'l'HE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS A.ND COLLEGES THE SECOND EPISTLE or PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS c. F. CLAY, MANAGER LONDON : FETTER LANE, E.C. 4 NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO. BOMBAY } _ CALCUTTA MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD. MADRAS - !l'ORONTO:THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TOKYO : MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS Edited by A. PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. Sometime Master of University College, Durham Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Trinity Colle~e, Oxford CAMBRIDGE: at the University Press 1923 Fi,-st Editi11n 1903 Reprintrd 1911, 1923 PRINTED I!\ GREAT BRITAIN PREFACE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. THE General Editor does not hold himself re­ sponsible, except in the most general sense, for the statements, opinions, and interpretations contained in the several volumes of this Series. He believes that the value of the Introduction and the Commentary in each case is largely dependent on the Editor being free as to his treatment of the questions which arise, provided that that treatment is in harmony with the character and scope of the Series. He has therefore contented himself with offering criticisms, urging the consideration of alternative interpretations, and the like ; and as a rule he has left the adoption of these suggestions to the discretion of the Editor. F. H. CHASE. THE LODGE, QUEENS' COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. I October, 1903. · EDITOR'S PREFACE. AT the end of the Introduction I have given a list of writings to which I have been much indebted in writing these notes upon the Second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians; and other works are mentioned both in the notes and in the appendices. I have also to express my obligations to the General Editor for his untiring watchful­ ness in reading the proofs and for very many valuable suggestions and criticisms. The theory advocated in the Introduction and in the notes respecting the last four chapters of the Epistle,~as having originally been part of another and earlier letter,­ has been adopted with much reluctance. Years ago I wrote against it. I had then, and. I have still, a great distrust of speculative dissections of documents, where the arguments for disintegration are based wholly upon in­ ternal evidence and receive no support from the history of the text. But, in the present case, minute study of the details at last produced a conviction which became too strong for this reasonable and deep-rooted objection. In the end I was brought to the belief, that the internal evidence, although it stood alone, was too often and too consistentiy in favour of separating the last four chapters ·from the first nine to be barred altogether by antecedent improbabilities. That one letter should lose its beginning viii EDITOR'S PREFACE. and another letter lose its end, and that the two remaining portions should afterwards be put together as forming one letter, is a process which is certainly possible, and which is not so highly improbable as to be incapable of being rendered credible by evidence that is wholly internal. The amount of evidence which has been produced in favour of this theory seems to me to throw the balance of probability on the side of separation : and I believe that I have been able to add to the evidence. It must be remembered that the theory of two mutilated letters being welded together is not a gratuitous hypothesis : · it solves a very real difficulty, viz. the perplexing change of tone and tactics which suddenly takes place after the first nine chapters. And, for the reasons stated in the Intro­ duction and in the notes, this theory has been adopted (not at all with a light heart) as the best solution of the difficulty. It is advocated, and rather strongly advocated, not as having been proved, but as being a very good working hypothesis for the explanation of some extremely puzzling facts. