d. This truth common to all the apostles (11). B. IF CHRIST 18 RISEN, THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISK (12-34). a. To deny the consequent overthrows the antecedent (12-19). (1) The denial of a resurrection of the dead by 'some among you' (12). (2) What this denial involves : (a) The falsification of apostolic preaching and of Christian faith (13-17a). (b) The destruction of Christian hope (17b-19). B. The resurrection of Christ carries with it that of those who are Christ's (20-29). (1) Christ leads the way in resurrection as Adam did in death (20-22). (2) The resurrection in relation to the consummation of Christ's mediatorial reign (23-28). (a) The order. 2. Return of Christ and resurrection of His people. 3. The end, or re-delivery of the kingdom to God (23, 24a). (b) Before the end must come the subjugation of all powers, all enemies to Christ, and, last of all, that of death (24-26). (e) The end itself, and subjection of the Son to the Father (27. 28). 7. Subsidiary arguments: (a) Baptism for the dead (29). (b) The motive of the Christian life (30-34). C. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: THE BODY OF THE RISEN (35-55). a. One kind of body is sown, another is raised up (35-44). (1) The seed differs from the fruit (35-38). (2) Flesh differs from flesh, heavenly bodies from earthly (39-42). (3) The spiritual body differs from the natural as the B. The change from the one to the other, at the coming of Christ, will destroy the strength and sting of death (50-55). y. Epilogue: (1) Sin and the law (56). second Adam from the first (43-49). (2) Our victory in Christ (57) (3) Result (58) VII. EPISTOLARY CONCLUSION (16). A. Directions for the xoyla (1-4). B. Personal plans of the apostle (5.9). C. Personal notices (10-18). a. The mission of Timothy (10. 11). S. Apollos (12). A closing exhortation interjected (13. 14), (1) His household (15, 16). (2) His mission to Ephesus (17. 18). D. Conclusion of the Epistle. a. Salutations (19-21). B. Anathema against false brethren (22). 10. IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE.-The above synopsis is enough to show the richness and diversity of the light thrown by our letter upon the spirit and circumstances of the apostolic age. In its fulness of light and shadow it vividly reproduces the life of a typical Gentile-Christian community, seething with the beginnings of that agelong warfare of the highest and lowest in man, which constitutes the history of the Church of Christ from the time when His fire was kindled on the earth down to this day. To do justice to the manifold lessons of the Epistle would require a commentary; but without trespassing beyond the limits of this article, a few salient points may be noted. Pastoral character.-The two Epistles to the Corinthians are the most pastoral of the Epistles. For details of pastoral work and organization, indeed, we go to the letters to Timothy and Titus. But for the deep-seated principles, for the essential relations between pastor and people, for the conception of the apostolic office, and the nature of apostolic authority, these Epp. are our primary source. The questions touched upon in our Ep. furnish a fair sample of the difficulties of Church government; and as each is taken up in turn some deeplying principle springs naturally to the apostle's lips, and is brought to bear with all its power upon the matter in hand. The letter is unique as an object-lesson in the bishopric of souls. 11. Doctrinal importance.—It is impossible within our limits to do more than glance at the main points of interest. (a) The Epistle bears fewer traces than 2 Co of the great controversy of the period to which it belongs. The only express reference to the subject is 1556 the strength of sin is the law' (cf. Ro 77-5). But the foundation-stone of his preaching in Corinth, 'Jesus Christ, and that crucified' (22 31.11), is the root of the apostle's whole mind and thought on the subject. (b) The doctrine of the Person of Christ, indissolubly correlated with that of His work, is touched upon 8, where the di' où тà Távra anticipates Col 15. The redelivery of the kingdom (154) by the glorified Christ, and His final 'subjection' to His Father, is a thought not elsewhere brought out (but see 1 Co 323 86, Ro 1135). With regard to the pre-existence and human nature of Christ, the passage 1545-18 is of great importance, and has given rise, from Baur onwards, to startling interpretations (Pfleiderer, Paulinism, Eng. tr. i. 139 ff. ; Schmiedel in loc.). (c) The Holy Spirit (210. and 12) is the vehicle of all true enlightenment and receptivity to revealed truth (2. 