ia. The troubles at Corinth were mainly due to events subsequent to the situa- tion of 1 Co, and the offender of 2 Co 2. 7 was more probably an offender against St. Paul, connected with the Judaizing party, than the incestuou? person of 1 Co 5. The troubles, however, had taken root and hold in Corinth to a degree fai beyond what is traceable in I Co. It is not alto- getlier easy to combine the situation presupposed in 2 Co 1C^13"> with that in 2 Co 1-9 ; it is quite impossible to identify it with the situation of 1 Co. St. Paul, then, dispatched Titus to cope with new troubles at Corintli, the news of whicli had reached him after the dispatch of 1 Co, and had induced him to abandon an intended visit to Corinth, and to write a painful letter instead. To insert a visit of St. Paul to Corinth in connexion with this crisis ia impossible, while the painful letter, and the aban- donment of the Sevripa x^-P^t ^^e so closely bound up with the visit iv \inrji, that the three must rest on a single basis of/act. If so, the visit {y Xi/irjr was a visit abandoned, not one actually paid. Still less can we find a probable place for a second visit anterior to 1 C^o and connected with a painful crisis not dealt with in that Epistle. Accordingly, as the language of 2 Co is susceptible of a difierent though perhaps less prepossessing explanation, we IL CORINTHIANS XL CORINTIIIAXS 495 remove the intermediate visit from the horizon of either Epistle. 6. (a) A too timple scheme impossible. — We are now in a position to reconetruct tne order of events from the etidence. The simpler such an order, the fewer the events assumed, the better ; but we must not be tempted by this consideration to force the phenomena to combine where they do not naturally do so. Let us begin by trying the combination suggested in art. Corinth, which is in substance that of Bishop Lightfoot {Bibl. Essays, p. 282 ff.). The order of events suggested is — 1. Paul at Corinth (A.D. 51?). 2. Apollos at Corinth (52-53!). S.Paul at Ephesus (53-56). [Here Lightfoot inserts the second visit of Paul to Corinth.] 4. Lost letter of 1 Co 5' ['announcing the plan of 2 Co 1",' Light- foot]. 8. ('Possible, but not proved') Second visit of Paul to Cor. 6. Stephanas, etc., to Ephesus (1 Co 16"- '»). (Letter of the Corinthians.) 8. Dispatch by Titus of I Co [' with the brother, 2 Co 12'»,' Lightf.] ; or 9. Titus sent close after 1 Co. 10. Titus returns to Macedonia (2 Co 7"). n. Titus and the brother (2 Co 12'« or 8'?) sent back, with 2 Co, to Corinth. The schemes of Waite (in Speaker's Comm.) and of Weiss (most recently in die Paul. Brief e, 1896, pp. 9, 10) are in substantial agreement with the above, but Waite inserts the painful letter after 8. The arguments against the view taken below are best put by Holtzmann, Einl.^ p. 254 f. To begin with, we must insert here, before 6, the arrival at Ephesus of ol XXA?;? (1 Co l'"). But more important is the need for further links be- tween 8 and 10. It seems, indeed, needless to distinguish 9 from 8. But between the mission of Titus (possibly as one of the bearers of 1 Co) to begin tne organization (2 Co S- '") of the \oyla, and bis mission (v.) to complete it, i.e. the dispatch of 2 Co, many events, as we have seen, demand room. The iilKT]iwL of 2 Co 2° 7", almost certainly ; a visit of Titus in connexion therewith (2 Co 7'), quite cer- tainly ; and a letter, not corresponding in its char- acter («m/). %i,g) with 1 Co, probably carried by Titus on the same occasion. Titus, then, had returned to Ephesus before that ; and since St. Paul, though he eventually carried out the plan of travel announced 1 Co 16°, yet has to defena himself from the charge of fickleness with respect to his plans, we must find room for his adoption of the plan of two visits to Corinth, for the announcement of this, and for its abaniionment. If the latter coin- cides, as we have shown to be probable, with the painful letter, we have to insert the first change of plan between 8 and the return of Titus to Ephesus. (6) liesullant scheme. — We therefore revise the scheme as follows: 1-8 (as above). 