And it has not been proved, as we have seen (§§ 14, 15), that the “ Painful Letter” of 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8, cannot have been the First Canonical Epistle to the Corinthians. It is upon this supposed impossibility that the whole edifice of theory rests, and the base does not appear—to the present writer at least—to be broad enough to bear the superstructure,
μι... =
CHAPTER II. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BPISTLE,
1. Our discussion has hitherto taken for granted the unity of the Epistle (2 Cor.) with which we have to do. But this has been repeatedly questioned, and the arguments alleged in support of the composite character of the document require to be considered in detail. So far back as 1767 Semler urged that the Epistle could be resolved into three parts: (1) chaps. i.-viii. + Rom. xvi. 1-20 + chap. xiii. 11-13; (2) chaps. x.-xiii. 10; (3) chap. ix.; of which he held (2) to be posterior to (1). After a struggling existence the analysis attracted fresh interest when Hausrath in 1870 took it up in part and advocated the distinctness of chaps. x.-xili. from chaps. i.-ix. Schmiedel (in the Hand Kommentar) defended this view in 1890, and Clemen has since adopted it, and indeed regards it as an established result of criticism.1 The theory has not had many advocates in England, but it has been vigorously supported by Dr. J. H. Kennedy in his work entitled The Second and Third Epistles to the Corinthians (1900). By no writer has the matter been more carefully and acutely investigated, and his arguments demand attention.
2. Dr. Kennedy’s view of the sequence of events during St. Paul’s stay at Ephesus is as follows: 1. Titus was sent on a mission to Corinth to preach and to continue St. Paul’s work (2 Cor. xii. 18) at some period after the Apostle’s first visit (Acts xviii. 1). 2. Lost Letter tothe Corinthians. 3. Mission of Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 5). 4. 1 Corinthians written from Ephesus about April, 54. 5. St. Paul stayed at Ephesus because of the greatness of the opportunity there (1 Cor. xvi. 8). 6. He formed a fixed purpose of visiting Jerusalem with the offerings which were being collected (Acts xix. 21). 7. Bad news came from Corinth. 8. St. Paul accordingly paid a brief disciplinary visit
1See Theologische Literaturzeitung, 22nd Dec., 1900; and cf, Clemen’s work entitled Die Einheitlichkeit d. paulin. Briefe.