INTRODUCTION.

I. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

THE genuineness of this letter is as impregnable as that of I 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 Second Epistle was known to Clement of Rome. The supposed reminiscences are very unconvincing: e.g. 2 Cor. i. 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 suited 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 I Corinthians had he known the Second Epistle. But it need not be doubted that Polycarp knew both Epistles. It is possible that 'providing always for that which is honourable 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 that 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 principio II. COR.2

b

epistulae ejus; 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 Corinthios (IV. xxviii. 3); in secunda quae est ad Corinthios dicens (v. iii. 1): and he quotes from chapters ii., iii., iv., v., and xiii. See Werner, Der Paulinismus 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 elsewhere 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 know 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 evidence: 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 individuality of style, intensity of feeling, inimitable expression of the writer's idiosyncrasy, 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).

2. PLACE AND TIME, OCCASION AND PURPOSE.

The place and time can be fixed within narrow limits. The Apostle was in Macedonia (ii. 13, vii. 5, viii. 1, 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. Litt. p. 717) suggests A.D. 53, or even 52, as probable; but these early dates have not found general acceptance. S. Paul intended to remain at Ephesus until Pentecost (I Cor. xvi. 8); but anxiety may have made him leave earlier. He had previously sent Timothy to Corinth; but he did not feel sure that Timothy would get so far (1 Cor. xvi. 9), and S. Luke does not know of Timothy's going further than Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). All that we know is that Timothy was in Macedonia with S. Paul when 2 Corinthians was written (i. 1). When S. Paul left Ephesus (presumably soon after Pentecost A.D. 57), he went to Troas, hoping there to meet Titus with news from Corinth. After waiting in vain for him he went on to Macedonia (ii. 12, 13), where he found Titus returning from Corinth (vii. 5, 6). The satisfactory report of the Corinthian Church brought by Titus, especially as regards their reception of a severe letter written to them by S. Paul, is the occasion of 2 Corinthians. It was probably written in the autumn, and the usual view is that it was written in the autumn of the same year as that in which I Corinthians was written. But it is possible that we ought to place, not six months, but about eighteen between 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are two reasons for this; but neither of them is decisive. (1) The expression άrò méρvσɩ (viii. 10, ix. 2) may mean either 'last year' or 'a year ago.' If it means 'last year,' and if S. Paul reckoned by the Macedonian year or the Jewish year, which began in the autumn, he might in the autumn speak of the previous spring as 'last year.' But if it means 'a year ago,' then we must have more than a year between 1 and 2 Corinthians. (2) As will be seen presently, there is a good deal that took ba

place between the two letters; and, although it all might be compressed into six or seven months, yet a period of seventeen or eighteen months seems to be rather more probable. Whichever alternative is adopted, S. Paul probably did not leave Ephesus for Troas until considerably later than the Pentecost of the year in which he wrote 1 Corinthians. This involves an investigation of the course of events between the sending of the two letters.

The transition from the region of 1 Corinthians to that of 2 Corinthians has been compared to the passage from the clear, if somewhat intricate, paths of a laid-out park into the obscurity of a trackless forest. The vegetation is still much the same; but it is no longer easy to find one's way through it. Timothy is back again with S. Paul; but we do not know how far he has been, or what he has accomplished. The factions are still there; but they are much less distinguishable: indeed, only the 'Christ' party, i.e. the one most opposed to S. Paul, is clearly marked out (see Baur, Paul, his Life and Works, vol. I. p. 293, Eng. tr.). The letter teems with what seems to be allusions, polemical and otherwise; but it is not easy to interpret them or even to be sure of them. The Apostle frequently denies that he does this or that. These negative statements sometimes seem to mean that he has been accused of doing what he denies ; e.g. i. 17, 24, iv. 5, v. 13, vii. 2, xi. 7, 9, 16, xiii. 6. Sometimes they rather imply that his opponents act in this way; e.g. i. 12, 19, ii. 17, iii. 3, 5, v. 16, x. 2, 4, 8, 12, 15. Sometimes perhaps both these points are implied; e.g. iv. 2, x. 15. Chapters x.-xiii. are full of scathing insinuations.

It is evident that, since I Corinthians was written, there had been much opposition at Corinth to the authority of S. Paul. But the only event in the intervening period which can be said to be established beyond possibility of dispute is the journey of Titus to Corinth to put things on a better footing by inducing the rebellious party to submit (2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, 7, 13—15).

Almost certainly Titus took with him a letter; not because he was unknown and needed a letter of commendation, for he may have been there before (viii. 6, and comp. xii. 18), and very possibly he was the bearer of 1 Corinthians; but because