15), and of all the xapioμara which enable Christians to live their corporate life. The language of 12" involves the personality of the Spirit (see further the art. on 2 CORINTHIANS, § 7). The Spirit is assumed to be the active power in baptism, and to be present in ideally rather than actually true of all (31ff.). all baptized persons (1213 6); though this is (d) With regard to the sacraments, baptism and its significance are touched upon in the passages just mentioned. It was administered in the name of Christ (13, cf. Ac 195). An enig matical practice of baptizing for the dead' is referred to (1529); the context (vrèp aur@v) forbids us to regard this as merely an aspect of ordinary baptism. On the doctrine of the Eucharist a sidelight is thrown in 1015-17. The reference is introduced to illustrate the principle that to eat the sacrifice is to take part in the sacrificial act. The sacrifice here is that of the cross, offered by Christ; the Eucharist has a sacrificial character analogous to that of the Jewish or heathen sacrificial meal, and like them has the effect of establishing a communion between the worshipper and his God. The reference involves the belief on St. Paul's part that the body of Christ is eaten (cf. 117. 29). In what sense this is so, St. Paul does not define. (e) With reference to the resurrection (see above, $8), that of Christ is the premise of St. Paul's argument in 151-4. In vv.3 we have the germ of a creed. In vv. 5-7 we have the earliest record of the post-resurrection appearances of the Lord; v.6 is of special importance. That He rose with a oua TVEUMATIKOV is implied in v.ff. The whole argument is addressed, not to the general resurrection of all men, but to that of oi Xporoû, the KEKOLunuévo, whose rising again is the effect of their being quickened in Christ. From other places we know that St. Paul taught a future life and judg ment for all, good and bad alike; but (except in the hypothetical anúλovтo of v.1) this chapter has no word applicable to the latter. (f) Eschatology in general the Ep. touches upon 726. 29 1551, whence we see that the apostle still expected the early return of Christ, and especially in 153-28 (see analysis, § 9). In this latter passage the coming of Christ appears as the last and final act of His reign, immediately ushering in the end. At His coming Christ will, by raising His dead to incorruption, destroy death (v.), and thus complete the subjugation of all inimical powers (26). Then all is ready for the redelivery of the kingdom, that God may be all in all. This seems incompatible with the millennial reign after the resurrection of the just, which some commentators (Godet, etc.) would read into our passage from the Apocalypse. 12. The Christian life. The whole Ep. is an inexhaustible mine of Christian thought and life.' Nowhere else in the NT is there a more many-sided embodiment of the imperishable principles and begun by St. Paul at Corinth, were therefore prob. instincts which should inspire each member of the ably prophets and teachers'; but the Ep. makes body of Christ for all time. With regard to little reference to them (perhaps 1616, cf. 1 Th 512.). personal life, it may be noted that the ascetic Public worship is the subject of a long section of instinct which has ever asserted itself in the the Epistle (see analysis, § 9). At some èккλŋσiai, Christian Church finds its first utterance in 7 (1. 25. idi@rai (possibly unbaptized persons) might be 40 BEλW, Voμišw ÖTɩ kάλov, etc.); but coupled with a present (1416. 