with wise diplomacy as with the self-respect which formed so marked a feature in St. Paul’s character.”! But to argue thus is to over- look the fact that St. Paul’s instructions about the collection in 1 Cor. xvi. 1-5 were given in answer to queries addressed to him on the subject by the Church of Corinth. The first part of the letter which Titus carried was taken up with rebuke; but there was nothing undiplomatic in the fact that St. Paul sent his answers to these queries by the same hand. In fact to have withheld his answer would have only given offence.?
4. We have now to consider the evidence adduced for the dis- section of 2 Corinthians. First, it is urged that there is not only a change of tone at x. 1, but that the way in which the chapter opens shows that something has been lost which immediately preceded it. Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ are the first words, and δέ (it is said) marks an anti- thesis. The passage “contains an allusion to an objection which had been brought against the Apostle, which it brings before us not as if the subject were now for the first time introduced, but as if it had been already mentioned”. Rather should we say that δέ marks the transition to a new subject, a usage to which we have an exact parallel in viii. 1 of this very Epistle; where after the words which conclude chap. vii., χαίρω ὅτι ἐν παντὶ θαρρῶ ἐν ὑμῖν, St. Paul passes to his next topic with the words γνωρίζομεν δὲ ὑμῖν. Another parallel is found at 1 Cor. xv. 1, where in like manner a new subject is introduced by the words γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν. It is unnecessary to assume, as some have done, that the change of ‘tone here was caused by the arrival at this point of a messenger from Corinth bringing tidings later and less favourable than that brought by Titus. This may, indeed, be so; but the hypothesis is not needed. It is hardly likely that any of St. Paul’s more important letters were written or dictated at a single sitting ; and the change of tone is sufficiently accounted for by a change of mood such as every busy and over-burdened man is subject to, especially
110ε, Cit., Pp. 124.
2These considerations also break the force of Dr. Kennedy’s main argument for the early date of 1 Corinthians. It is plain that the business of the collection had been set on foot before the date of that letter, in which counsel is given as to the best method of carrying it on; and thus the phrase ἀπὸ πέρυσι (2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2), in which so much difficulty has been found, receives adequate explanation. The Corinthians would truly be said in November, 55, to have ‘‘ made a beginning” a year ago, and St. Paul’s boast to the Macedonian Christians that Achaia had been ‘prepared for a year past’ was quite justifiable (see note in loc.).
® Kennedy, Joc. cit., p. 96.
a2 INTRODUCTION
if his health is not very robust (cf. 2 Cor. i. 8, 9, and xii. 7). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is not a formal treatise like the Epistle to the Romans; it is a personal letter, and in such letters we have no reason to expect either systematic arrangement of topics or pedantically uniform treatment.
5. This consideration helps us, too, to dispose of the difficulty that the last four chapters contemplate an openly rebellious minority at Corinth, the existence of which is not emphasised in the first nine chapters. It was entirely natural that Titus’ report being of a mixed character, partly good and partly bad, St. Paul’s letter based upon it should show traces at once of his gratification and of his grief. And, indeed, chaps. i.-ix. are not without indications that his authority was not cheerfully accepted by all the Corinthian Christians. His defence against the charge of fickleness (i. 15-17) shows that the charge had been made; the mention of οἱ πλείονες in ii. 6 (cf. iv. 15) shows that a minority did not heartily concur in the sentence which was inflicted, although, as a matter of fact, all had acquiesced in his view that the Church should take cognisance of the moral scandal which had occurred;! he more than hints in ii. 17 that οἱ πολλοί make merchandise of the word of God, and his remark loses point if none such were to be found at Corinth ; that τινες, “ some persons,” make use of commendatory letters (iii. 1) is brought up to their disparagement ; the comparison between the ministries of the Old and New Covenants in iii. 6 f. is indirectly aimed at the Judaising party (xi. 22, 23); so, too, those who boast ἐν προσώπῳ καὶ οὐ καρδίᾳ (v. 12) are his Corinthian opponents ; and, lastly, the force of the antitheses in vi. 8-10 depends on the fact that corresponding statements to his discredit were being made at Corinth. The situation was simply this. The Church as a whole (and, indeed, unanimously, cf. vii. 15, 16) had taken the action he desired in the case of the offender; but there remained a turbulent minority who resisted his authority in other matters. The evil of unchastity does not here need special consideration; it was always present at Corinth.