has been made out for its rejection; and I have given (in the notes in loc.) the reasons which seem to me to justify the Pauline authorship of the section, and plausibly to explain its insertion at this particular point. It is not impossible (though for the hypothesis there is no external authority) that the section is a marginal gloss which has crept into the text at a very early period, or a postscript written in the margin by St. Paul or his amanuensis. But, on the whole, I believe that it ought to be retained.
νο ον
CHAPTER III. THE HISTORY STYLE AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
1. The external tradition as to the circulation and authority of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians is abundant from the year 175 onward. It is quoted by Irenzus of Gaul repeatedly (e.g., Her., iii., 7, “‘aperte Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios dixisse,” etc.) ; by Athenagoras of Athens (de resurr. morte, xviii.) ; by Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autol., i., 12, iii, 14); by Tertullian of Carthage (de Pudicitia, 13 et passim); by Clement of Alexandria (frequently, e.g., Strom., iii., 14, iv., 6), witnesses representing Churches widely separated from each other. Again, the Epistle is mentioned in the Muratorian Pragment; it was in Marcion’s Canon, and there is no evidence that it was absent from any list of N.T. books or any collection of Pauline letters. Before 175 ap. the evidence is not copious, but it is distinct. The letter to Diognetus (v. 12) quotes chap. vi. 8-10; and the elders cited by Irenzeus, who represent (at latest) the generation preceding him, quote chap. xii. 4 (Her, V., v., 1). Finally, Polycarp (ad Phil., ii., 4, and vi., 1) quotes chap. iv. 14 and viii. 21, thus providing proof of the use of the Epistle before the year 120. That it seems to have been used by the Sethites and and Ophites would point to a similar conclusion.!
11Ὲ is somewhat remarkable that the Epistle is not quoted by Clement of Rome when writing to the Church at Corinth. He cites (§ xlvii.) the First Epistle, and the Second, if known to him, would have supplied him with many apposite texts, powerfully supporting his appeal for unity. But no solid argument can be based on Clement’s silence, especially when it is remembered that we should look in vain in his letter for traces of Galatians, Colossians, Philippians, and 1 and 2 Thessa- lonians, as well as of 2 Corinthians. These letters may not have been known in Rome at the time; or Clement may have been personally unacquainted with them; or he may not have been familiar enough with their contents to quote from them. Any of these explanations is adequate, without resorting to the hypothesis (cf. Kennedy, 2 and 3 Corinthians, p. 142 ff.) that Clement does not quote the canonical 2 Corinthians because it was not yet in existence as a whole,
but only survived in the form of fragments of the great Apostle’s correspondence with Corinth,