The Outhne of 2 Corinthians

Part One

Pauline Prolegomena

Of Chronology and Context

Chronology of Paul’s Christian Life

Surprisingly enough, there are in fact only two fixed points in the history of the Acts, and indeed only two that have a bearing on Pauline chronology: 1) the death of Herod Agrippa in A.D. 44; 2) the removal of Felix and the installing of Festus as procurator of Judaea. Even this is not directly related but can be made out with tolerable accuracy, searching for a terminus ad quem. In fact we will find that the terminus ad quem and the terminus a quo [the latest and earliest dates that something could have happened], in this case coincide. Felix was brother of Claudius’ favorite, Pellas, and after he had been removed to make room for Festus, he was only saved from a lawsuit with the Jews by the intercession of his brother. Now Pellas was poisoned in A.D. 62 (cf. Tacitus, Annals xiv.65). And in any case these events must have transpired before the removal of Pellas from power in A.D. 55 (Tacitus, Annals xiii.14). Thus the removal and the intercession must have been before this last event. 3) Again, Paul preaches for two whole years unmolested in Rome (Acts 28:30, 31). Rome was burnt and the persecution of the Christians broke out in July 64 A.D., in fact after July 19th 64 A.D. The apostle Paul then must have been in Rome by the Spring of the year A.D. 62. Therefore, Felix must have been recalled in the summer of 61 at the latest. This is confirmed by another consideration. 4) The Jews who preferred the charges against Felix are said by Josephus to have obtained certain privileges from the Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea by means of Burrus. Now Burrus died in February A.D. 62 at the latest, perhaps even in January. Therefore, Felix was recalled in A.D. 61 at the latest (see Ant. 20.8.9). In Acts 28:16 Paul’s fellow prisoners are given up παρέδωκεν τοὺς δεσμίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ, i.e. by the prefectus praetorio. Now Burrus was the sole prefectus praetorio, but after his death, the office was shared by two persons, as it had been before. The singular then points to only one prefectus, hence Burrus was still living.

But Paul cannot have arrived in Rome so early in the year as February. The νηστεία had already passed when he was at the harbor in Crete. He is shipwrecked off of Malta after a voyage of fourteen days from Crete. He stays at Malta for three months and then he proceeds. The νηστεία was on the tenth day of Tishri, (sometime in October), so that Paul could not have arrived in Rome before March. It must have been not later than in year 61 when he arrived, but not earlier than 60 when Felix was recalled. Thus much on the terminus ad quem, what of the terminus a quo?

Paul was imprisoned after Pentecost and remained two years in prison before Festus’ arrival. Therefore Festus arrived after Pentecost. At the νηστεία (Acts 24:27) Paul was as far as Crete on his way to Rome, between Pentecost then and October. Festus must have entered into his procuratorship, probably in the summer. What is the earliest possible year? 1) Josephus mentions several acts of Felix after the accession of Nero in October A.D. 54. Therefore, he was still procurator in A.D. 55; 2) in Acts 21:38 there is an allusion to the rebellion headed by the Egyptian as having happened πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν. We know that this rebellion took place in Nero’s reign, allowing sufficient time for the events themselves, and taking πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν into account. Perhaps then the earliest for Paul’s two year imprisonment in Caesarea is Pentecost A.D. 58 and therefore 60 for the arrival of Festus.

Again, St. Paul says (Acts 24:10) that Felix Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ὄντα σε κριτὴν τῷ ἔθνει. Felix entered into his procuratorship in A.D. 52-53. We cannot well allow less than five years for πολλῶν ἐτῶν, and this will be sufficient when we remember how frequently the office changed hands. Further, the events which happened during Felix’s procuratorship took time. Five years would be πολλῶν ἐτῶν, compared to the time it was generally held by one man. Therefore, the terminus a quo for Festus’ arrival is the summer of A.D. 60, and this was also found to be the terminus ad quem.

