14. " µεμέρισται 6 Χριστός; ph
τκ.2; Gal. iii. 27; Mt. xxviii. το; Acts viii. 16, xix. 3 f.
1 Thd. 168, ad loc.: τοντο τινες αποφαντικως ανεγνωσαν, εγω δε αυτο Kat’ ερω-
τησιν κεισθαι νομιζω. text, R.V. marg. See note below.
Ambrst. interprets affirmatively ; so Lachm. and W.H.
2 wept in BD* (hence W.H. marg.) ; all other Codd. υπερ.
blems of N.T. criticism. It is fully ex- amined, and the judgments of different critics are digested, by Gd. ad loc. ; see also Mr.-Hn., Einleitung, § 3; Weiss’ Manual of Introd. to the N.T., § 19. After all, this was only a brief phase of Church life at Cor.; P. had just heard of it when he wrote, by the time of 2 Cor. a new Situation has arisen. The three first parties are easy to account for: (1) The body of the Ch., converted under P.’s ministry, adhered to its own apostle; P. valued this loyalty and appeals to it, while he condemns its combative expression,—the disposition of men ‘‘more Pauline than Paul him- self’? (Dods) to exalt him to the dis- paragement of other leaders, and even to the detriment of Christ’s glory. (2) Apollos (cf. Acts xviii. 24 ff.) had preached at Cor., in the interval since Paul’s first departure, with brilliant effect. He pos- sessed Alexandrian culture and a graceful style, whereas P. was deemed at Cor. ἰδιώτης τῷ Adyw (2 Cor. xi. 6). Some personal converts Ap. had made; others were taken with his genial method, and welcomed his teaching as more advanced than P.’s plain gospel-message. Beside the more cultured Greeks, there would be a sprinkling of liberally-minded Jews, men of speculative bias imbued with Greek letters, who might prefer to say ᾿Εγὼ ᾿Απολλώ. Judging from this Ep., the Pauline and Apollonian sections included at present the bulk of the Church, divided between its ‘‘planter’’ and ‘ waterer’’. ᾿Απολλώς, of Attic 2nd decl., is probably short for ᾽Απολλώνιος. (3) In a Judzo- Gentile Church the cry “I am of Paul,” or ‘‘I am of Apollos,”’ was certain to be met with the retort, ‘“‘ But I of Kephas!” Conservative Jewish believers, when con- flict was afoot, rallied to the name of the preacher of Pentecost and the hero of the Church’s earliest victories. The use of Κηφᾶς, the Aramaic original of Πέτρος, indicates that this party affected Pales- tinian traditions. Some of them may, possibly, have been Peter’s converts in Judea. Had Peter visited Cor., as
Dionysius of Cor. supposed (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ii. 125: Weiss and Harnack favour the tradition), the event would surely have left some trace in these Epp. Judging from the tenor of the two Let- ters, this faction was of small account in Cor. until the arrival of the Judean emissaries denounced in 2 Cor., who found a ground of vantage ready in those that shouted “I am of Kephas”. In both Epp. P. avoids every appearance of conflict with Peter (cf. ix. 5, xv. 5). (4) The Christ party forms the crux of the passage :—(a) After F.C. Baur, ot Χριστοῦ has been commonly interpreted by 2 Cor. x. 7: ‘* If any one is confident on his own part that he is Christ’s (Χριστοῦ εἶναι), let him take this into account with him- self, that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we”. Now P.’s opponents of 2 Cor. were ultra-Judaists; so, it is inferred, these ot Χριστοῦ must have been. But the Judaisers of 2 Cor. presumed to be “ of Christ” as His ministers, apostles (xi. 13, 23), deriving their commission (as they maintained P. did not) from the fountain- head; whereas the Christ-party of this place plumed themselves, at most, on being His disciples (rather than P.’s, etc.): the coincidence is verbal rather than real. Upon Baur’s theory, there were two parties at Cor., as everywhere else in the Church, diametrically opposed—a Gentile-Christian party, divided here into Pauline and Apollonian sections, and a Jewish-Christian party naming itself from has or Christ as occasion served. Later scholars following Baur’s line of interpretation, distinguish variously the Petrine and Christine Judaists: (a) Weizsacker associates the latter with Fames ; (B) Reuss and Beyschlag see in them strict followers of the example and maxims of Fesus as the διάκονος περι- τομῆς, from which Peter in certain re- spects deviated; (y) Hilgenfeld, Hol- sten, Hausrath, Sm., think they had been in personal relations with Ὕεσις (it is quite possible that amongst the “ five hundred ’’ of xv. 5 some had wandered to Cor.) ; (8) Gd. strangely conjectures that