7. THE INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. It has been suggested that in 2 Corinthians, as we have it, there are portions of two, or three, or even of four different letters. The parts in question are vi. 14-→vii. 1; viii.; ix.; and x.-xiii. Different critics would sever one or more of these parts from the remainder of the letter. The suggestion that any one of these parts was not written by S. Paul is not worth discussing; both external and internal evidence are overwhelmingly in favour of all four of them. We cannot doubt that the whole of 2 Corinthians comes from the Apostle himself. And it must be admitted that external evidence is wholly against any dissection of the Epistle. No MS. or Version or Father gives any indication that the Epistle ever existed in a form from which any one of these four portions was absent, or that any one of these portions ever existed apart from the rest. In this respect there is no analogy between any one of these parts and Rom. xv., xvi. or Jn. vii. 53— viii. II. And with regard to two of the four parts in question the theory of dissection may be dismissed without hesitation. The note at the end of chapter ix. shows that there is no sufficient reason for entertaining proposals to sever either viii. or ix. from the preceding chapters. The only two parts about which, upon internal evidence, reasonable doubts are raised are the first and last of the four mentioned above; vi. 14-vii. 1 and x.-xiii. Substantial reasons are urged for regarding vi. 14vii. I as part of a different letter, and possibly as part of the letter alluded to in 1 Cor. v. 9. And still more substantial reasons are urged for regarding x.-xiii. as part of a different letter, and probably as part of the letter alluded to in 2 Cor. ii. 3, 9, vii. 8. The balance of arguments seems to be against the first of these two hypotheses, and in favour of the second. It is true that internal evidence suggests the excision of vi. 14-vii. 1, not merely because the paragraph comes in somewhat awkwardly, but still more because vi. 13 fits on so well to vii. 21. Hence Bacon, Clemen, Davidson, Hausrath, McGiffert, Moffatt, Pfleiderer, and Renan regard this paragraph as a fragment from another letter which has somehow become inserted here; while Franke, Hilgenfeld, Sabatier, and Whitelaw are persuaded that it is a fragment of the letter mentioned in I Cor. v. 9. But the reasons urged for the excision scarcely counterbalance the unbroken textual evidence, combined, as it is, with the improbability of a fragment of one letter being inserted into the middle of another letter. If there has been interpolation, it is more reasonable to believe that S. Paul, after finishing the letter, inserted this exhortation before sending it. And yet even this hypothesis is not needed. How many letters would read more smoothly if a particular paragraph were struck out; and yet the paragraph which seems to interrupt the flow was written! After what is said in v. 10 and vi. 1, 2, the exhortation in vi. 14 ff. comes not unnaturally, especially as it is the repetition of a warning which the Apostle must have given before. Before repeating it (vi. 3), and after repeating it (vii. 2), the Apostle claims their affection, an affection which earnest exhortation of this kind ought not to interrupt. See note ad loc. p. 105. The case for separating x.-xiii. from i.—ix., and for believing x.-xiii. to be part of the severe letter (2 Cor. ii. 3, 9, vii. 8), about the effect of which S. Paul was so anxious, is much stronger. (1) We look in vain in 1 Corinthians for passages which the Apostle could have regretted having written (2 Cor. vii. 8); and we cannot believe that I Corinthians as a whole was written 'out of much affliction and anguish of heart...with many tears' (2 Cor. ii. 4). But the whole of x. 1-xiii. 10 (which is perhaps the most vigorous and forcible portion of all the Pauline Epistles) might well have been written in affliction and anguish and there are bitter things in these four chapters which the Apostle might at times have wished that he had not written. 1 It is remarkable that Lisco, while striking out vi. 14-vii. 1, does not join vii. 2 to vi. 13. Between them he inserts xii. 11-19, thus sacrificing the chief reason for the excision. (2) It is difficult to believe that S. Paul, after (a) the agony of suspense in which he had waited for Titus' report of the way in which the Corinthians had taken the severe letter, and after (b) confirming their goodwill and obedience by the tenderness of i. vii., and after (c) delicately feeling his way towards pressing them to make generous contributions to the Palestine Fund, would append to these affectionate and carefully worded appeals the biting sarcasms and lashing reproofs contained in x.-xiii. Such utterances would renew the former agony of suspense as to how the Corinthians would receive such severe words, would undo the recent reconciliation, and would risk the success of the Palestine Fund. To write a severe letter, then wish that one had not sent it, and then (when the severity has been smoothed over) write an equally or more severe letter, is not the conduct which we should expect from one so tactful and sympathetic as S. Paul. It is easier to believe that he wrote only one severe letter, that x.