9 or 10. St. Paul determines to pay a double visit to Corinth (Seinipa Xap<j, 2 Co 1"). U. Painful news from Corinth (possibly brought back by Titus) changes this plan ; tne iti/Wpa x"^ given up, the visit — now painful in prospect— abandoned ; and 12. A painfully severe letter sent. 13. Titus at Corinth (2 Co 7''''), with happy results. 14. Titus meets St. Paul in Mace- donia ; and 15. Returns to Corinth with 2 Co. 6. The above seems to be the simplest scheme that permits the insertion of all the events implied in 2 (Jo. (For a comparison of the views of dilFerent critics, see SchmiedeVs Table in Hand- Kommentar, pp. xii, xiii). It remains to consider the interval of tune required between the letters 1 and 2 Co. We have to provide time for Titua mftklnfr one double Journey between Kphesus and Corinlh, a iecond Journey to Corinth, and a return Journey aa far as, nay, Philippi. And, OMiuniing the eorrertnesfl of the view takon above (6 i.b) aa to the connexion of the first journey with tiu- A«yKe, we have BO to place the journeys that, In diHpat^'hitif; Titus for the third time (3 6 : 16), Paul could BDoak of bis first visit (I 6 : 8, 0) as having talcon place Mast year ' (i»« Ti/it/«^,., 2 Co S«- 1" 9^. This latter condition is elastic ; it only implies in strictness that the be^^ning of a new year had intervened ; and the interval between the two letters 18 80 far left open within somewhat wuie limits. The move- ments of Titus, however, require a considerable minimum of time. As 1 Co was likely to reach Corinth before Timothy, who was on his way tlirou^jh Macedonia, it was probably dispatched (8) by sea direct. This was possible at any time after .Mar. 6, when the mar« c/atwi/m properly ended. 'The voya;;e was often accom- plished in three or four days' (Con. and" llowson, ch. xii. p. 449 n. ; for full details see 'Schmiedel in UK xvi. 3a) ; let us allow seven. Titus may, but need not, have returned (11) by Macedonia. This route would require, with rapid travelling, about a month ; let us allow six weeks. Another week will then be claimed by the second journey (r2) to Corinth, and four weeks, let us suppose, for Titus at last to meet St. Paul in Macedonia (14). We thus require almost 12 weeks for the actual jcurne>8 of Titus ; and for hia two visits (8, 13) to Corinth, in default of any statement as to their duration, we should allow about four weeks in all as a miniumm. Accordingly we require 10 weeks for tlie movements of Titus, allowing lum but little repose. But .St. Paul (assuming' the year to be 57) must have reached Corinth by the end of November (Ac '203. 6)^ and this pushes back the dispatch (15) of 2 Co into the month of October. Now the new year, according to the Macedonian calendar, bej^an on Sept. 21, and the civil reckoning of the Jews (1 Tisri) coincided within a few days. St. Paul, therefore, could easily speak of the first mission of Titus (S) as ' last year.' I-Yom the bef/inning of October (which we adopt in order to deal liberally with the time) the 20 weeks carry us back to the midsummer solstice, or over three weeks after Pentecost (May 28). These three weeks then are at our disposal as spare time. To these we add the time between Pentecost and the previous (1 Co 16">) dispatch o( 1 Co (8) ; to this interval we cannot assign a definite value, un- less (following a possible suggestion from 1 Co 6) we place i Co about the paschal season. If so, there is time for Titus to rejoin St. P.aul (11) at Eph., even if he returned through Macedonia; but there is no strong reason to suppose that he aid not return, as he probably went, by sea (supr. § 4, a, cf. 6) There is thus no impcssibility in the view taken by the majority of critics, that 2 Co was written in the autumn of the limtuin year, in the spring of which the apostle had written I Co. The separa- tion of the two Epistles by a longer interval is not, indeed, forbidden by their contents ; but the neces- sity of finding a place here for an evangelization of Illyricum (Godet, Clemen), in order to satisfy Ko 15'", is not so apjinrenl as to claim a voice in the settlement of our question. 