(8) This in no way diminishes their several responsibility (8b-15).

Paul the (planter v.6, father 415) founder, others the after-builders (10, waterers 6, guardians 415). The Day will test the work of all alike.

(8) The temple of God destroyed by those who practically deny the above truths by 'glorying in men' (16-21).

(4) All teachers, like all that enters into the existence and experience of the Christian, are part of God's gift to him, means to the one end, God in Christ (22. 23).

(5) The Christian teacher to be regarded as an underling (pins) of Christ, to whose judgment alone he is ultimately subject (41-5).

(6) The Corinthians have only too good cause to look down on the apostles from a higher level (46-13); yet the apostle's aim is not to crush by sarcasm, but to reclaim them as their father (14-16).

J. Epilogue on the party spirit. The mission of Timothy, and the coming visit of Paul (17-21).

B. THE MORAL SCANDAL (51-13).

a. The facts (1).

B. False attitude of the Corinthians (2, cf. 6). 7. The proper way to deal with the case (3-5).

(1) The Paschal metaphor of the leaven (6b-8).

(2) A repetition, with removal of an objection, of a former injunction on the subject (9-13).

C LITIGATION BEFORE THE UNRIGHTEOUS (61-9). This

Unworthy of the eternal destiny of Christians (14). B. Speaks ill for the wisdom (5.6), but still worse for the moral tone, of the community (7.8).

. The injustice, or unrighteousness, thus shown to exist among them is part of a heathen past (9-11, transitional, working the argument back to B).

D. FORNICATION.

Not a legitimate use of the body (12.18a), but
B. A denial of the true destiny of the body (13b-20).
(1) This destiny described (13ы. 14).

(2) Fornication desecrates the limbs of Christ (15-17).
(3) Fornication, beyond any other sin, assails (the
eternal destiny of) the body (18, 19) in which we are
to glorify God (20).

III. REPLY TO THE CORINTHIAN LETTER: MARRIAGE AND ITS
PROBLEMS (7).

4. PREAMBLE (1-7). While the single state is preferable, marriage is meant for some, and its obligations are to be maintained.

B. ADVICE TO DIFFERENT CLASSES.

a. The unmarried (8.9).

B. Those who have married' (as Christians) (10. 11).

7. The rest (i.e. those who have been converted as married persons) (12-24).

(1) General principle; existing relations to be loyally maintained (12. 13, cf. 17. 20. 24) [a reason for this, as regards family life, v.14].

(8) This general principle not to enslave a Christian to union with a reluctant heathen partner (15. 16);

but

(36-38).

(4) The same principle applies to widows (39. 40).

IV. FOOD OFFERED to Idols (8-111).

4. GENERAL PRINCIPLES: to act on mere knowledge not right (8).

a. Knowledge does not guarantee truth of instinct (1-8). B. The truth about idols (4-6).

y. This truth not equally grasped by all (7-18).

(1) Some, influenced by association of ideas, cannot eat without sin (7).

(2) No one sins by abstaining (®).

(3) The enlightened may by eating injure the weak (9-18). B. THE GREAT PRINCIPLE that of FORBEARANCE in view of the higher expediency (9).

a. The Apostolic position (1-3), and rights (4-12a) to main-
tenance, of St. Paul (18. 14 a supplementary corrobora-
tion).

B. His forbearance to exercise these rights (12b. 15-18).
7. His motive in this: (19-23a) to save others.

(236-27) to save himself.

C. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES APPLIED (101-111).

e. The example of the Israelites warns us of the danger, even to ourselves, of presuming on privilege (101-12).

B. The danger of idolatry, for all their enlightenment, a
real one to the Corinthians (13-22).
There is no necessity to yield (13).

The partaking of a sacrificial feast (cf. 810) is an act of idolatry, as is evident (14. 15) from the parallels of (a) The Christian Eucharist, a partaking of the bloodshedding of Christ (16. 17)."

(b) The Jewish sacrifices, to eat of which is to partake of the altar (18).

(8) Result; to eat ceremonially of sidaλóbora totally forbidden (19-22).

y. Practical rules for other cases.

