1 and 2 Co ; the articles give interesting and valuable details as to style, coincidences with Acts, etc. The art. Paulus in PREi by W. Schmidt, contains some useful references ; that in Ersch and Qruber (1880) is by Schmiedel, and represents his earlier viewf on both Epistlee. A. ROBERTSON.
CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE.—
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.'