jiai cannot be rendered "this is the third time I have purposed to come to you;" as De W'ettc remarks (iV- kldriiiiy, ad loc), it is only when the purpose is close on its accomplishment, not of an earlier purpose, that ipXOj-iai can be so used. But in this case the tpxo^ai does not refer to anj' previous purpose ; that is im- plied only in the rpirov : so that the instance fairly comes under the usage of the pres. for the determined fut. (Krijger, Griech. Spi-achl. i, 148, 149; Winer, Gr. Gr. p. 281). Moreover, we have the apostle's own epexegesis of his usus loquendi in the parallel passage, showing that toito denoted the intention or readiness (troipwc) only. (2) The contrast of rpirov in xiii, 1 with ctvripov in ver. 2 leads to the conclusion that it is of a third visit, and not of a third purpose to visit, that Paul is writing ; he had told them formerlj' when he was present with them the siecond time, and now when absent, in announcing a third visit, he tells them again, etc. Some render, as in the A. V., wt' irapiov by as if present, so as to make the apostle intimate that he had not been oftener than once before at Cor- inth ; but it is verj' doubtful if wc is ever used to ex- press the supposition of a case which does not exist (1 Cor. V, 3 is not a case in point, for there the case supposed actually did exist), and, moreover, as it is connected here as well with u-kwv as with irapiov, if we translate it "as if," the whole clause will read thus, " I tell you beforehand, as if I were present the second time, and were now absent," etc., which is of course as inadmissible on the ground of sense as the rendering in the A. V. is on critical grounds. If, how- ever, as is far more natural, we construe ro ctvrtpov with TTcipwv immediately preceding, rather than with either of the verbs in the beginning of the verse, and render "as one present the second time," wc have a direct argument (in harmony with all the other pas- sages which speak of his determination as if alreadj^ a fact) that there had been but one previous visit to Cor- inth, namely, that during which the Church was plant- ed, (o) In xii, 14 the apostle intimates his being read}' to go to Corinth in connection with his resolution not to be burdensome to the Christians there. Now, inasmuch as it was not Paul's purpose to visit them that could impose any burden on them, but his actual presence with them, it is said that there seems no fitness in such a connection in his telling them of his mere repeated purpose to visit them ; in order to make congruity out of this, we must regard him as saying, "I was not burdensome to you wlicn with you before, and now I have a third time formed a purpose to visit you ; but when I make out this visit, I will not be burdensome to you any more than at first, though it be a tlirice- purposed visit." Accordinglj- it is claimed that to find all this in the few words he utters is to attribute to the apostle a somewhat improbable breviloquence. Nevertheless, nothing could be more natural than the phraseology here, on the supposition that the sec- ond intended visit had not taken place. The purpose still remained, and the visit was looked upon as cer- tain ; ichen it did occur, Paul hoped not to be a burden to his hosts. And if we construe (as we may properly do, despite Alford's subjective emendation) the rpirov here also with its nearer verb tyw, we have again a positive statement of a third preparation only to make the visits. The reason why the apostle is so emphatic on this point is that his enemies had charged him with fickleness respecting it (i, 17), and had even questioned it altogether (1 Cor. iv, 18). See in favor of this in- termediate visit, Bleek (Stud. u. Krit. 1830 ; Einleit. p. 393) and others ; against it, Davidson {Introd. ii, 213 sq.) and Lange (.ipost. Zeitalter, i, 199 sq.).
On the other hand we have the following argu- ments: (1) In 2 Cor. i, 15, 16, the apostle s])eaks of a second benefit as to be anticipated by the Corinthians from his visiting them ; from wliich it is argued that he could only Iiave been there once before, else would he have used consistent language, and spoken of a
PAUL
821
Px\UL
third benefit, and not a second only. To escape from this difficulty various expedients have been devised, such as taking ctvriftm' x"p"' ^'*^''^ ^°^ ^ double ben- efit {ctTrXnv X"P"''' I^Ieek and Neander, after Chrysos- tom and Theodoret), and supposing the term of the apostle's residence at Corinth (Acts xviii, 1-11) di- vided into two parts, in the interval between whicli he had made a short excursion from Corinth and back again, so that in one sense he had twice before visited that city, and, in another sense, had only once before visited it. But these are violent expedients, mani- festly devised for maintaining a previous hypothesis. The onh' tenable solution that will save the supposed visit seems to be that proposed by Meyer, who takes the expression (otvTfpa x«P'0 in connection with the return from Macedonia (ttcIXu' c'ittu MctKtooi'icKj tX^tlv TTpvQ ('/(dc) ; the apostle determines to visit them first before going to IMacedonia, and thereby secure to them a double benefit bj' going thence to Macedonia, and returning to them from Macedonia in place of going to the latter place first (so also Alford, ad loc). But it is very harsh thus to refer the Trportpov, " before" (whether construed with the actual coming, iX^tlv, or with the simjile purpose, t/ioyXo/o/i'), to the journey into Macedonia, which had not j^et been spoken of; it clearlj' designates something prior to the time of writ- ing, namely, the design of an earlier and second visit that should bring an additional conferment of spiritual gifts. It may therefore be fairly set oflf against what- ever force there may be thought to remain in the first of the above arguments on the other side. There was a third intention of a second visit. (2) Those who suppose this second visit already made are greatly per- plexed where to locate it: thej' generally fix upon some presumed interval in the apostle's three years' stay at Ephesus. Now it should be noted that this is not only a pure hypothesis, without a word to sustain it in the direct history covering this very period, but Paul's time is stated to have been exclusively em- ployed in the labors at Ephesus, both by his own ex- plicit statement respecting the whole three years (Acts XX, 31, "by the space of three years / ceased not to warn every one night and daj-"), and also by Luke's nearly as strong language concerning the first two 3'ears ("disputing daib) in the school of Tyrannus; and this continued by the space of two years," Acts xix, 9, 10), during which, if at all, the supposed trip to Corinth occurred. There is certainly no room for it in the narrative there. (3) If such a visit were made, how comes it that neither in the Acts nor in Paul's letters are there any positive and definite notices of it or of its results ? It is altogether unsafe to found so palpable a historical conclusion upon these few, slight, and ambiguous expressions. A treatise has been writ- ten by MUller, De Tribus Pauli liin. (Basle, 1831). See Corinthians.