(1) Preliminary repetition of the principle of the higher expediency (23. 24).

(2) Where the history of the food is not forced on your attention, it may be freely eaten (25. 26).

(8) Where the history of the food is forced on your attention, better abstain for the sake of others (27-29a), and to avoid exposing yourselves to misconstruction (29b. 30. 32).

(4) Epilogue (31-111). The glory of God and the higher
expediency to be your guides, as they are mine.

V. MATTERS RELATING TO PUBLIC WORSHIP (112-14).
112. General commnendatory preamble to this section.
4. THE VEILING OF WOMEN (113-16).

a. Principle of organic subordination (3).

B. The covering or uncovering the head a recognition of this principle (+10).

y. Women not lowered by this (11.12).

from nature (18-15).

8. Corroboratory considerations from the custom of the Churches (16).

B. DISORDERS CONNECTED WITH THE EUCHARIST (1117-34). The assemblies of the Church marked by dissensions (17-19).

B. They substitute their own feast for the Lord's (20. 21). 7. Unseemliness of the above (22-27).

(1) In the spirit displayed (22).

(2) In view of

the history (23-25), and of

the significance (26. 27) of the eucharistic acts (which are the central feature of the κυριακὸν δεῖπνον).

(3) Precautions for worthy, and dangers of unworthy, reception (28-32).

(4)

Conclusion: the feast not to be used to satisfy hunger; other directions postponed till the apostle's arrival (33. 34).

C. THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS (12-14).

a. General principles: The purpose of these gifts forbids their use as ends-in-themselves (12).

(1) A caution necessitated by the reader's heathen ante-
cedents: the nature of the utterance the criterion
of its divine origin (1-3).

(2) Diversity of these gifts, but all from one source, and
for one aim-the higher expediency (411).
(3) The organic unity of the body of Christ (1227)
to envy those who have gifts which
we lack (15-20),

(a) Forbids us

to despise those who lack gifts which we have (21).

(b) Implies organic interdependence of all (22-27). (4) Church organization and functions based on these principles (23-30).

[Transition to (8) (31).]

B. Charity, the greatest gift of all, the principle determining the use of all the rest (1231 13).

(1) No gift, miraculous or moral, of any value without charity (1-3).

(2) Charity, its nature and pre-eminence (4-18). (a) Charity described (4-7).

(b) Charity outlasts prophecy, tongues, knowledge, all of which belong to our childhood, i.e. our present dim and partial vision of truth (8-12).

(c) Conclusion, of the three lasting gifts, charity the chief (13).

y. Practical application. Spiritual gifts to be valued only as means to edification (14).

(1) Prophecy preferable to tongues (1-25).

(a) Prophecy edifies all present, tongues the speaker

only (1-6).

of musical instruments

d. This truth common to all the apostles (11).

B. IF CHRIST IS RISEN, THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE (1234) To deny the consequent overthrows the antecedent (1219)

(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 (13-17).

(b) The destruction of Christian hope (17-19).
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 consumination
of Christ's mediatorial reign (23-28).
1. Resurrection of Christ.

(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). y. 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 second Adam from the first (43-49).

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).

(2) Our victory in Christ (57)
(3) Result (8)

VII. EPISTOLARY CONCLUSION (16).

A Directions for the λoyía (1-4).

B. Personal plans of the apostle (5-8).

C. Personal notices (10-18).

. The mission of Timothy (10. 11).

B. Apollos (12).

7. A closing exhortation interjected (18. 14).
Stephanas (16-18).

(1) His household (15. 16).

(2) His mission to Ephesus (17.18).

D. Conclusion of the Epistle.

a. Salutations (19-21).