We have thus two dates given. There are other events which may be employed to verify the chronology, but only to confirm results, as being uncertain in themselves, e.g. the edict of Claudius and the ethnarchy of Aretas in Damascus and the proconsulship of Gallio in Corinth. The chronology has to be determined for these events by relative chronology given in the Acts and in Galatians. The most convenient way is to work backwards from the arrival of Festus in Judaea in A.D. 60. By this means (see Davidson Intro. Vol. ii. p. 110) we arrive at these results:

PAUL’S CONVERSION—A.D. 38? (Gal 2:1—Paul went up to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion). Probably however, Meyer is right in insisting that διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν must denote ‘after an interval of fourteen years’ from the visit narrated in Gal 1. In this case the date would be

PAUL’S CONVERSION—A.D. 35 with the first visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 38?

FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM—A.D. 41 (Gal 1:18, three years after the conversion).

TARSUS, ANTIOCH

SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM—44 or 45? The same years as the death of Herod Agrippa. His death seems to have transpired between Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem and his departure (Acts 11:30–12:25).

Chronology of Paul’s Epistles

The letters may be divided into two classes: 1) those written before the Apostle’s arrival in Rome—Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1, 2 Thessalonians and; 2) those written after his arrival in Rome—Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1, 2 Timothy and Titus (though several critics remove one or more of these and place them in the first division e.g. Torischer [?] places 1 Timothy and Titus before Paul’s last imprisonment). We are only concerned here with the letters in this first division, and none of the letters included in this division present any difficulty except perhaps Galatians. The order seems to be this:

SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY—1 Thessalonians soon after his visit to Thessalonike. Written from Corinth A.D. 52. 2 Thessalonians, also from Corinth (not long after the first letter), towards the end of his stay there so—53–54.

THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY—Galatians perhaps written from Ephesus perhaps in 55 at the beginning of Paul’s stay there (though perhaps in 57–58).

1 Corinthians at Ephesus in A.D. 57 toward the close of Paul’s Ephesian stay.

2 Corinthians in Macedonia A.D. 57–58 on his way to Greece.

Romans during his last (2nd or 3rd) stay at Corinth, before the journey to Jerusalem and Rome. This is seen from the allusion to Priscilla and Aquila and from the information with regard to the collection of alms in Macedonia and Achaia and from the names mentioned in the salutations (see Paley’s Hora. Paul.).

How many epistles did St. Paul write to the Corinthians? In other words, had he written one before the one that bears the name of First Corinthians (N.B. with the speculations of critics who have a faculty for multiplying things, we have no concern)? 1) 1 Cor 5:8 says—Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις. Ἔγραψα is an aorist. It is said that if it refers to the present letter then γράφω or γέγραψα would be required. This is certainly not true. Cf. Rom 15:15; Heb 13:22; 1 Cor 9:15; Gal 6:11; Philem 19, 21; 1 John 2:14, 21, 26; 1 Cor 5:13.

On the other hand, in 2 Cor 2:3, 4, 9, and 2 Cor 7:12 ἔγραψα refers to the previous letter (i.e. 1 Corinthians), similarly 3 John 9. These references cannot, as Stanley supposes (p. 87), refer to what immediately precedes. Bunsen (Hippolytus i. p. 24) finds it necessary to refer the words of 1 Pet 5:12 to an earlier epistle [on similar grounds].

The argument that Ἔγραψα in 1 Cor 5:9 refers to a previous letter is also based on the argument that: 1) there is a definite article before ἐπιστολῇ and 2) the supposed contrast between Ἔγραψα in vs. 9 and the νῦνὶ δὲ at the beginning of 1 Cor 5:11 as for instance rendered in the A.V. ‘I wrote to you in an Epistle. . . . But now I have written . . . ’. And it is said perhaps the aorist might stand at the end of a letter but it cannot at the beginning (see Davidson Intro. ii, p. 140). This is equally untrue. Not to mention 1 John 2:14 where the meaning there attached to ἔγραψα may be doubtful (cf. Martyrdom of Poly. Chap. 1, where immediately after the salutation before anything more is said we find ἔγραψαν ῦμιν . . .). This epistolary aorist is not infrequent! The writer transfers himself to the time when the letter would be read by the receiver, and uses his tenses accordingly. This is also frequent in Latin (cf. Cicero, ad Atticus. vi.2.3). The Latin usage is more constant than the Greek.

