(/) 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.