1 Co IG' ia prima /a<-ie, evidence that St. Paul's three months at Corinth belong to the winter next following that Epistle ; nor are his changes of plan revealed in 2 Co such as to affect the broad outline. At the same time, the question as to the interval between the two Epistles must be finally decided, if at all, by refer- ence to the general chronology of St. Paul's Epistles (see on 1 Cor. § 6, and art. Chhonolooy of NT) ; always recollecting that the two must, by 2 Co 8'" 9^ 1 Co 16"' (assuming' the integrity of 2 Co 1-9, see below, § 8), fall within two successive calendar years. 7. The purpose of the Epistle follows from the circumstances of its origin. The ell'uct of 1 Co had been, it would seem, good at first. Titus had begun actively the organization of the \oyla (2 Co H' 9-) in a spirit to the purity of which the apostle appeals as a fact above question (the exact force of 2 Co 12" is often overlooked, e.g. by Clemen). Titus had needed encouragement(irape)[ii\f(ra), and St. Paul had given this in the form of a warm recommenda- tion of the Corinthians (7'), which was fully justi- fied only after serious disappointments. Mean- while, api)arently, St. Paul was incurring the dani^er at Ephesus described 1' (cf. Ko l(i[?], Ac 19»S. ^vy]) of which he characteristically first infortns the Corinthians when the worst of the crisis at Corinth is over. St. Paul had formed the plan of visiting Corinth earlier tlian he had intended (§ './). when the return of Titus with bad news of a quite unlooked-for character convinced him that such a visit would be most painful to both sides. Hence the painful letter, again dispatched by Titus, and the reversion to the Simple Plan of 1 Co 16'. This was before the apostle's departure from Eiihesus ; and the period immediately succeed- ing, during which St Paul moved first toTro«s{2"'" 496 IL CORINTHIANS IL CORINTHIANS and then on to Macedonia, anxiously awaiting the return of Titus to put an end to his suspense, is the time of intense mental strain of which our Epistle is the outcome. The relief expressed in 1-7 finds its outlet along with much of the pent-up indignation and self-vindication (10-13) which had been all the while accumulatinir in the apostle's mind. The main purpose of tlie Epistle, then, turns upon the new troubles at Corinth, which ditt'erentiate our Epistle from 1 Co. These have been touched upon above (§ 4, e), but require a little further examination in this connexion. The difference between the new troubles at Corinth and those connected with the Christ-party ' of 1 Co is one of degree, not of Itind. But the difference of de^ee is very great, and is prob- ably due to the arrival of a fresh agitator (lOl" ^a-Zv) or fresh agitators (1012 114) on the scene. Can we identify them with any closeness? The trip liocyyiXiov of ll- links them on to the agitators of Gal 16. At Corinth, this is rather in prospect than actually preached ; but 11'^ siiows that we have to do with Christians of Jewish birth. Were they personal disciples of Christ? (107, cf. 1118 612). This is matter for conjecture rather than proof. The original Twelve seem to be referred to in the twice- recurring phrase u^ipxia. awetrraXot (115 1211); but to suppose that any of the Twelve were personally concerned is out of tile question, St. Paul would not in that case have stigma- tized them as '^ivZoLTcffToXoi, etc. (1113). But did the agitators claim to represent the Twelve, to whose superior authority- they certainly made appeal? In this connexion, the Letters of Intro- duction (31, cf. Ko 161) are of importance. As the i{ i^» of 31 is meant rather to point the contrast with 3^ than to posi- tively describe the ri,:f, we must understand that the claims of the