That the phrase τῇ ἐπιστολῇ may refer grammatically to the Epistle itself is not doubted (cf. Rom 16:22; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 2 Thess 3:14). But on the other hand, can we deny that the phrase ‘ Ἔγραψα ῦμιν . . .’ may be used of a former letter (2 Cor 7:8)? No. But there is no grammatical difficulty in applying the words to the epistle in which they occur, and in fact the Greek commentators on 1 Cor 5:9, Chrysostom, Theophylact., Theodoret do so refer it, evidently feeling that they were not doing violence to the Greek.

[The question may be asked] To what can we refer it in this First Epistle? I can think to nothing which has gone before, but that this epistolary aorist may well refer to the immediate words themselves—as we should say in English ‘I write to you not to . . .’ . The νῦνί δὲ ἔγραψα in 1 Cor 5:11 seems to point to this, although νυνὶ is certainly not an adverb of time, but = ‘as it is’ or ‘under the circumstances’ or ‘things being what they are’ and is explained by ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν (1 Cor 5:10).

There is a textual issue in 1 Cor 5:11: 1) νῦν is read by A, B, Aleph, F, G, 17, L, P but 2) νῦνὶ Aleph*, C, D, and others. For the sense of νῦν/νυνί, see 1 Cor 7:14; 12:18 where νῦν is probably the right reading though the Textus Receptus has νυνί (so also in 1 Cor 5:2). See 1 Cor 15:20 where it is opposed not to some other (past or future) time but to another (hypothetical) state of things. See also Rom 7:17. Stanley resorts to the theory of a marginal note (p. 88) on the grounds of the interruption of sequence. But in fact the passage here is not more disrupted than in lots of passages in St. Paul’s Epistles. Though disrupted in form, it is connected in the passage in content in the text to explain what follows. St. Paul deals: 1) with the sin of licentiousness (1 Cor 5:1-13) and he passes on to 2) the sin of cocksureness or over-reaching (1 Cor 6:1-8), the lack of connection being because of the accidental thought in 1 Cor 5:12—τί γάρ μοι. . . . Then the two are connected together in 1 Cor 6:9. Thus the two lapses of sin are condemned.

In fact, each thought supports the following one. The sexual offense is denounced; they are ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην (1 Cor 5:7). Then St. Paul refers to a former charge he had given to them, and explains the force of it. It refers to judging within the church. He has no wish to judge outside the church. But they must cast out him from them to the Evil One. 1 Cor 5:13 then is connected with 1 Cor 5:6-7. No one from without should judge them. And yet the Corinthians actually go to law, brother against brother, before heathen judges. It would be better to suffer wrong, to suffer fraud. Yet they commit wrong, commit fraud. The unjust shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus the first part of 1 Cor 5:9 is directly suggested by what goes before. And the second part is directly suggested by the first. ‘The Kingdom of heaven, nay be not deceived, the Kingdom of heaven is not for such as some among you are, not for whoremongers, adulterers etc. These ye are!’

The reference to other passages and their ‘abruptness’ also fail. In 2 Cor 6:14–7:1, which is the strongest case of a subject abruptly introduced and abruptly dismissed. The Apostle then returns to the former subject. This must be explained by some sudden thought that passes through the Apostle’s mind. The very fact that it has no obvious connection with the context shows that it is not a marginal note, because a marginal note must be a note on something in the text.

All these arguments therefore must be dismissed. Only one remains—ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ is irrelevant and unnecessary on the supposition that it refers to itself. This is true, and for this reason, and this reason only, does it seem necessary to suppose that a previous letter had been written. Otherwise, we should be disposed to refer the passage to the First Epistle itself.

