• Derzweite Korintherbrief des Apo^tels Paulus, Halle, 1904. t Paulm und seine Briefe, Strassburg, 1905. t Die Entstehung des zweiten K<yrintherbrie/es, Berlin, 1896. § Paraphrasis in Pauli ad Cor. Epistolas, Halle, 1770, 1776.
we conclude that it is unnecessary to separate chs. 8 and 9, and that it is probable that they are in their right places.
8. The troubles at Corinth. — We must now discuss the nature of the troubles at Corinth — a subject of great complexity. The evidence at our disposal is really not sufficient to enable us to arrive at a positive conclusion. The fact that we only possess a portion of the ' severe letter,' in which St. Paul deals with the troubles at their height, and that the portion which we possess does not include his treatment of the specific difficulties, but is only a discussion in general terms, ambigu- ous to us because of our ignorance of the context, adds greatly to the complexity of the problem. But there are certain passages in both Epistles which throw some light on the situation.
(a) In 2 Co 2s-" V^ St. Paul speaks of a par- ticular offender. It appears that he has been sentenced to some punishment by a majority of the Corinthians (yiri tQv irXeidvup). St. Paul says that the sentence is adequate. The language of the passage suggests the existence of a dissentient minority, and it would seem that St. Paul is ad- dressing this minority when he gives his exhorta- tion that the offender should now be forgiven and encouraged, lest he should be swallowed up by excessive grief. It seems most probable that the minority had objected to the sentence as inade- quate ; and this would imply that they were what we may call an ultra-Pauline party. This suits the passage better than the older view that they were hostile to St. Paul, and objected to the sentence as excessive. St. Paul's use of the word iKavdv makes it clear that the objection was rather that the sentence was inadequate. St. Paul says in effect that the sentence passed by the majority satisfies him, and urges them to forgive the man, implying that their forgiveness will make all the difference to the man's happiness. Who then was the offender, and what had he done ? The view that he was the man gniilty of incest, mentioned in 1 Co 5, cannot possibly be right. For in 2 Co 7'- St. Paul says : ' I wrote not for his sake who did the wrong, nor for his sake who suffered the wrong, but that your zeal for us might be made manifest to you in the sight of God.' But (1) it is clear from 1 Co 5^ that in that case St. Paul was ^v^iting ' for his sake who did the ^vrong ' ; (2) ' He who suffered the WTrong ' (6 ddiKTjdeLs) would have to be the man's father. This would involve the supposition that the father was alive, and that a Corinthian Christian had actually taken to wife his father's wife during the lifetime of his father without protest from his fellow-Christians. The language of 1 Co 6 does imply that it was a gross case of im- morality, but it is hardly conceivable that this could really have occurred. And, if it had occurred, St. Paul would surely not have treated it as lightly as he seems to treat it in 2 Co 2'"" and 7^*. The language of these passages suggests rather that the offence was a personal one, that the offender had grossly insultea St. Paul when he came to Corinth, and that 6 ddiKrjdels was St. Paul himself. The suggestion has been made that 6 ddiKrjdeis was Timothy, and that he had been in- sulted when he visited Corinth (cf. 1 Co 4" 16i"). This is possible, but it is more probable that the reference is to an insult inflicted on St. Paul himself : the fragment of the ' severe letter' which we possess is full of defence of his authority, which had clearly been in some way attacked. No doubt there was a reference to the offender in the part of the ' severe letter * which is lost. St. Paul's authority had been attacked, but it is not clear from what quarter the attack had proceeded.
(b) In 1 Co 1'^ we read of the existence of factions or parties at Corinth. It is possible that
CORIXTHIAIs^S, EPISTLES TO THE COEl^sTHIAisS, EPISTLES TO THE 255
here we may have the key to the Corinthian troubles, for one of the parties at any rate may probably either have been from the first anti- Pauline or have afterwards turned hostile to St. Paul. It will therefore be convenient at this stage to consider these parties. First of all, St. Paul, with characteristic tact, mentions the party which took his name, and condemns them. He then mentions the party of Ai)ollos. The latter clearly did not exist in opposition to St. Paul with the consent of ApoUos (1 Co 16^^). Apollos {q.v.) was a Jew of Alexandria, who, after instruction from Priscilla and Aquila, went into Achaia, where he was very heljjful to those who had believed, being particularly skilful at confuting the Jews, and using for this purpose his great knowledge of Scripture (Ac IS-"*'-^). Until he met with Priscilla and Aquila, we are told that ' he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.'