latter were backed hy these letters. These claim." would have lost all their danger and prestige had not the letters come from some well-known names. That the agitators used letters of merely personal commend.ation for purposes bej'ond the scope of such letters is, of course, possible (Gal 212, Ac 151- ^). At any rate St. Paul ignores any real connexion between the agitators and the Twelve. In loyal conformity to his side of the Jeru- salem agreement (Gal 210) he pushes forward the Xoy/ac (cf. 911 18 with Ro 1530'.), in the assurance that his uncompromising warfare against the agitators will in no way compromise his relation with the older apostles. Chapters 8. 9 therefore stand in a close relation to the main purpose of the Epistle. The first (even chapters, with their suggestive passages on the relation ,'»f the Law to the Gospel, their profound glances into the ioctrine of Redemption, also lead up to the same principal purpose {tup. i 3). Whether the ixxi 'UireSi of 11 (cf. 51- lia) refers to a lower view of the Person of Christ, cannot be re- garded as certain. Unquestionably, the question of Christology underlies the question of Law and Grace, of Faith and Works"; but this fundamental issue is felt rather than perceived in the NT as a rule. At any rate it was necessary to throw aside all thoughts of compromise, and to endeavour to stamp out from Corinth a movement which bade fair to result in complete apostasy (11^). Hence the peculiar transition in the i^pistle from thankful reconciliation (1-7) to bitter polemic (10-13), the alternating tones of endearment and rebuke, first the appeal to Ibe higher, then the withering exposure of the lower tendencies at work among the Corinthians. 8. We must now, accordingly, endeavour to reach a result with regard to the Integrity of the Epistle. We have seen that the canonical £pp. to the Cor- inthians are the remains of a correspondence which comprised other letters now lost (§ 4, g), and that liossibly not fewer than three lost letters were ad- dressed by St. Paul to the Corinthians. The tempta- tion to rediscover all or part of these in our extant letters, coupled with undeniable difficulties in their sequence of ideas (cf. § 4, e), has naturally been strong. Clemen (whose Einhcitlkhkeit der Paul. Brief e, 1894, contains the most searching and acute of recent essays in this direction) has redivided our Epistles into live (see 1 CORINTHIANS, § 6), thus providing wliolly or in part for each letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians of which we have any trace whatever. As aftecting 1 Co, his result consists merely in the relegation to the lost letter of 1 Co 5' of certain passages in chs. 3. 7. 9. 14, where the connexion is ditlicult, and of the whole of 15 (except the rejected v."). We venture to think that a little more patience, orexegetical penetration, niiglit have very greatly reduced the compass of these frag- ments. But with regard to 2 Co the difficulties are more serious. They fall into three main heads — (1) The interjected warning (see below, § 9, .(4 2, 6 ;S) 6"-7'. The direct continuity of 6" T is too obvious to be mistaken ; the interjected appeal simply breaks the connexion. Accordingly Clemen, fol- lowing Hilgenfeld and others, refers it to the lost letter of 1 Co 5^, while many other critics (see Heinrici, Das zweite SS. u.a.w. pp. .329-334) agree that it is out of place here. It must be allowed that if this is the case, the insertion was made at a date prior to the first circulation of the Epistle, for textual tradition of any kind is totally silent as to it. Whether this objection is fatal in limine wUl be considered at the close of this section. Waiv- ing it for the present, the question becomes one (a) of exegesis, which on the whole has hitherto failed to find a clear line of connexion \\'ith the context before or after ; and (6) of the general analogy of St. Paul's style, and of this Epistle especially. True, 'there is no literary work in