23); this would not be at the Kupιakov solemn and lofty insistence (oỷк éyì áììà ỏ Kúρios) | deîπvov. The 'Amen' is in use as the response to on the obligations of married life, and founded on prayer or praise (1416). The discussion 112. would the simple ground of the higher expediency. This suggest that women might, under certain conlatter principle (Tò σvμpépov) is the keynote of the ditions, pray or prophesy in public; but 14 shows ethics of the Epistle. The whole content of life is that the apostle was merely holding in reserve a to the Christian but means to a supreme end; free total prohibition, at any rate as regards speaking in his sole responsibility to God (31 215 103), the ev KкAnoia. Otherwise, the liberty of prophesying spiritual man limits his own freedom (612 919) for belonged to all; the utterances were to be tested the building up of others and the discipline of (1429), but the test was simply the character of the self (924-27). The corporate life of the Church is utterance (121). Prayer or praise év yλwoon (see reflected in our Epistle as nowhere else in NT (see TONGUES) was a marked feature of public worship, Weizsäcker, Ap. Zeit. pp. 567-605, Eng. tr. ii. 246 ff., but St. Paul insists on its inferiority to prophecy. for a careful and interesting discussion, mainly on Sunday is mentioned as a day for setting apart the data of our Epistle). We note especially the alms (162), and was therefore probably a day for development of discipline, of organization, and of common worship; but this is not expressly stated. worship. With regard to discipline, the leading To come together for common worship constituted passage is 51, where are described, not indeed an ékkλnoia (1118). It is possible that assemblies the actual proceedings against the immoral person, for prophecy and teaching (146) were distinct from but those which might and ought to have been those held els rò payeîv (11). This was the case carried out. St. Paul sees the Corinthian Church apparently in Pliny's time (see Weizsäcker, Apost. assemble; he himself is with them in spirit; the Zeitalter, p. 568 f.). The purpose of the latter power of the Lord Jesus is in their midst. In assembly was to break the bread and bless the the name of the Lord Jesus they expel the offender, cup of the Lord. In 1117-34 we have the locus 'deliver him to Satan for the destruction of his classicus for the Eucharist of the apostolic age. flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of Two views may be referred to which appear to be the Lord.' We have here the beginning of ecclesi- erroneous. One, represented, for example, by Beet astical censures, inflicted by the community as a in his commentary on the passage, is founded on whole, and it is not surprising in the apostolic the abuse censured in v. (cf.), that each one age (1 Co 11, Ac 51.) to find physical suffering taketh before other his own supper,' thereby associated with the spiritual penalty. Such an destroying the character of the meal as a 'Lord's assembly as St. Paul here pictures could, à fortiori, Supper.' If, it is argued, previous consecration of dispose of such matters of personal rights as should the bread and wine by the poeσrús, and reception arise (61.2.5 512). The organization of the Cor. at his hands, had been an essential of the Eucharist Church is evidently in a very early stage. We hear then, as we find it to be in the age of Justin of no bishop, presbyter, or deacon (contrast Ph 11), but (Apol. i. § 65), the abuse in question could not of prophets and teachers, as the ranks immediately have occurred; and St. Paul's remedy would have following the apostles. This is in remarkable con- been wait for the consecration,' not wait for each formity with what we hear of at Antioch (Ac 13'), other' (v.). This argument assumes, firstly, a and its correspondence with the lists given in other departure from the procedure of Christ in institutEpistles is too close to be accidental. The following the sacrament, which is quite incredible. That ing list compares the data of 128 with those of in carrying out His command, TOUTO TOLITE, the Ro 128, Eph 411:apostolic Churches omitted precisely the actions which accompanied His words, and that the presence of those actions in Justin's Eucharist is due to a reversion, not to continuous repetition, is improbable to the last degree. The argument is really due to a second erroneous assumption that 'the Lord's Supper' in v.20 I can be no other than the bread and the cup of the Lord in v.. This assumption is a reaction from the anachronism of introducing the Agape of later times to explain the passage. The 'Lord's Supper' is not the Eucharist proper, still less the Agape, but the entire re- 1 enactment of the Last Supper, with the eucharistic acts occurring in the course of it, as they do in the paschal meal of the synoptic Gospels. The name Lord's Supper' is not elsewhere used in the NT, but in the Church the Lord's Supper' was neither the earliest nor the commonest name for the Eucharist; it primarily, though not exclusively, meant the annual re-enactment of the Last Supper, which survived after the Agape had first been separated from the Eucharist, and then had gradually dropped out of use (see Smith's Dict. Christ. Antiq. s.v. 