Vv. 22-24a. ‘On the contrary ”’ (ἀλλά), instead of the more powerful and digni- fied (23) bodily parts dispensing with the humbler (21), it is ‘‘much more” the case that these latter—‘‘the weaker” or ‘‘less honourable as they may seem to be” (τὰ δοκοῦντα . . . ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν)-----ατε necessary” in them- selves (22), and treated with ‘‘ more abun- dant honour” in our care of the body. By πολλῷ μᾶλλον (cf. Plato, Phado, 8ο E, ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον), mulio potius
10---26.
» ἀσθενέστερα
a {4 Ἀ ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος, τούτοις
> ιά
[ιό Ν Ν΄ m ς ~ μι) 4 , k é τίθεµεν ' καὶ τὰ ''ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν " εὐσχημοσύνην ᾿ περισσοτέραν
ἔχει, 24. τὰ δὲ " εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ
~ ~ ts °guveképacey TO σῶμα, TH P ὑστερουμένῳ
Ἀχρείαν "ἔχει: ἀλλ ὁ Θεὸς
893
Γὑπάρχειν “ ἀναγκαῖά ἐστι: 23. καὶ ἃ "δοκοῦμεν { See i. 27.
f See vii. 26.
‘tushy "περισσοτέραν |! mepe- 8 2 Cor. ix.
SP hei. 24, li. 25: Tit. iii.14; Heb. viii. 3; Acts x. 24, xiii.46. h See iv. 10.
1 Σπερισσοτέραν δοὺς
ἑτιμήν, 25. ἵνα μὴ ᾖ σχίσμα” ἐν τῷ σώματι, ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ "ὑπὲρ i | sth.i, 20.
ἀλλήλων " μεριμνῶσι τὰ "µέλη: 26. καὶ “elite? πάσχει Ev µέλος,
Th. iv. 4; 1 Tim. ν. 17, vi. τ; 2 Tim. ii. 20 £.; 1 Pet. iii. 7.
Heb. vi. 17, vii. 15; 9 times in GG.
xxvii. 48; Ruth ili. 3. -σις, 1 Pet. iii. 3.
Xvi. 15, Vii. 36. p See i. 7.
qSeei.ro. r See vii. 32.
For τιµη., Rom. ix. 21, Xli. 10, xiii. 7; 1 k Compar., xv. 10; 2 Cor. ii. 7, x. 8;
1 In this sense, Mt. xxvii. 28, Mk. xv. 17; cf. Mt. xxi. 33,
πι N.T, 4.l.; Deut. xxiv. 1; cf. -συνη, Rom. i. 27; Rev. nN.T. 4./.; in Plato, Xen. i With νπερ, N.T. h.l.; Ps. xxxvii. 18.
ων, S€@ Vil. 35; -ονως, XiV. 4ο. o Heb. iv. 2.
5 See iii. 22.
1 νστερουντι, NCDGKL, etc.—Western and Syrian.
2 oxiopata, N*DGL, above 30 minuscc.— Western.
other edd. σχισµα: cf. i. 10, xi. 18.
3 eure (?) BG, some latt. vg. (et si quid), Ambrst. (Western). Favoured by its dissidence from the parl. ειτε.
(Bz.) or a fortiori (Ev.), the position of νετ. 21 is more than negatived; the in- ferior members are not merely shielded from contempt, but guarded with excep- tional respect. By the ‘tweaker’? and ‘‘ignobler’’ parts P. cannot mean the hands or feet spoken of in ver. 21, for these are strong and usually uncovered (see περιτίθεµεν, 23); but members in appearance quite subordinate and actu- ally feeble—viz., the more delicate vital organs. Amongst these the ἀσχήμονα signify definitely τὰ αἰδοῖα, que in- honesta sunt (Vg.); cf. Rev. xvi. 15, τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην.-- The ἀσθενέστερα and ἀτιμότερα, the ‘comparatively weak”’ and ‘feeble’ (comparativus ‘molliens, Bg.), are wide categories applicable to the same members from diff. points of view. Weakness, in the case, e¢.g., of the heart, is compensated by needfulness ; ignobility, as in the viscera, by careful tendance shown in ample clothing—‘“‘ we put about them (clothe them with) a more abundant honour” (for the use of τιµή, cf. ἐξονσία in xi. 10). The unsecemliness (indecency) attaching to certain organs, always guarded from sight, ‘‘ brings with it (Exe, cf. Heb. x. 35) a more abundant seemliness’’. Against most commentt. (Gd., e.g., thinks only of ‘les soins de la toilette’’!), Ed. maintains that εὐσχημο- σύνη (23) has a moral sense, looking be- yond the honour of apparel ; ‘* the greater comeliness relates rather to function’’, Is any office more responsible than that of parenthood, anything more sacred than the mother’s womb. and mother’s breast? (cf. Luke xi. 27; also Heb. xiii.
So Tisch.8, Treg. marg. ;
So Lachm., Treg: A omits altogether.
4).---τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα «7.A.: “ But our seemly parts”—head and face, e.g. (the human face divine)—‘‘have no need,” their distinction being conspicuous; see xi, 7a, where this visible, but also moral, εὐσχημοσύνη is raised to its highest grade. From this text Bg. inferred the impiety of patches !—On ὑπάρχειν, see note to xi. 7; δοκέω has in vy. 22 f, its two meanings—non-personal and _per- sonal—of seem and suppose ; like methinks and I think, Germ., dinken and denken. Vv. 246, 25. ‘But God compounded (συν-εκέρασεν, mixed together; Ve. con- temperavit) the body.” The assertion of God’s workmanship in the structure of the physical organs (cf. 18) was neces- sary, when many thinkers affirmed the evil of matter and regarded physical appetites as degrading (cf. 1 Tim. iv. 3, Col. ii. 23; also vi. 13, 18 ff. above). This ac- counts for the adversative ἀλλά---'' Nay but’”’: P. tacitly contradicts those who saw nothing but ἀτιμία and ἀσχημοσύνη in vital bodily functions. For 6 @eds συνεκέρασεν, cf. Ps. cxxxix. 13-16 (where the womb is ‘‘God’s laboratory,” De- litzsch), Eccl. xi. 5, Job x. 8-11. Ed. reads the assertion as directed against philosophy; ‘“‘where Aristotle says ‘na- ture,’ P. says ‘God’”’.—r@ ὑστερουμένφ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν, “to the part which suffers lack (opus habenti, Ον.: cf. note, i. 7) having assigned more abun- dant honour”; so that the human in- stinct respecting the ignobler organs of the body (ver. 23) is the reflex of a Divine ordinance: cf. xi. 14 f., to the like effect.— “ That there may not be division (σχίσμα :