wliich the cross-currents are so violent and so frequent' ; but there is no other ' cross-current' in the Epistle which cuts with so clean an edge as this. On the whole, if we may assume an inter- polation at all witbout textual evidence, this is perhaps dignus vindice nodus. Whether, if out of place here, the section is part of the letter of 1 Co 5', is not so clear ; the injunction of 6" does not fit so exactly with 1 Co 5'° as to preclude all doubt. To reject the passage as un-Pauline (Holsten, etc.) is quite arbitrary. (See the discussions of Whitelaw, (Tliase, and Sanday in Class. Review, 1890, pp. 12, 150, 248, 317, 359; Schmiedel's Exc. in toe.; Clemen, Einh. 58 f.) (2) Chapters 8 and 9. — All allow chapter 8 to remain part of otir (the ' Fifth ') Epistle, but chapter 9 is thrown back to the 'Third.' Tliis divorce, in which Clemen follows Semler and a long series of later critics, is mainly on grounds which are more suitable for discussion in a com- mentary (see Waite in loc). That chs. 8 and 9, especially in view of 9' (yip), are impossible in one and the same letter, is an assumption founded, surely, upon a somewhat narrow view of St. Paul's logic. (Z) The great invective, or ' Vierkapitelbrief.' — The main grounds for relegating this to a difl'erenl Epistle are given above (§ 4, e). If tliey have any validity they make for its identification with the 'Fourth' or Painful Letter (§ 4, g). This is the view of Hausrath ( Vierkapitelbrief, 1870) and of Schmiedel (in Ersch and Gruber, and in Hand- Kmnmentar). The arguments are not easy to meet directly — they are not indeed conclusive ; we know less of the circumstances than did St. Paul's readers (cf. Jiilicher, Einleil. § 7 ; Weizsacker. Apost. Zeitalter, 314-316). The difficulty is that in 1-9 the Corinthi.ans are reconciled, whereas in 10-13 they are still in a state of hostility, or at best of aubious fidelity. That the apostle is addressing a section only of the Corintliians ia against all the eWdence. That after the good news brought by Titus, some worse news again arrived to change the apostle's tone, is unproved and improbable. The opening of chapter 10, auris a (yCi IIoCXos, is of importance as bearing on the question. Assuming that the words mark, not tlie beginning of an interpolated document, but the opening of a new section in the letter, they indicate some change of treatment. Possibly, St. Paul may have sent Timothy (1') away and begun to write, either by his own hand or by a confidential amanuensis, words that had been maturing in his mind (S 7) in the period of suspense before t).'e arriv.al of Titus, and which not even the good news brought by Titus could jiersuade liim to leave unwritten. If this view be correct, we can, with Weizsacker and others, regard these chapters as the final assault, prepared for in the whole previous course of the letter, which is decisively to secure for the apostle the allegiance of the Corinthians, and to dnve the interlopers (11), who bad gained IL C0KINTHIAN8 II. CORINTHIANS 497 a partial hold over them, headlong from the field. The Corinthians are already won 'in part' (I"), but a leaven of dialoyalty exists among them, and the success reported "by Titus must be followed up to be lasting, and the disloyal leaven ellectually stamped out. Add to this that the identilication of these chapters with the Painful Letter (§ 4, g) would seem to demand that they should refer to the {ex hypothesi) still unsettled case of the Offender (chs. 2. 