occurs in vi. 5 and xi. 27, but nowhere else in the N.T. (jf) προσ- αναπληροῦν occurs in ix. 12 and xi. 9, but nowhere else in the N.T. (g) ἕτοιμος occurs both in ix. 5 and x. 6, 16; only once again in St. Paul (Tit. iii. 1). (h) δυνατεῖν is found in ix. 8 and xiii. 3; only once again in St. Paul (Rom. xiv. 4). (1) θαρρεῖν occurs in v. 6, 8, vii. 16 and x. 1, 2, but not elsewhere in St. Paul. It is true that in x, 1, 2 it is used to express stern confidence in himself (θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς), and in vii. 16 to express hopeful confidence in his corre- spondents (θαρρῶ ἐν ὑμῖν) ; but this does not alter the fact that he does not use the word in any sense in any other Epistle. (2 πλεονεκτεῖν Occurs in ii. 11, vii. 2 and xii. 17, 18; only again in St. Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 6. (4) παρακαλεῖν occurs thirteen times in chaps. i.-ix. and four times in chaps. x.-xiii.; that is, with unusual frequency in both parts of the Epistle. It is the word used throughout of the Apostle’s directions to Titus (viii. 6, 17, ix. 5 and xii. 17). Other words and phrases occur with marked frequency in both parts of the Epistle, such as ἐν παντί, καυχάομαι, περισσότερος (-ws), etc. ; but while such phenomena fall in with the conclusion we have already reached, they are hardly significant enough to be registered as supplying independent arguments. But, on the whole, the linguistic facts powerfully support the traditional view, viz., that the Second Epistle to the Corinthians is a single document and not a patchwork of two or more detached pieces.
10. It is further to be borne in mind that neither MSS. nor versions lend any countenance to these disintegrating theories. They all, from the earliest times, treat the Epistle as a whole, as Irenzeus explicitly does more than once. He quotes ii. 15, 16 (Her., IV., xxviii., 3) and xiii. 7, 9 (He@r., V., iii., 1) as alike contained in the secunda ad Corinthios. No doubt the union of fragments is sup- posed to have taken place long before his time. Nevertheless the fact that there is no trace of it in literature is significant. ‘The attestation of the N.T. text is so varied and so early that a displace- ment of this magnitude could hardly fail to bear traces of itself.” 1
11. One section of the Epistle (vi. 14-vii. 1) has been regarded as an interpolation by many writers who accept the Epistle in other respects as a complete document from the hand of St. Paul. And it is not to be denied that this section comes in awkwardly in its present place. It is much more like what we would expect a frag- ment of the Lost Letter (1 Cor. v. 9) to be than a genuine part of the Epistle before us. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that a case
1 Sanday, Encycl. Biblica, vol. i., p. 906.