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians bristles with difficulties. That the treatment of them in this commentary will in all cases win assent is · much more than can be expected : but it has been the endeavour of those who are responsible for the production of the book not to shirk difficulties. ALFRED PLUMMER. BJDEFORD. Mi&kaelmu, 1903- TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. INTRODUCTION. PAGES I, The Genuineness of the Epistle xi, xii 1, Place and Time, Occasion and Purpose xiii-xx 3· Contents and Results xx-xxii 4· Language and Style .. ~ xxii-xxiv 5· Quotations from the Old Testament xxv, xxvi 6. The Greek Text ... xxvi-xxix 7. The Integrity of the Epistle xxx-xxxix 8. Commentaries xxxix-xlii II. TEXT AND NOTES 1-135 III. APPENDICES 136~_152 IV. INDEX 153-156 INTRODUCTION. J, THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE, THE genuz"neness of this letter is as impregnable as that of l Corinthians, which imparts much of its own strength to the later letter. But the independent evidence in favour of 2 Corinthians is very strong, although the external testimony begins a little later than in the case of the earlier letter. There is no evidence that the Se1:ond Epistle was kno"'11 to Clement of Rome. The suppose!! reminiscences are very uncon­ vincing: e:g. 2 Cor. L 5 and Clem. ii. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 9 and Clem. xvi. 2, 2 Cor. x. 3, 4 and Clem. xxxvii. 1, 2 Cor. x. 13, 15, 16 and Clem. i. 3, 2 Cor. x. 17 and Clem. xiii. 1, 2 Cor. x. 18 and Clem. xxx. 6. There is much of 2 Corinthians that would have suit~d Clement's purpose very well ; so much so, that we may believe that he would have made as free use of it as he does of 1 Corinthians had he known the Second Epistle. But it need not be doubted that Polycarp knew both Epistles. It is possible that 'pro71iding always for that which is honouraole in the sight of God and of men' (Pol. vi. 1) comes from Prov. iii. 4 rather than from 2 Cor. viii. 21: yet it differs from both in adding 'always' and in substituting 'God' for 'Lord.' But it does not stand alone : 'He '!hat raised Him from the dead will raise us also' (Pol. ii. 2) is evidently a loose quotation from 2 Cor. iv. 14; and 'among whom the blessed Paul laboured, who were his letters in the beginning' (Pol. xi. 3) seems to be a clear allusion to 2 Cor. iii. 2. The last passage is one of which we have only a Latin translation, qui estis in princzpio II. COR,2 I, Xll INTRODUCTION. epistulae ej'us ; but there is little doubt that epistulae is nom. plur. and not gen. sing., and therefore the allusion is to 'letters of commendation' and 'ye are our epistle' in 2 Corinthians rather than to the beginning of the Epistle to the Philippians. Irenaeus quotes 2 Cor. repeatedly {IV. xxvi. 4, xxix. 1, xxxvi. 6, v. xiii. 4), and sometimes by name : Apostolus ait in epistola secunda ad Corinthz'os {IV. xxviii. 3) ; in secunda quae est ad Corinthz'os dt'cens (v. iii. 1) : and he quotes from chapters ii., iii., iv., v., and xiii. See Werner, Der Paulz'nismus des Irenaeus, Leipzig, 1889. Athenagoras (de Res. Mort.) quotes part of v. 10. Theophilus of Antioch shows clear traces of 2 Cor., as of most of the Pauline Epistles. Clement of Alexandria quotes it more than forty times, and from every chapter of it, excepting i. and ix. Tertullian (adv. Marc. xi., xii.) goes through it, and else­ where quotes it over seventy times : see especially de Pud. xiii. Cyprian quotes every chapter, excepting i. and x. Marcion admitted it to his arbitrarily select Canon. It is included in the Muratorian Fragment. The internal evidence is even stronger. "The contents of this Epistle are the best guarantee of its genuineness. Not only do they fall in with what we kno'Y from other sources concerning the history of St Paul, but the animation of the style, the earnestness of the appeals, the variety and minuteness of the personal details with which the Epistle abounds, place it beyond the reach of the forger" (Lias). Correspondences with other Epistles of S. Paul (especially I Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans) and with Acts are frequent and subtle. And the autobiographical touches which are peculiar to this letter are as convincing as those which are supported by other evi­ dence: they are so intensely real and so unlikely to have been invented. To put this letter into the class of pseudepigrapha is to stultify oneself as a critic. "In its indiv_iduality of style, intensity of feeling, inimitable expression of the writer's idio­ syncrasy, it may be said to stand at the head of all the Pauline Epistles, Galatians not excepted. ... It is the most personal, least doctrinal, of all the Epistles except Philemon ; but at the same time it is saturated with the characteristic conceptions of St Paul" (Bishop Robertson, Hastings' D.B. I, p. 492). INTRODUCTION. xiii 2. PLACE AND TIME, OCGASION AND PURPOSE. The place and time can be fixed within narrow limits. The Apostle was in Macedonia (ii. 131 vii. 5, viii. 11 ix. 2-4); and the ancient subscription (B, Peshitto) may be right which dates the Epistle from Philippi. S. Paul wrote I Corinthians at Ephesus about Easter in a year that was probably A.D. 57. C. H. Turner (Hastings' D.B. I. p. 424) prefers A,D. 55 ; and Harnack (Chronologie der altchr.