7). But no such reference can be traced ; the argument for separating 10-13 from the rest of the Epistle thus loses a very strong positive factor. On the whole, then, as regards internal evidence, we may say that the case for separation is not proved ; but it would be going too far to say that it is absolutely disproved. Whether this is so or not must depend on the weight to be attached to the entire lack of external evidence. Can we suppose that interpolations o serious as to amount (if we accept all the three hypotheses discussed above) to the formation of an entire Epistle out of heterogeneous fragments — or even the interpolation of any one of the passages in question — can have taken place without leaving so much as a ripple upon the stream of textual tradition ? Certainly, there exist • primitive corruptions ' of the NT text, i.e. changes which occurred so early that the original text has left no documentary traces of itself. But these are small in number and in scale. ' We cannot too strongly express our disbelief in the existence of undetected interpolations of any moment ' (Westcott and Hort). The strongest internal evidence might conceivably modify this in an exceptional case ; only our witnesses to the text push its history back BO very early as to leave very scanty room for the occurrence of such interpolations. But the literary relations of the sjmoptic Gospels furnish an analogy which warns us against too summary a rejection of any such hypothesis in this case. The ijuestion is whether the Second Epistle to the Corinthians pas.sed into general circulation as soon as the first. The latter, formally appealed to within forty years of its origin, was circulated too early to permit us to a.ssumo interpolations in it on any large scale nnreflected in the textual tradition. But Clement appears to know nothing of 2 Co, and ita com- paratively late appearance in the stream of attesta- tion (see above, § 1) b perhaps compatible with some process of editing on the part of the Cor- inthian Church before it was copied for public reading and imparted to other Cliurches. This would De easier to suppose, if the autographs were written on leaves or tablets rather than on rolls. (See Sir E. M. Thompson, Handbook of Paleo- graphy, pp. 20 ff., 54-61.) We do not therefore regard the absence of textual evidence in this particular case as absolutely fatal in limine to the nypotheses we have been considering ; but it must be allowed to weigh heavily against them ; and we believe that a patient and circumspect exegesis will gradually dissolve the arguments, at first sight very tempting, for the segregation of chs. 10-13, and even perhaps of 6"-7'. 9. Contmtt of the BpiitU.—Tbt nature of the Lett«r (i| S, 7) mokes it far U-.-iM readilj divisible into well-marked sections than the flrst Epistle. The onler of Ideo^ is emotional rather than lo^cal ; a subject U not taken up, dealt with, and disposed of, but, like some strain In a piece of inipajisioned music, occurs, is lost )q a maze of crowding harmonies, and recurs attain and again. This is es]>eciaily the cose in chs. 10-13. But certain broad lines of division may he reco(;:nii'.ed, and we snail exhibit these, with- out piirauinK the analysis into it« subtler mibdivisions. 4. Anhwbe to To! wbu'omb TintNos or Trrus <l-7). 1. Kputotary Introduction (1' i'). S. Bbtiew op ebcknt Rrlationb wrru rm CoaiNrniAKB Twith ref^rtJ to his promised 1 WS^f.v^ndi«,,ioni ^ili'''^^ to th. c. of W"-^ [ the Offender } () Ttu trrat Digrfiuim (2'-7''). •. Apoatleshlp(^>t-<i<°) vol.. I. — 32 MM. The oHlce of an apostle (21M»). (St. Paul's self-vin(lio.ation (21-3<). The ».>LD MiNIBTRV A.VD THK NKW (3ft-18). StU-vindicatiou completed (4 6).] fi$. The Buflerinj.'S of an apostle (4'-5'l'). (In relation to the work of an apostle (4'-I»). In relation to the Hora op KBaifRRECTlON (41-68), In relation to life, death, and jud^^ment (6^10X1 rf. The life Of an ai<o«tle (Wi-eiH). (Its motive (6" »). Its basis in tub RBDKiKm and Ha Wobi (61<-8>X Its credentials (63-10).) 0^ Appeal of the reconciled apostle to his readers (6^1-7). [Interjected appeal airainst heathenish defllements (Bli-71).l (c) Tht Tfconciliation cmnpleted (7-l«). «. Arrival of Titus f"»6). /8. The Offender and the Painful Latt«p(7-U). y. The joy of Titus (Is-H). B. ThB COLIBCTIO.N POB TUB SaINTS (8. »). (a) The example of Macedonia (»! I). (6) The example of Christ, and th« oaw mlBBlon of Titos ud the brethren (S*-!)