An Interaction with Mr. Wieseler’s Chronology

Did the Apostle leave Ephesus at Pentecost as he intended? One view is that there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul’s departure was hastened by the tumult, as he does not appear to have been in any personal danger. Mr. Wie­seler has some good remarks on this tumult, and he considers it probable that the Apostle may have left Ephesus some short time before he had intended (see Wieseler Chron. Der ap. Zeitalt. p. 54sqq.).

An account must be given of the succession of events, seeking to determine the chronology shortly before the writing of 1 Corinthians. Timothy and others had departed for Macedonia (cf. Acts xix.22), and St. Paul expected to be in Corinth (cf. iv.17, xvi.1) soon after his letter (ταχέως ([iv.19]—cf. 1 Cor. xvi.10, 11). After the departure of Timothy and Erastus, he stayed some time (χρόνος) in Asia i.e. Ephesus (xix.26). It is clear from these considerations also that the Apostle cannot have left Ephesus before Pentecost. Note that the others have returned before the second letter has begun (cf. 2 Cor. i.1). Now it is possible that Paul did not meet Timothy again until he arrived in Macedonia, and that Timothy had not yet gone to Corinth; but it is improbable that Timothy should have stayed so long in Macedonia, not at all consistent with the commission entrusted to him.

To this I respond—why improbable? Perhaps his business in Macedonia was more important even than the business in Achaia and if his place was supplied by Titus, surely there is nothing improbable in his lengthening his stay in Macedonia.

Wieseler goes on ‘he was ordered to hurry his journey to Corinth, in order that he might rejoin the Apostle in Ephesus before Pentecost.’ I rejoin: Where is any mention of Ephesus? It is much more probable that some other place of meeting was agreed upon. According to my view, it was Troas.

Wieseler goes on—‘the use of the plural in 2 Cor 1:3-11 makes it probable that Timothy was a participator in the sufferings there described.’ I respond—Probably so, but it is by no means certain that St. Paul there refers to the tumult at Ephesus, nay it is almost certain that he does not refer to that alone. In 1 Corinthians he speaks of fighting with beasts, of his ‘many opponents,’ and this was while Timothy was with him, so that Timothy had thus far participated in his suffering at Ephesus, that he could be spoken of in comparison with St. Paul in connection with this, without any impropriety.

Wieseler goes on ‘2 Cor. i.12–ii.11 is written with reference to the impression of the opposition which the First Epistle had occasioned (2 Corinthians ii.3-4).’ To which I say or ‘would probably occasion,’ for St. Paul’s language here betrays no actual knowledge of what actually has taken place. Wieseler adds, ‘The Apostle had already received the bad news of the state of affairs at Corinth before he arrived at Troas for in 2 Cor. ii.12 he speaks of the restlessness of his spirit which he felt there.’ To which I respond—There is still no indication of news actually received. He felt that a letter which he had written in much tribulation and anguish was only too likely to provoke opposition, and therefore he was afraid of the results. When the information did come through Titus, it was more favorable than he expected.

Wieseler then argues—‘From 1 Cor. xvi.11 we may conclude with great probability that Timothy was the bringer of the news.’ But if there was no news, there would be no bringer. Wieseler presses, ‘But suppose he [Timothy] was not, it does not alter our chronology result inasmuch as St. Paul must have waited at Ephesus until the letter would have been conveyed to Corinth and a message had returned.’ But no news seems to have reached him for at least thirty days.

He adds, ‘But however there are other reasons for supposing that St. Paul’s stay was even more protracted. Titus was sent off after the penning of the First Epistle and so there is no mention of him there.’ I respond—According to our theory he was one of the ἀδελφοί there alluded to, and the circumstances that he is not mentioned by name is explained by supposing that he was personally unknown to the Corinthian Church. His case is parallel to the other brothers who accompanied him on his second mission tour. And yet the Apostle hopes to find him arrived in Troas.