—xiii. is the latter part of it, and that (after it had brought about submission) it was followed by the conciliatory passages and affectionate pleadings of i.-ix. On this hypothesis all runs in a natural order. Those who hold that I Corinthians is the severe letter have to explain how the Apostle could be so intensely anxious about the effects of so moderate a letter as that, and then write the scathing severities of x.—xiii. (3) There are passages in x.—xiii. which seem to be inconsistent with passages in i.—ix., if the two portions are parts of one and the same letter. Could S. Paul write by (your) faith ye stand,' i.e. 'so far as your belief goes, you are sound' (i. 24), and then say 'Try your own selves, whether ye be in the faith' (xiii. 5)? Or declare, 'I rejoice that in everything I am of good courage concerning you' (vii. 21), and then declare, 'I fear...lest by any means there should be strife, jealousy, wraths, factions, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults; lest...I should mourn for many of them that have sinned heretofore, and repented not of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they committed' (xii. 20, 21)? Contrast 'My joy is the joy of you all' (ii. 3), 'Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts' (iii. 2), Great is my glorying in your behalf' (vii. 4), 'In everything ye approved yourselves to be pure in the matter' (vii. 11), and 'Ye abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all earnestness, and in your love to us' (viii. 7), with the fear quoted above, and with such expressions as 'I fear, lest by any means...your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ' (xi. 3), 'Ye bear with the foolish gladly, being wise yourselves' (xi. 19), and 'I write these things while absent, that I may not when present deal sharply' (xiii. 10). If the grave doubts and fears about them were written first, while they were still recalcitrant, and the commendations of them were written later, after they had submitted, all would be in logical sequence. (4) It is pointed out in the notes that there are passages in i.-ix. which look like direct allusions to passages in x.—xiii. ; which implies that the passages in x.-xiii. were sent to Corinth before the passages which allude to them were written. In each case taken singly the apparent correspondence might be fortuitous; but there are too many apparent correspondences to make that explanation satisfactory. It will be useful to collect the instances and look at them as a whole. Let us assume that x.-xiii. was sent first, and that i.-ix. followed a little later. Then we seem to have expressions in the later letter which are intended to refer to expressions in the earlier one. See notes in each place. i.-ix. viii. 22. By reason of much confidence (Teolohσe) to youward. ii. 9. To this end also did I v. 13. Whether we were beside vii. 2. We took advantage (è- xiii. 2. If I come again, I will while absent, that I may not i. 23. To spare (peidóμevos) you I forbore to come to Corinth. ii. 3. I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow. The last two instances are very strong; and they come close together in the later letter, in which the second instance above is close to them in position. Besides these seven pairs, there are the cases in xi.-xii. in which he commends himself, and the passages in i.-ix. in which he assures the Corinthians that he is not going to do this again. xi. 5. I am not a whit behind those pre-eminent apostles. xi. 18. I will glory also. xi. 23. I more. xii. 12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you. iii. 1. Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? V. 12. We are not again commending ourselves to you. We may say, therefore, that there are nine passages in i.—ix. in which there is a probable or possible reference to something in x.-xiii. That is a large number; especially when it is remembered that of the earlier letter we have got only four chapters, or less than 90 verses. If we had the whole of the severe letter, the case would probably be stronger. (5) The severe letter, intermediate between 1 Corinthians and 2 Cor. i.—ix., would be written from Ephesus, whereas 2 Cor. i. ix. was certainly written from Macedonia (ii. 13, vii. 5, viii. 1, ix. 2—4); and x. 16 is much more intelligible if we assume that the passage was written from Ephesus. 'To preach the gospel even unto the parts beyond you' no doubt means unto Italy and Spain. Such a way of expressing oneself would be both natural and exact, if the writer was in Ephesus: but it would be neither natural nor exact, if he were in Macedonia. See Hausrath and Kennedy ad loc. For all these five reasons the case for separating x.-xiii. from i.—ix., and for regarding x.-xiii. as part of the severe letter alluded to in i.-ix., is very strong. Indeed, if the fact of a severe letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians be admitted, it is not |