^). (c) Exhortation to liberality (9«-i»). C. ThB ORBAT l:fTECTIVB (101-13"'). 1. St. Paul and hit opponents (10^-1219). (a) Self.vindication of St. Paul as an apostle (lO^-U), {b) St. Paul and the area of his mission (lO^^l^ (c) Reply to opponent (10l-12l8). «. The question of personal loyalty (ll-), /S. The question of maintenance (ll'ls). ». The apostolic ««i;xi«-i( (n'-12'»). I. Completion ot the kirtkryjcL (12'iH). £. Wamingt in view of hit coming visit (121>-181'X D. FniAL SALtrrATiONS ahd BBKBSicnoif (isii H). 10. Importance of the Epistle.— The Epistle is far less various in its contents than 1 Co, and throws correspondingly less direct light on the theology of St. Paul and on the life of the apostolic Church. All the more important is its contribution to our personal knowledge of St. Paul. The most important biographical material is supplied in ll^-". Some of the details (v.^) are not easy to tit into the othersvise known life of the apostle ; hut this is only what one would expect from a genuine source. The notice of Aretas i? exceptionally important for chronological reasons. Whether the same can be said of 12" (.see Clemen's view, referred to in 1 Corinthians, § 6) may be doubted. The attempts to identify the vision with any point of contact in Ac have been various and precarious. The apostle's KaOxvi^ (1 Co 9'"'-), of taking no sustenance from the Corinthians, is more fully elucidated 2 Co 11'" 12'-"'. Of a more personal kind are the notices of the apostle's miracles 12'" ; of the much-debated o-itiXo^ ry trapxl (12') (see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 18311'. ; Lias, p. xxiv ; liamsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp. pp. 62-66 ; St. Paul', p. 94 f^), and the references to St. Paul's comparative inferiority aa a speaker (II' 10'°) and lack of commanding presence (Plunimer in DB, p. 658; Kanisay, CPE\ p. 30 f.). But the interest of such details is far transcended by the Epistle's revelation of the writer's personality. To draw out this in detail is superfluous ; let it suffice to say that to this Epistle, more than to any other, we owe our knowledge of the true ' pectus Pauli- num,'— our intimacy with the apostle's inmo.st self. From this iK)int of view it takes its jilace side by side with 1 Co aa the most pastoral of all Epistles. ' What an admirable Epistle is the second to the Corinthians I how full of afl'ections I he joys and he is sorry, he grieves and he glories ; never was there such care of a flock expressed, save in the great Shepherd of the Fold, \\)\o first shed tears over JeruKalcm, and afterwards blood ' (George Herbert ; cf. Lightfoot, Gnliitians, pp. 44, 51). The doctrinal interest of the Epistle must be very briefly inilicated. The eschatoiogy of 4"- .'j" is difficult, and involves at any rate a less con- fident expectation of living until the return of Christ than is expressed 1 Co 15" (for a very a<:curate exegesis of the passage see Waite in loc.). The contrast of the spirit and letter (3'"'") leads to the difficult passage 3"- ", apparently 498 IL CORINTHIANS CORN identifying the ' I«rd ' with the ' Spirit,' a thought with a long sequel in the history of theology (see Gebhardt ^uid Hamack on Ilerm. Sim. v. 2 ; Swete in Diet. Chr. Biog. iii. 1 15'; Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. I. ii. 5, II. ii. 3 ; Harnack, Dogmengesch.^ 494 n.; Athan. de Syn. 27 [Anath. 21]) ; and so to the Christology of St. Paul, which receives striking sideliglits from the Epistle. The glory of the exalted Christ is the dominant thought of S'^-i", a glory which shines ujjon ind transforms (Ac ^'■) the Christian, con- stituting in the life of grace a foretaste of the life of glory (v.'8, see Ro 6»-" 8"«- -'» etc.). The doctrine of renovation (5") and of the Christian life (4'"") thus rests upon the agency of a living Christ as the sustaining force ; but there is presupposed, as the fountainhead of union with Christ, forgive- ness of sin (3'), founded on the reconciling work of the