Wieseler’s next observation is worthy of attention. This proves, he says, that the tumult in Ephesus cannot have altered Paul’s purpose to any considerable extent. ‘For if he had left Ephesus much earlier than he had intended, he would scarcely expect to find Titus already at Troas.’ Yet this is not conclusive. St. Paul may have delayed on the way to Troas (cf. 2 Cor 2:12), or again he may have expected Titus to return to him at Ephesus, and having been obliged to hurry his departure, he thought to meet Titus at Troas.

Wieseler’s assumptions on p. 359 and elsewhere are twofold: 1) that St. Paul received some information when he commenced writing the Second Epistle; 2) that Titus did not join him until after the former part of 2 Corinthians had been written. Hence, he is obliged to infer that Paul had received the information from someone else. From whom then more probably than from Timothy? Therefore, he rejects the two opinions: 1) that Timothy never arrived at Corinth at all; and 2) whether he arrived there or not, he did not join the Apostle again until he reached Macedonia.

However, if my view is right, Titus was the bearer of the letter, and as he returned by land, it is not improbable that he went by land as well. He seems to have stayed some considerable time at Corinth, as indeed the purposes of his mission demanded. Cf. 2 Cor 12:17, 18 (where ἐπλεονέκτησα, judging from the context, evidently refers to his maintenance and has no connection with the contributions, as Conybeare hastily assumes). It should be asked—Did Titus go and come by land on account of the season of the year?

Wieseler offers further reflections (pp. 325ff.). Here is a thought worth considering—if Chloe (1 Cor 1:16) was a Corinthian, then Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaius (1 Cor 16:17) may have been her sons—those ‘of Chloe’ (ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης) and so the household of Chloe may be the same as the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 16:15).

On the issue of the dating of 1 Corinthians, Wieseler maintains ‘Paul intended to remain at Ephesus until Pentecost (1 Cor xvi.8). From Acts xix.21-22, it appears that the dispatching of Timothy did not long precede the Apostle’s departure, and accordingly in 1 Cor. iv.19, St. Paul says that he will come speedily.’ I respond—Wieseler evidently infers that the mission of Timothy related in the Acts is identical to that to Macedonia and Corinth. Does he do so elsewhere, yes he does also on p. 358. But the language of St. Luke evidently leads to the understanding that Timothy had not advanced beyond Macedonia when he was joined by St. Paul. This seems to be much more consistent with those who regard this as a second mission subsequently to his return from Corinth.

Wieseler goes on,

at most therefore the letter was written a few months before Pentecost. Again Paul expected that the letter would arrive before Timothy. The direct journey to Athens from Ephesus occupied fourteen days. Allowing fourteen days for going and fourteen days for returning, and eight for staying there, we get thirty-six days plus a bit, say four days which elapsed between the arrival of the letter and that of Timothy at Corinth i.e. about 40 days in all. Then we have to take into account that Titus was despatched after the sending of the Epistle.

(I ask—why after?). And yet Paul hoped to meet him at Troas so that we must extend the time to 40-50 days? On this reckoning then the letter must be written at Easter, and this accounts for the allusion in 1 Cor 5:6-8 though too much stress may not be laid on this. [Lightfoot stops at this point, having established that he thinks his view more probable than Wieseler’s.]

How Many Times Did St. Paul Visit Corinth?