'Lord's Supper'). In any case, then, the 'Lord's Supper' at Corinth would be already in progress when the bread and cup were blessed; St. Paul's censure and remedy (vv..) 1. ἀπόστολοι (Co, Eph). 2. προφήται (Co, Eph, -εία Ro ποιμένες (Εph) dizzovia (RO)]. & didionaño (Co, Eph, - Ro) δυνάμεις, ἰάματα (Eph)) γένη γλωσσῶν (Co). These lists are evidently not to be regarded as statistical, and their variations are clearly due to the unstudied spontaneity with which each enumeration is made. All the more significant, then, is it that 'prophets' everywhere take rank next after the apostles, while teachers,' who stand high in all these lists, are the only other class common to all. In our Epistle these three classes alone are expressly assigned an order, 'first, second,' 'third.' To interpret these facts would take us beyond our limits, but it is worth noting that the prophetic gift is not strictly limited to a class, but potentially belongs to all (1480-52). That administrative gifts (Kußepvýσeis) come so low, perhaps implies that they are still voluntary (cf. the pooтáμevos of Ro). To organize the Moyia (161) the presence of Titus was required (2 Co 8). The ἐποικοδομούντες oι παιδαγωγοί of 310 415, who, like Apollos (3), carried on the work The name Agape is occasionally used for the Eucharist itself, but more properly for the meal from which the Eucharist has been entirely separated (Dict. Christ. Ant. s.v. "Agape"). are entirely compatible with the closest adherence to the procedure of the Last Supper. Who presided, we do not know, but it may be taken as certain that someone did. In v. we see the first impulse toward the separation of the Eucharist proper from the common meal in which it was embedded (see Weizsäcker, p. 601). St. Paul's account of the words of institution has probably crept into the text of St. Luke's account of the Last Supper (see Hort's critical note). But it has recently been argued by Percy Gardner (The Origin of the Lord's Supper, 1893) that a revelation to St. Paul at Corinth (so he very questionably understands 11) may have been the sole source of the institution of the Eucharist; and it is suggested further, that this revelation was largely coloured by the neighbouring mysteries of Eleusis. The tradition of the institution in the first two Gospels is enough to refute this view. That they have derived it from Pauline influence is not to be believed for a moment; nor, in view of its thoroughly Palestinian and Jewish antecedents, can great weight be assigned to the fact that they do not expressly record a command to repeat the ordinance (cf. Bickell, Messe und Pascha; Anrich, Antike Mysterienwesen, p. 127). We note the stress laid by the apostle on previous preparation (1128). The solemnity of the rite in St. Paul's eyes can hardly be exaggerated. 12. LITERATURE. (For complete commentaries on the NT see NEW TESTAMENT; for commentaries on the Epp. of St. Paul generally, and Introductions to them, see PAUL, ROMANS; for grammatical works, see LANGUAGE OF THE NT.) A very complete list of works on the Epp. to the Cor. will be found in Meyer's Commentary (Eng. tr.), also in Plummer's articles on Corinthians in Smith DB2, see also Wald. Schmidt in PRE2 xi. 369 ff., 378; Reuss, Gesch. der H. Schriften NT, § 88 ff. In a select bibliography we must be content with mentioning a few books of special importance without implying in any way that those omitted are without (often great) value. (a) On both Epistles: The historical situation has been specially discussed (among others) by Bleek, SK 1830; Baur, Tüb. Z. 1831 (important for the xiuxta), Paulus, pp. 287-343; Räbiger (see above, § 7); Schenkel, De eccl. Cor. factionibus turbata, 1838; Beyschlag, De eccl. Cor. factione Christiana, 1861, and in SK, 1865, 1871; Hilgenfeld in his ZWTh. 1865, 1866, 1871, 1872; Heinrici, das erste SS. des Ap. P. an die Kor. 1880, and in his edd. of Meyer (see below); Klopper (see next article); Krenkel, Beitrage z. Aufhellung d. Gesch. u. d. Briefe des