Sinless (5"') Christ (S"-""). The last-men- tioned passage is a most important contribution to St Paul's soteriology. In 8 the thought of Ph 2»ff- is anticipated. The concluding verse of the Epistle is not a doctrinal annoxmcement of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but may fairly be combined with other passages in which tnat doctrine is implicit. We do not directly know the effect this Epistle produced at Corinth ; but from the fact that St. Paul's promised visit was carried out, and that our two Epistles were treasured up at Corinth and thence eventually found their way into the Church's canon, we infer that the Epistle produced the effect of which such a letter was worthy. 11. Apocryphal CoKRESPONDENCE OF St. Paul AND THE Corinthians.— A letter of the Corinthian Church to St. Paul, and a reply by the apostle, formed part of the NT of the Syrian Church in the time of Aphraates and Ephraim. From the Syrian Church the letters passed over into the Armenian, which retained them to a late date (they are still quoted by a writer of the 7th cent.). The Cor- inthians ask St. Paul to condemn certain false ♦/eaehers who have appeared amon" them, and the apostle duly replies. Ephraim, in Tiis oonimentary on St. Paul (given in Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. K. ii. 695 ff.), already noticed that the false doctrine is that taught by the school of Bardesanes, who lived from A.D. 155 to 223. The letters are accordingly in all probability a product of the 3rd cent., and directed against the school in question. They were first made kno^vn in Europe by Usher, 1644, (Sylloge Annotat. p. 29), from an imperfect Arm. MS; then in 1736 Whiston nublished a Gr. and Lat. transl. from a complete MS. The Arm. text was printed by Zohrab in 1805. The commentary of Ephraim on St. Paul (where our Epp. follow 2 Co) was printed from an Arm. MS of A. D. 999 at Venice in 1836. At last, in 1890, Berger discovered at Milan a Latin MS of the Bible ('saec. x. ut videtur ') containiug our two Epp. (after He), and a second Lat. MS (saec. xiii.) has been discovered at Laon by Bratke, where the Epp. come after the Apoc. and Cath. Epp. The text of the Milan MS is given in ThL, 1892, p. 7 ff., that of the Laon MS in the same volume, p. 586 ff. The existence in a \,atin version of letters known only to Syrian and Aimenian tradition, and which have left no trace in (Jreek Christian literature, is not as yet explained. See Hamack, Gesch. d. altchrist. Lit. i. 37 ft'. ; CarriJ^re et Berger, Correap. Apocr. de S. P. et des Corinthiens, 1891 ; V'jtter, D. apokr. 3 Korinthcr- Ar»«/(Tub.), 1894 ; also in Th. Quartahchrift (1895) iv. ; Zahn (uhi sup , maintains that the correspond- ence comes from the lost Acta Pauli), PRE' xi. 378 ; Jiilicher in ThL. 1889, p. 164. LlTERATrRB. — For works on both Epistlea see previous articif. On ! Co oiilv, Emmerling (Comnicntarv), 1823 ; Fritzs.he, lie locU nmmuUit, 182< ; Burger, 1800; Klbpper, Untersuchtiiujen, 1869, Kommmtar, 1874 (important); Waite (in Spmki-r't Comm.y 1881 (excellent); Denney (in Expositor t Bible), lsS4 ; Uaco, BntitehMtg d. t Kor.-bri^a. ISM ; Dr«scber in SK (1897) pp. 43-111. Other work! sa quoted to the body of the abon "t'cie- A. Robertson. CORMORANT is the rendering of AV for two Heb. words, nxij Jcd'ath (see PELICAN), and njij* shdldk, KarapdKTr]!, mergulus. ShAldk occurs only in the list of unclean birds (Lv 11", Dt 14"), with no context to assist in determining its meaning except its association with kd'ath. From its etymology it should be a plunging bird. The difficulty of identifying it is enhanced by the uncertainty of the meaning of the LXX rendering KarapdKTtis, which is also a plunging bird. Tristram is inclined to the render- ing of AV, which is also that of RV, saying that the cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, is common along the coast, coming up the Kishon, and visit- ing the Sea of Galilee. It is likewise abundant along the Jordan. G. E. Post.