There are two visits recorded in Acts: 1) Acts 18:1-18 where a tolerably detailed account is given of his preaching there. This is on his second missionary journey (A.D. 52); 2) Acts 20:2-3: ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα, ποιήσας τε μῆνας τρεῖς (A.D. 57-58). The last of these can be proved to be subsequent to the writing of the two Epistles (the one in fact where he is meditating, when the Second Epistle is written). Therefore, there is only one previous to this date recorded in Acts. But there are intimations in the Epistles (especially in 2 Corinthians), that he had already visited them twice: 1) e.g. 2 Cor 2:1—τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν (this is the right reading). The uncials vary in word order (ἐλθεῖν before the prepositional phrase or after, but πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ go together in all the best authorities). The Textus Receptus ἐλθεῖν ἐν λύπῃ is unsupported except by [?] manuscripts. We naturally then take πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ together. Now the first visit (Acts 18) cannot be termed ἐν λύπῃ. Therefore, we must look for a second visit and 2 Cor 12:21 points to the same conclusion, though perhaps that verse might be differently taken; 2) 2 Cor 12:4. Paley’s argument. The words Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (2 Cor 13:1) do not in themselves require three actual visits, but three intended visits, but the context practically requires that St. Paul should have been in Corinth twice previously. The mere purpose of paying them a visit would not have been ‘burdensome.’ The mention of an intention of a visit would be quite out of place in such a connection. The time which Stanley (p. 571) gives to the phrase Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς finds no justification in the context. Some of the copyists have felt that Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι must be altered if only an intended visit was meant. And so A, Syr. Peshit., Coptic versions, Memphis change the number or alter the phrase in some way. 1 Cor 5:3 however could lead to a completely different interpretation if the phrase here is taken to mean ‘if I were with you a second time, even though absent,’ leaving out of sight his first visit to Corinth, inasmuch as the evil had not yet broken out, and he had not then had occasion to censure them.

But consider 2 Cor 13:1, 2. This seems to be decisive. προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω in vs. 2 is answered by ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν, i.e. when I paid you my second visit so (for καί see Phil 1:20), again τοῖς προημαρτηκόσιν can scarcely apply to anything which had happened during the first visit of all. Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι most naturally means ‘this will be my third visit to you’ and if this is the more natural meaning, it is also the more probable meaning. And again it is that which is imperatively demanded by the context. Why should St. Paul lay such stress on an intended visit? The actual visit might be regarded as a stressor, but not a proposed visit. The idea is his being confronted with a face to face, a third time.

Consider 1 Cor 16:7. This has been thought to show that St. Paul had already paid one short visit to Corinth (and therefore two in all, the first one being a long one—Acts 18). This appears to be a mistake. ἄρτι means ‘at present’ not ‘now.’ It is not opposed to any former occasion. The sentence in that case would read ‘I do not want to see you at the present moment, when my visit would necessarily only be a brief one.’ Meyer rightly rejects the inference from taking ἄρτι to mean now, but on the wrong grounds. He merely notes the position of ἄρτι, and says that if the meaning had been intended, it would have been ἄρτι γὰρ and θέλω. De Wette repeats Meyer’s argument— ‘dem ἄρτι gehört zu ἰδεῖν nicht zu θέλω.’ Alford’s note on this is obscure. Wieseler (p. 240) thinks the inference probable, and indeed Meyer only shows that it is not necessary. At all events the natural antithesis to ἄρτι would be the future and not the past, natural though perhaps not necessary. See Gal 1:9, 10 though it is difficult to say exactly what ἄρτι means there. In Gal 4:20 ἄρτι is now, i.e. without deferring my visit, and not as Meyer (ἄρτι is used with the present and past tenses but never with the future). See Lobeck, on Phys. p. 20.

There seems to be sufficient reason for believing that St. Paul had already paid two visits to Corinth (i.e. one not recorded in Acts). The opposition view is taken by Davidson (Intro. ii. p. 213) and by Paley (Hora Paul.) and by Stanley. But it is thought that 2 Cor 1:15-16 are a severe obstacle to this view. But this evidently means ‘My intention was to have paid you two visits, instead of one’ the word πρότερον leading us to the solution of the meaning of the words ἵνα δευτέραν χάριν σχῆτε. Compare 1 Corinthians 16:5, 6 written after his first intention has been abandoned and if this be the case, there is no allusion at all to a previous visit.

On the other interpretation, ἵνα δευτέραν χάριν σχῆτε is rendered meaningless. Why specify the χάρις they would receive on that occasion rather than on a subsequent projected visit? ‘I was desirous of visiting you before (before this visit which is now impending) so that I might be enabled to see you twice, instead of once.’