P. 1890; Eylau, Zur Chron. d. P. Briefe, 1873; Hagge in J. prot. Th. 1876; Weizsäcker (as cited above and) in J. Th. 1876; Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, pp. 89-117, 1887; Hausrath, Paulus2, 1865 (see also his Hist. of N.T. Times, Eng. tr. 1895); Lisco, Paulus Antipaulinus (a very novel theory on 1 Co 1-4), 1894; Ekedal, Inter Paul. et Corr, que intercesserint rationes usq. ad (1 Cor) (London), 1887; Godet, Introd. (Edin.) 1894; Clemen (see above, 6), and Schmiedel in Hand-Kommentar, 1891, 21892, the most searching and accurate digest of the many complicated ques tions involved; Zahn, Einleit, in d. NT, i. 195 ff. Of commentaries on both Epp. the homilies of Chrysostom 'have ever been considered by devout men as among the most perfect specimens of his mind and teaching' (see Nicene and P. N. Library, series i. vol. xii.); they were delivered at Antioch, i.e. before 398; 44 are on 1 Co, 30 on 2 Co. On the commentaries of Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius, Ambrosiaster,' Pelagius, Thomas Aquinas, the reader may be referred to the remarks in Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. xcix ff. 'Postils' of Nic, de Lyra (first in 1471-1472) mark a revival of exegetical insight upon some points in our Epp. Melanchthon wrote on both Epp., but 2 Co was not finished. Of more modern writers, Locke's Paraphrase and Essay on St. Paul (1705-1707) The dealt with 1 and 2 Co. For lists of 17th and 18th cent. commentators, see the references given above. The list of strictly modern commentaries opens with Pott, 1826; Billroth, 1853; Rückert, 18:36. Olshausen, de Wette, Meyer dealt with the Epistles in their general works on the NT. Meyer remains the nearest approach to a standard commentary; his latest edd. have been revised by Heinrici, who had previously published a commentary of his own. Osiander, 1847-1858; Neander, 1859; Kling in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1861; Maier (Rom. Cath.), 1857-1865; Schnedermann (in Strack-Zockler), 1887; Schmiedel (see above). On both Epistles, in English, the best modern works are those of Hodge (New York), 1857-1860; F. W. Robertson (lectures); Stanley, 1876; J. A. Beet, 31885; Kay, 1887 (scholarly but slight, posthumous); Lias (in Camb. Greek Test.), 1886-1892. We may add T. K. Abbott, Short Notes on St. Paul's Epp. 1892. Several excellent commentaries exist on 1 Co only. Dean Colet's (ed. by Lupton), 1874; Heydenreich, 1825-1828; Holsten (in Das Erang des Paulus), 1880; T. C. Edwards, 1885 (very valuable); Ellicott, 1887 (possibly the most thorough English commentary); Evans (in Speaker's Comm.), 1881 (unsurpassed insight in many passages); Godet, 1887 (excellent); Bois, Adversaria Critica, 1887; Milligan, The Resurrection of the Dead (on 1 Co 15), 1894; Lightfoot's Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, 1895, contain notes on 1 Co 1-7. References to Field's Otium Norvicense, to articles in the Expositor, etc., are given by Plummer in DB2, 8.0. 1and 2 Co; the articles give interesting and valuable details as to style, coincidences with Acts, etc. The art. Paulus in PRE by W. Schmidt, contains some useful references; that in Ersch and Gruber (1886) is by Schmiedel, and represents his earlier views on both Epistles. A. ROBERTSON. CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE. 1. External Tradition. 2. Transmission of the Text. 3. Internal Evidence and Genuineness. 4. Elements of the Historical Situation. (a) Timothy, (b) Titus and the oyia, (c) the troubles at Corinth, (d) the Offender, (e) the Judaizers, (f) St. Paul's plans of travel, (g) letters of St. Paul, (h) visits of St. Paul to Corinth, (i) summary. 5. The Situation reconstructed. 6. Chronological Relation of 1 and 2 Co. 7. Purpose of the Epistle. 8. Integrity of the Epistle. 9. Contents and Analysis. 10. Importance of the Epistle. 11. Apocryphal Correspondence of St. Paul and the Corinthians. 12. Select Bibliography. 1. The traces of this Epistle in the post-apostolic age are as slight as those of the first Epistle are exceptionally strong. Clement of Rome does not quote it. Where the Epistle would have furnished 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, ὁ δὲ ἐγείρας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐγερεί), and ap. parently 8" (ad Phil. vi. 1, comparing Pr 3). The letter to Diognetus v.8 shows a knowledge of 2 Co 68-10 103. The reference of Athenagoras (de Resurr. 