8. Anathema against false brethren (22).
. Concluding benediction (23. 24).

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

2

period to which it belongs. The only express reference to the subject is 1556 the strength of sin is the law' (cf. Ro 77-25). But the foundation-stone of his preaching in Corinth, Jesus Christ, and that crucified' (2 310.11), 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 δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα anticipates Col iisd. The redelivery of the kingdom (1524-28) by the glorified Christ, and His final 'subjection' to His Father, is a thought not elsewhere brought out (but see 1 Co 323 88, Ro 1135). With regard to the pre-existence and human nature of Christ, the passage 1545-48 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. 1), and of all the xapio para which enable Christians to live their corporate life. The language of 121 involves the personality of the Spirit (see further the art. on CORINTHIANS, § 7). The Spirit is assumed to be the active power in baptism, and to be present in all baptized persons (1213 61); though this is ideally rather than actually true of all (31o.). (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 (113, cf. Ac 195). An enigmatical practice of baptizing for the dead' is referred to (1529); the context (væèρ avтŵv) 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 151-34. In vv.. 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. is of special importance. That He rose with a σŵμa TVEUMATIKOV is implied in v.44. The whole argument is addressed, not to the general resurrection of all men, but to that of ol 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 anλovTO of v.18) 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 1523-28 (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

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 1123) 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. 869 fl., 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 xiuxтa), Paulus2, pp. 237-343; Rabiger (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, Beiträge 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. quæ intercesserint rationes usq. ad [1 Cor] (London), 1887; Godet, Introd. (Edin.) 1894; Clemen (see above, 6), and Schmiedel in Hand-Kommentar1, 1891, 21892, the most searching and accurate digest of the many complicated questions 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) 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, 1836. 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-Zöckler), 1887; Schmiedel (see above). On both Epistles, in English, the best modern works are those of Hodge (New York), 1857-1860; F. W. Robertson 5 (lectures); Stanley, 1187€ J. A. Beet, 31885; Kay, 1887 (scholarly but light, 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 Evang. 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); Jodet, 1887 (excellent); Bois, Adversaria Critica,

The

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.v. 1and 2 Co; the articles give interesting and valuable details as to style, coincidences with Acts, etc. The art. Paulus in PRE2 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.

8. Internal Evidence and Genuineness. 4. Elements of the Historical Situation.

(a) Timothy, (b) Titus and the aayia, (c) the troubles at Corinth, (d) the Offender, (e) the Judaizers, (ƒ) St. Paul's plans of travel, (g) letters of St. Paul, (h) visits of St. Paul to Corinth, (1) 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 414 (Polyc. ad Phil. ii. 4, ò dè èvelpas καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐγερεί), and apparently 821 (ad Phil. vi. 1, comparing Pr 3). The letter to Diognetus v. 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 Irenæus (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 122.4 (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. was absent from any list of writings of St. Paul. This would hardly hold good if we were to follow Zahn (Kanon, 2. 833 ff.) 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 418 (-vov éπlorevoa) -127 Kal 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 1013-125 (Brit. Mus.); O has 120-212; P lacks only 213-16; Q has no part of the Ep.; R has 119-19. For the old Latin, r lacks 211316 52-79 813-99 1122-1213 1311.

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, its

historical references are so unstudied, so manifold, BO 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 chs. 1-7. This interpenetration of practical detail with first principles of the faith is a characteristic which our Épistle 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 Xoyla 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 changeableress, 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. 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 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 Xoyla (1 Co 161) 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 07, 1610) as to the prospect of his doing so. St. Paul expected him to return to Ephesus with the bearers of 1 Co (161) by Pentecost (1612). His return from Corinth would in that case be by sea direct. The expression of Luke (Ac 1922 eis Thy 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 8 κatus роevýρato. 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 con sidering the history of the Aoyla 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 πроeyeλμévny) to contribute, and, acc. to 8, Titus had assisted in the preliminary organization of their efforts (810, cf. v. πроеvýрαто). To this reference appears to be made 2 Co 1218 (cf. érλEOvEKTNOEV 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, dò répuσ (810 92), 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 Xoyla 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 51ff.) was dealt with in 1 Co, and the expulsion there ordered would naturally follow upon the arri al of the letter. Did it? It is the preva.ent view (the grounds for it are stated with admirable conciseness by Holtzmann, Einl. p. 255) that 2 Co 25-11 (7-12) records the sequel. Stung by St. Paul's summons, the Corinthians, by a majority