Vv. 1,2 say how P. did not come, wv. 3-5 how he actually did come, to Cor.
776
ixv. 10; 2 Cor. ili. 7; rere ‘4 Rom. xvi. καὶ PPh. Tr
= κήρυγµά µου οὐκ ἐν moe Th,
ii 5; 1 Tim. ii 14; Lk xxii. 44; Acts xii. 11; Rev. i το, iv. 2.
πιθανος
Ίπειθοι .. « λογων, OF .
Il. ®
1.3 καὶ ' ἐν " τρόµῳ πολλῷ | ἐγενόμην πρὸς Suds: 4. καὶ ὁ λόγος µου Ιπειθοῖς 1 ἀνθρωπίνης ” σοφίας λόγοις,ὶ
k See i. 21. πμ add ας
. . λογον, in several minuscc., latt. am. (fpersuasione
sapientie verbi), sah.: a translator’s error due to the adj. being 4.1. W.H. follow AD*P, and analogy, in spelling πιθοις (see Gm.).
20m. ανθρωπιγης SWBDG 17, latt. am.syrsch. Borrowed from ver 13.
Ver. 3. ‘In weakness”: cf. i. 25,27; also 2. Όοτ. κα. πο, απά κι 3) ΤΠ condition was bodily—the Cor. had τε- ceived an impression of Paul’s physical feebleness; but the phrase expresses, more broadly, his conscious want of resources for the task before him (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 16, iii. 5). Hence he continues, ‘‘and in fear and in much trembling ’— the inward emotion and its visible ex- pression (see parls.). ὮῬ. stood before the Cor. at first a timid, shaken man: on the causes see Introd., ch. i.
For γίνομαι ἐν (versari in), to be in a statetiof, cf. parls.—apés ὑμᾶς quali- fies the whole foregoing sentence: “TI was weak, timid, trembling before you (when I addressed you) ”: ἐγενόμην. . . πρὸς ὑμᾶς might be construed together, ἐγενόμην becoming a vb. of motion—‘* I came to (and was amongst) you in weak- ness,” etc. (Ed., as in xvi. 10) ; this would, however, needlessly repeat ver. I.
Ver. 4. ‘And my word and my mes- sage: λόγος recalls i. 18; κήρνγµα, i. 21, 23 (see notes). ‘The former includes all that Paul says in proclaiming the Gospel, the latter the specific announce- ment of God’s will and call therein.
οὐκ ἐκ πιθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, ‘ not in persuasive words of wisdom”: the adj. πιθός (= πιθανός, see txtl. note), from πείθοµαι, analogous to φιδός from φείδ- οµαι. ‘ Words of wisdom,” substantially = “wisdom of word” (i. 17); that ex- pression accentuating the matter, this the manner of teaching—‘ exquisita elo- quutio, que artificio magis quam veritate nitatur et pugnet”’ (Cv.). For the un- favourable nuance of πιθός, see Col. ii. 4 (πιθανολογία), also Gal. i. το, Matt. xxvilil. 14. Eusebius excellently para- phrases (Praep. Ev.,i., 3), τὰς μὲν ἅπατη. λὰς κ. σοφιστικὰς πιθανολογίας παραι- τούµενος). “With a contemptuous touch of irony that reminds one of So- crates in the Gorgias and Apology [ο]. Ey., as previously cited, on tt εἰδέναι], he disclaims all skill in rhetoric, the spurious art of persuading without in-
structing, held nevertheless in high repute in Cor. But when the Ap. speaks of the demonstration of the Spirit, he soars into a region of which Socrates knew nothing. Socr. sets σοφία against πειθώ; the Ap. regards both as being on well-nigh a common level, from the higher altitude of the Spirit” (Ed.); since the time of Socrates, however, Philosophy had sunk into a πιθανολογία. ---ἀπόδειξις, ‘the technical term for a proof drawn from facts or documents, as opposed to theoretical reasoning ; in com- mon use with the Stoics in this sense ”’ (Hn.) ; see Plato, Theet., 162 E, and Arist. ΕΝ. Νε i τς Ἡν, 4. forthe like antithesis (Ed.).
ἀποδ. πνεύματος καὶ σοφίας gathers up the force of the δύναμιν Θεοῦ of i. 24, and ἐγένετο σοφία κ.τ.λ. of i. 30 (see notes) ; the proof of the Gospel at Cor. was ex- perimental and ethical, found in the new consciousness and changed lives that attended its proclamation: cf. vi. 11, ix. 1, 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff., 1 Thess. Π. 13 (λόγος Θεοῦ, ὃς κ. ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τ. πιστεύ- ουσιν).-- πνεύματος καὶ δυνάµεως are not objective gen. (in ostendendo Spiritum, etc.), but subjective: the Spirit, with His power, gives the demonstration (similarly in xi. 7, see note); cf. vv. το, 12, 2 Cor. iii. 3-18, Rom. viii. 16, xv. 1ο, for Paul’s thoughts on the testimonium Spiritus sancti ; also John xy. 26, 1 John ν. 6 {.-- Δύναμις, specially associated with Πνεῦμα after Luke xxiv. 49 (see reff. for P.), is certainly the spiritual power that operates as implied in i. 30, vi. 11, but not to the exclusion of the supernatural physical ‘‘ powers” which accompanied Apostolic preaching (see note on ἐβεβαιώθη, i. 6; also xii. 1, 7-11, and the combination of Rom. xv. 17 ff.) : ‘‘latius accipio, nempe pro manu Dei potente omnibus modis per apostolum se exserente '’ (Cv.). The art. is wanting with πνεύματος, though personal, after the anarthrous ἀποδείξει, according to “the law of correlation” (Wr., p. 175: contrast this with xii. 7, also the double