18) to v. 10 is fairly clear; two references, at least in Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 2, iii. 4), to 71 1119 are quite distinct. The Presbyters quoted by Irenaeus (V. v. 1) refer to 12. Moreover, the Epistle was in the canon of Marcion, and appears to have been used by the Sethites, (ap. Hippol. Philos. v. iii. 19, p. 216, Cruice) and by the Ophites, who quoted 2 Co 1224 (ib. p. 166). The above references fairly cover the period prior to the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, all of which authorities bear full witness to the Epistle. The utmost we can say is that there is no evidence that our Ep. This would hardly hold good if we were to follow was absent from any list of writings of St. Paul. Zahn (Kanon, 2. 833 f.) in his view that a definitive collection of Pauline Epp. had been compiled before the date of Clemens Romanus. 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 413 (-vov ÉπíσTEVσα) -127 kai T.; C lacks all from 108; it is contained entire in FGKL; H contains 42-7, 108-12. 18 116. 12-122, the first fragment at St. Petersburg, the rest at Mt. Athos; I contains no part of our Epistle; M contains the first fifteen verses of chapter 1, and 10-125 (Brit. Mus.); O has 120-212; P lacks only 21-16; Q has no part of the Ep.; R has 119-19. For the old Latin, r lacks 211316 52-79 813-99 1122-1213 13118. 3. Although inferior in its external attestation to the first Epistle, the internal character of 2 Co removes it far above any suspicion as to its 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 its individuality of style, intensity of feeling, inimitable expression of the writer's idiosyncrasy, it may be said to stand at the head of all the Pauline Epistles, Galatians not excepted. Moreover, ita : historical references are so unstudied, so manifold, so intricate, that difficult as it is to reconstruct with any certainty the historical 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 Epistles 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 community is viewed in the light of the apostolic office as such, and this in turn in that of the distinctive character of the gospel the profoundest conceptions of grace, reconciliation, consummation, thus enter into the very fibre of clis. 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 there is not the smallest matter mentioned in the letter which does not carry us back to the highest and most ultimate laws; the mere organization of the Moyía 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 heaviness, 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 changeableness, nor any contradiction. The circumstances dictate and justify it all, and he is master of it all, the same throughout, and always his whole self. An extraordinary susceptibility of feeling and impression, such as only an extraordinary character can hold in control' (Weizsäcker, Apost. Ztiter, p. 328; ef. 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 with 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 'trackless forest.' The problem is especially tantalizing, because the abundance of material at once stimulates and mocks the attempt at a complete combination. 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 reconciliations, are to be traced or assumed? depends for its solution on our success or failure in unravelling several distinct threads. Such are the movements of Timothy, the movements of Titus, the history of the Xoyia (1 Co 16') at Corinth, the sequel of the case of the offender of 1 Co 51., the progress of party spirit and of opposition to St. Paul at Corinth, and, lastly, 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 Timothy left St. Paul at Ephesus for Macedonia, probably not long before the dispatch of 1 Co. He was to reach Corinth eventually (1 Co 417), though St. Paul implies some doubt (éàv čλ0, 161o) 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 (1612). His return from Corinth would in that case be by sea direct. The expression of Luke (Ac 192 els The Max. only) is, however, easily understood if he failed to reach Corinth. Lightfoot (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. Certainty 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 417) 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 417) 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 that the mission had in some way miscarried' (Waite); but that Timothy had failed painfully at Corinth is hardly to be assumed (as by Jülicher, Einl. p. 61) without more proof than we possess. Anyhow, Timothy was with St. Paul when he wrote 2 Co. They may have met either at Ephesus or in Macedonia. (b) Of Titus (Gal 23) we do not hear by name in 1 Co. From 2 Co we learn that he was the bearer of our letter (86. 