m 1 Cor. xvi. 2.
irq
e Reff. i. 6. f Acts ii. 22; Rom. xv.
13. τί γάρ
ἐκκλησίας ; εἰ μὴ ὅτι αὐτὸς *
9; Heb. ii. πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ “ καταναρ- 4:
p pees g Chap. xi. 8 only. Reff. ii. 7. i Acts xxi.
13; Dan.
iil, 15.
k Chap. xi. 8 only.
1 Cor. x. Οἱ Cor, xi. 17 only.
ἀλλ᾽ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις ᾿ ἃ ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι ὑπὲρ τῶν
n Here only.
1DcEKLP and the Bohairic support εν σηµειοις; SAAD", d, 6, f and the Har- clean give σηµειοις; G, g and the Peshitto και σηµ.; δῷ τεσηµ.; better σημειοις
τε with ὃν Β 17, 73.
ΣΝΕΑΡΡΕΚΙ,Ρ support ηττηθητε; better ησσωθητε with κ ΡΕ”,
3 DE give παρα for υπερ.
4G and the Latin vss. give εγω αυτος.
5 S8ABG, the Latin, Syriac and Sahidic vss. have τριτον τοντο (DE and the Bohairic give τουτο τριτον) ; om. τουτο KLP (cf. xiii. 1).
6 DbcEKL, the Latin, Syriac and Egyptian vss. support καταναρκ. υμων; D*G
have vpas for υμων ; om. νΌµων NAB 17,
73"
7 D*E, d, e add και εκδαπανησω after δαπανησω.
8 NcDbcEKLP, f, vg. and the Syriac vss. support ει και; om. ει και D*d, 6, g; om. καὶ Ν ΑΒΕ 17 and the Egyptian vss,
® $cBDEGKLP and the Latin vss, support αγαπων ; better αγαπω with ΝΑ 17
and the Egyptian vss.
‘‘miracles’’; but it is their signal rather than their wonderful character upon which stress is laid. To describe them as δυνάμεις (Matt. vii. 22, Acts xix. 11, 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28) directs attention to the Omnipotent Being to whom they are due.
Ver. 13. τί γάρ ἐστιν ὃ Hoo. κ.τ.λ.: for what is there wherein ye were treated as inferior (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19) to the rest of the churches, except indeed that I myself did not burden you? Cf. Acts xx. 33, I Cor. ix. 12 and ver. 16. The emphatic αὐτὸς ἐγώ may indicate that it was only he himself (and not his colleagues) who refused maintenance (see on xi. 12). This was the only σημεῖον τοῦ ἄποσ- τόλου which he did not exhibit at Corinth, and he ironically adds, Forgive me this wrong.
Vv. 14-18. THAT HE DID NOT CLAIM MAINTENANCE AT CORINTH WAS Ρ18- INTERESTED ON HIS PART.—Ver. 14. ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο κ.τ.λ.: behold this is the third time that I am ready to come to you. While these words only express that he had been ready to go twice before, they are quite consistent with the hypo- thesis, required by xiii. 1, 2 and ii. 1 (see Introd., p. 5), that he had actually