13—16,
765
θητε; 14. " εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ] ὅτι οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα, εἰ μὴ 5 See i 4:
, .. Κρίσπον καὶ Γάϊον,
: 9 “ἐβάπτισα * +
9 Β, 6733, with Chr. and Dam. (in comment.), om. Tw Θεφ.
“ , ” 9 η ο αἱ a » 15. ἵνα µή τις εἴπῃ OTL "εἰς TO ἐμὸν ὄνομα
16. ἐβάπτισα ὃ δὲ καὶ τὸν Στεφανᾶ οἶκον: * λοιπὸν
t iv. 2, vii. 29; six times be- sides in P.; Heb. Στ.
A strong group
of witnesses ; parls. suggested to copyists the inserted words.
? SABC", 67**, and several good minuscce., read εβαπτισθητε; instead ΌΓεβαπτισα, as in CCDGLP, etc.,— Western and Syrian reading, conformed to context.
ὅ βεβαπτικα replaces first εβαπτισα in D*G, and second also in D*.
“they were Gnostics before Gnosticism, who formulated their title οἱ Χριστοῦ, after the fashion of Cerinthus, zz opp. not merely to the names of the apostles, but even to that of Fesus!’’ He identi- fies them with the men who cried ‘ Jesus is anathema” (xii. 2: see note). This notion is an anachronism, and has no real basis in the Epp.
(6) x Cor. iii. 22 f. (see notes, ad loc.) supplies a nearer and safer clue to the in- terpretation ; this is the Apostle’s decisive correction of the rivalries of i. 12. The human leaders pitted against each other all belong to the Church (not this teacher or that to this section or that), while {έ belongs without distinction to Christ, and Christ, with all that is His, to God. The catholic Ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ swallows up the self-assertive and sectarian ᾿Εγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. Those who used this cry arro- gated the common watchword as their peculium; they erred by despising, as others by glorying in men. “°Eyo Χριστοῦ ad eos pertinet qui in contrariam partem peccabant; {.ε., qui sese unius Christi ita dicebant, ut interim iis per quos quos Deus loquitur nihil tribuerent” (Bz.); similarly Aug., Bg., Mr., Hf., El., Bt.
(c) The Gr. Ff., followed by Ον., Bleek, Pfleiderer, Rabiger, and others, saw in the ᾿Εγὼ δὲ. Χριστοῦ the true formula which P. approves, or even which he utters proprid persond. But the context subjects all four classes to the samereproach. Itis a sufficient condem- nation for the fourth party that they said “Tam of Christ,” in rejoinder to the parti- sans of Paul and the rest, lowering His name to this competition.
(ὔ Hn., finding the riddle of the *« Christus-partei’’ insoluble, eliminates it from the text; “we are driven,” he says, “ to explain the "Eye δὲ Χριστοῦ as a gloss, which some reader of the original codex inscribed in the margin, borrowing it from iii. 23 as a counter-confession to the ᾿Εγὼ μὲν Παύλου «.7.A.”.
Ver. 13. In his expostulation P. uses,
with telling contrast, the first and last only of the party names: “Is the Christ divided? Was Paul crucified on your behalf? or into the name of Paul were you baptised?”’ Lachmann, W.H., Mr., Bt., read µεµέρισται 6 X. as an ex- clamation: ‘‘ The Christ (then) has been divided! ”’—torn in pieces by your strife. But pepif (here in pf. of resultful fact) denotes distribution, not dismemberment (see parls.): the Christian who asserts ‘I am Christ’s”’ in distinction from others, claims an exclusive part in Him, whereas the one and whole Christ belongs {ο every limb of His manifold body (see xii. 12; also xi. 3, Rom. x. 12, xiv. 7-9, Eph. iv. 3 ff., Col. ii. 19), A divided Church means a Christ parcelled out, appropriated κατὰ µέρος. ὁ Χριστὸς is the Christ, in the fulness of all that His title signifies (see xii. 12, etc.).—While µεμµέρισται 6 Χ.; is Paul’s abrupt and in- dignant question to himself, py Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη; (aor. of historical event) in- terrogates the readers—“ Is it Paui that was crucified for you?” From the cross the Ap. draws his first reproof, the point ef which vi. 20 makes clear, ‘“ You were bought at a price”: the Cor. therefore were not Paul’s or Kephas’, nor some of them Christ’s and some of them Paul’s men, but only Christ’s and all Christ’s alike.