16-24), accompanied by two unnamed brethren, one of whom, whose praise is in the Gospel,' may or may not have been Luke. From 2 Co 1218 we see that Titus had been to Corinth before, as we should also gather from 85 Kaos pоevýpaтo. This also follows independently from 76. 13 213. 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 1218). We will come back to Titus after briefly considering the history of the λoyía at Corinth. The directions given 1 Co 161-4 were possibly in answer to some inquiry on the part of the Corinthians (supra, 1 COR. § 7). They had offered (2 Co 95 #pоeyeλμény) to contribute, and, acc. to 8, Titus had assisted in the preliminary organization of their efforts (810, cf. v.6 πроεvýρžαTо). To this reference appears to be made 2 Co 1218 (cf. ¿#λeovÉKTηoer with 95). Why not, then, identify (as Lightfoot, 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, áïò πépvσi (81o 9o), pushes back this visit of Titus to a date in any case very near 1 Co (see 1 COR. § 6). Titus visited Corinth, then, in connexion with the Xoyia on two occasions; 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 (c) The person of Titus (cf. infr. §§ 6, 7) forms the link between the Xoyia and the more painful questions between St. Paul and the Church of Corinth. question whether Titus paid yet a third visit thither depends upon the consideration of the troubles which threatened to estrange St. Paul and the Corinthians. Firstly, the case of incest (1 Co 51.) was dealt with in 1 Co, and the expulsion there ordered would naturally follow upon the arrival of the letter. Did it? It is the prevalent view (the grounds for it are stated with admirable conciseness by Holtzmann, Einl. p. 255) that 2 Co 25-11 (=79-12) records the sequel. Stung by St. Paul's summons, the Corinthians, by a majority (26), inflict a punishment which St. Paul pronounces sufficient, and, lest the pain of it should drive the offender to desperation, advises the Corinthians to relax. The punishment had been inflicted in the presence and at the summons (715) of Titus, who reported the contrition, zeal, and loyalty wrought by the letter he had borne. This letter would accordingly be 1 Co, unless we should have, on further consideration, to infer that the inattention or disaffection with which that letter had been received, or some other cause, had necessitated the dispatch by the hand of Titus of a sharper summons (see below, g). (d) But a closer examination of the passages we are considering makes it doubtful whether they really relate to the offender of 1 Co 51. 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 (712b 29). To have persisted in withholding pardon would have been to give Satan an advantage over them all, St. Paul included; i.e. to have intensified the very evil St. Paul was combating. Moreover, St. Paul is specially careful to depreciate the grief inflicted upon himself (25), which strongly suggests that the adiknels of 712 is also none other than himself. The ovx évekev toû ádɩkýσavтos of the latter verse contradicts the iva of 1 Co 55b even more sharply than the notion of a personal wrong, the prominent thought in 2 Co 2. 7, contrasts with that of a sin against God, such as the Topveía 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 ponμаρтηкóтes of 1221 132), and for referring them to some other individual. Here, again, it is a question of probability; but the view adopted by very many scholars, that the offender 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. ff., this mission of Titus, and the letter then carried by him, must be quite independent of, and subsequent to, 1 Co. The άyvous of 2 Co 711 then har monizes in sense with 11. (e) The axiomara of 1 Co 1-4 have undergone a change of aspect in 2 Co. Of the watchwords Paul, Apollos, Cephas, we hear no more. It is otherwise with the name of Christ. In the section 