Conclusions
Excursus: On the Use of the First Person Plural in St. Paul’s Epistles
It is maintained by Mr. Conybeare (vol. i, p. 419 note 3, and vol. ii, p. 95 note 1) that St. Paul uses ‘we’ ‘according to the idiom of many ancient writers’ where a modern writer would use ‘I’ (see his former reference), or as he expresses it elsewhere (second reference), ‘He uses ἐγώ frequently, interchangeably with ἡμεῖς and when he includes others in the ἡμεῖς, he specifies it.’ In regard to 2 Corinthians in particular, Mr. Conybeare asserts (vol. ii, p. 95) ‘that Timothy was not with him during the danger in Asia.’ But this of course is presuming that the danger in question is the tumult in Asia (Acts 19). Mr. Conybeare then appears to entirely disconnect the use of the plural in 2 Corinthians from the plurality of persons in whose name the letter is written. Mr. Alford has a slovenly note (2 Cor 1:4) in which he seems to adopt the same view.
Accordingly, Mr. Conybeare professes to act upon this view. I shall not inquire here into what inconsistencies he is led and how far he is obliged to forsake his theory. Nor yet shall I lay much stress on the idiom of the epistolary ‘we’ which is much more common in Latin than in Greek. But I will offer two or three facts for consideration:
Conclusions
We may conclude: 1) that the plural ‘we’ is not merely an epistolary ‘we’ but it is connected with the plurality of persons in whose name the Epistle is written; 2) that so far from being correct to translate it ‘I’ ordinarily, it is only to be so translated where the context shows that it clearly refers to the Apostle alone. 3) In every instance where the plural is used, we find that it will apply to those who are associated with the Apostle, as well as the Apostle himself (except perhaps in 1 Thess 3:1, 2 where however he distinctly states he is speaking of himself only—1 Thess 3:5); 4) There are passages where it is quite impossible to refer the plural to St. Paul alone, and where Mr. Conybeare has violated all rules of language in attempting so to restrict it e.g. 1 Thess 2:4—ἀλλὰ Θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, where Mr. Conybeare translates ‘as one who strives to please God, whose search tries my heart, although I might have been burdensome to you as being Christ’s apostle.’ And again 2 Cor 7:3—προείρηκα γὰρ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἐστε εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν καὶ συνζῆν, which Mr. Conybeare renders ‘I have said before that I have you in my heart, and live and die with “you”—(and in a third passage, 2 Cor 3:2 the error is stereotyped).’ Now no one will deny that a King or an editor may employ the plural ‘we’ with propriety, but it may be questioned whether one could balk at ‘our crowns’ or ‘our pens,’ when only one person was meant. And thus, though the Apostle might say ‘we’ he would not call himself apostles or speak of his hearts; 5) But in very fact, Paul’s own language shows that by the use of the plural he does generally include more than himself, for in particular cases he is careful to substitute the singular for the plural when he refers to himself personally, or in some other way to qualify the expression. Thus, in 1 Thess 2:18 St. Paul is careful to distinguish himself from the others who are included in the plural. Mr. Conybeare has avoided the inference by a loose and incorrect translation (cf. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν with ‘my Gospel,’ and passages collected in the Notes on 1 Thess 1:5). See again διότι ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς (1 Thess 2:18), ‘we were desirous of visiting you, (for my part, I have entertained the desire more than once), but’ etc. Mr. Conybeare translates it ‘wherefore I Paul (for my own part) would have returned to visit you.’ [This will not do].
[Here is a list Lightfoot drew up to make his point]
Romans 15:15—critical use of ‘I’ when he means ‘I.’
1 Thess 2:18—ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος
1 Thess 3:5—διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ, ἔπεμψα, . . . ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν.
1 Thess 5:27—Ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον.
2 Thess 2:5—ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑμῖν.
2 Thess 3:17—Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, ὅ ἐστιν σημεῖον ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ· οὕτως γράφω.
ELSEWHERE IN 1 AND 2 THESSALONIANS WE HAVE THE PLURAL
Philippians always has the singular, and accordingly he speaks of Timothy in the third person (Phil 2:19).
Apparent exceptions Phil 3:17—καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς.
Phil 3:20—He uses the plural when speaking of himself with those he addresses, and the faithful generally.
Philemon—Philem 2—τῷ συστρατιώτῃ ἡμῶν, where ἡμῶν may include Philemon.
Elsewhere in Philemon the singular.
Romans, singular always, with the apparent exception of Rom 16:9—τὸν συνεργὸν ἡμῶν, which is entirely explicable as in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthians—singular throughout where the writer speaks of himself. Exceptions: 1) where he speaks of believers generally, as in 1 Cor 8:8; 2) when together with certain other persons e.g. Apollos and other preachers (e.g. 1 Cor 1:23; 2:6; 4:1, 9).