10-130 a distinct group of opponents are in view who arrogate the distinction Xploтoù eivaι (107). The final consideration of this movement must be deferred (see below, § 7). For our present purpose it is enough to dwell on the marked change of situation. In 1 Co indeed we trace the tendency to arraign (åvakpivelv, 41.) the apostle, and to question his apostolic rank (91) 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 (10-1310) sections of the Epistle present, somewhat different aspects of the case. In the former, we have references to the many who traffic in the word of God' (217; cf. 12); to certain, who need letters of introduction' to the Corinthians (31); to imputations against the apostle of fleshly motives, of duplicity (112. 17 42 6). These imputations proceed, it would seem, from aσTO, men blinded by worldliness to the light of the gospel (4), who yet, as we infer from 516, lay great stress on having known Christ after the flesh. The last two points throw light on the It is well put by Dr. Llewelyn Davies in Smith's DB, 8.v. PAUL. It had been maintained by Bleek, Credner, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald; and is also adopted by Hilgenfeld, Weizsäcker, Jülicher, Godet, etc. Krenkel and Clemen suppose that the slander was directly aimed, not at St. Paul, but at a fellowworker. See Schmiedel, Exc, on 2 Co 211, | | purpose of such passages as 119 214-17, above all 36-18 514-21. The Judaizing tendencies faintly traceable 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 (ei Tis év Xpiσty, con. trast 135.6) '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 when we turn to the concluding chapters (10-131) 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 (102), with lording it over the Church (108 1310; cf. 124), with deceit (1131). His opponents still come armed with letters of introduction (1012. 18), they are-not now &TIOTо 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' (112 107; cf. 1 Co 112). All the features of the opponents of 1-7 are here, but they are heightened, and the polemic against them is more painfully intense. Their accusations against St. Paul, too, are more direct and audacious,―embezzlement (1216-18), bullying by letters (109) in contrast with weakness when face to face, reckless folly (1116), are imputed to him; if he refuses direct sustentation, it is because he knows he has no right to it, being no true apostle (115 1211-18). But, worse than all, St. Paul is conscious that his readers are not with him; their loyalty is undermined. Their obedience is unfulfilled-Ye look at the outside of things' (106. 7). They are in imminent peril of being corrupted, in fact they tolerate another gospel,-yes, gladly tolerate the yoke of the fools' who are tyrannizing over them (111-4. 20); they accept the invidious construction put upon St. Paul's conduct, are prepared to doubt his love for them (117-11; cf. 1216-18). They are wavering in faith, Christ can hardly be in them; St. Paul dreads to think of the impenitent state in which he will find them, dreads the humiliation which awaits him at Corinth, dreads the unsparing severity he will have to exercise (1219-131),-his last hope is that the letter may pave the way to better things. Note that St. Paul is addressing the community as a whole throughout, not the Judaizing rivés, 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 some plausibility, prima facie, in the severance of 101310 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 he brought news of quite a different kind (71). 19. (f) St. Paul entertained, at different times, two distinct plans of travel. The simpler of the two is that announced in 1 Co 165, and carried out Ac 201, viz. from Ephesus to Macedonia and thence to Corinth. But from 2 Co 115. 16 we learn that he had at one time entertained, but (v.23 in order to spare the Corinthians) had abandoned, the more complicated 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 41%; for if so, the withdrawal would be announced in 1 Co 165.6, a passage totally out of correspondence (v.18) with the situation presupposed in 2 Co 12. Moreover, in defending his change of plan (2 Co 115-23), St. Paul would not have failed to appeal to the clear statement of his intentions in Co 163. The inference seems irresistible that the chango of plan was subsequent to 1 Co, and that the |