When then did this visit take place, which is unrecorded in the Acts? Some suppose that on the occasion of his first visit to Greece, when he is said to have remained at Corinth a year and a half (Acts 18), he made an excursion into the neighborhood and returned to Corinth and thus may be said to have paid two visits. This is improbable. The more probable supposition is that he came over during his three year stay at Ephesus (54-57). This view we shall adopt (other views enumerated in Davidson, Intro. ii, p. 219).

Paul’s Communication with the Corinthians and His Social Network

What communication did St. Paul have with the Corinthian Church either: 1) personally, or 2) through the medium of letters? The former investigation may be considered preliminary to this one. In the year A.D. 52 in the course of his second missionary tour in which he crossed over to Europe for the first time, he passed from Athens to Corinth. This was his first visit. And on this occasion he laid the foundation of the Christian Church there. A detailed account is given in the Acts 18. We are there told that he was joined by Sylvanus and Timothy whom he had left behind in Macedonia (Acts 18:5). Accordingly, in 2 Cor 1:19 he speaks of the Gospel having been preached to them by himself and Sylvanus and Timothy. On this first occasion he meets with Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth. In 1 Cor 16:19 they salute the Church of Corinth.

While he is on his third missionary tour, Apollos having been instructed by Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, goes to Corinth and preaches the Gospel there (A.D. 54). Meanwhile, Paul arrives at Ephesus (Acts 18:27, 28; 19:1).

From Ephesus he probably crossed the Aegean to Corinth. This is his second visit. It is passed over in silence in the Acts. It was probably of no long duration and as the facilities of intercourse between the two cities were great, the transit could not occupy much time. Of the occasion of this visit we know nothing. He calls it a visit of sorrow (2 Cor 2:1). Probably, signs of impurity and profligacy had manifested themselves in the Corinthian Church (A.D. 55).

Paul seems not to have been satisfied with this visit. He felt it necessary to deepen the impression made on the Church of Corinth by addressing a letter to the Christians there. This letter is not preserved to us. Probably it was merely of temporary interest. We know that in it he warned the Corinthian Christians to separate themselves from the profligate of their own body (1 Cor 5:9). It is probable too that he expressed in it his intention of paying them a double visit, taking Corinth both on his way to Macedonia and on his return, a design which afterwards he had to abandon, and the abandonment of which exposed him unjustly to a charge of fickleness (2 Cor 1:16), against which he subsequently defends himself. It was probably also in this letter that he mentioned the projected visit of the brethren (1 Cor 16:11, 12) for we find him speaking on it in the First Epistle in a manner which shows that the Corinthians were not unacquainted with this proposed mission.

Subsequently, he heard from the household of Chloe (1 Cor 1:11) of the disastrous state of the Christian Church in Corinth, and the divisions that rent the community. On the former, ‘it was commonly reported’ that some of its members had been guilty of the most shameless and revolting profligacy. On whose authority this was reported the Apostle does not say (1 Cor 5:1) but we cannot doubt that Stephanus and other members of his household (Fortunatus, Achaius) must have given St. Paul information. There was an obvious reason why St. Paul should not mention them by name as the authors of the report. He did not want to place them in an unfavorable position with regard to their fellow Corinthians. Meyer suggests Apollos might have brought information. If then Fortunatus was a son of Stephanus and was a young man at this time, it is not improbable he is the same person mentioned by St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians.

If we were to enumerate St. Paul’s sources of information it might look like this: 1) subsequent to his first visit, St. Paul obtains information about the state of the church in Corinth from various sources including—a letter from the Corinthian Church itself (see 1 Cor 7:1); 2) members of the household of Chloe (1 Cor 1:11); 3) Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaius (1 Cor 16:15-17). Perhaps to these he added the information referred to in 1 Cor 5:1 ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία and also that of 1 Cor 11:18 ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω though this too might have been reported by the household of Chloe (1 Cor 1:11). Indeed, 1 Cor 16:15-18 seems framed as if intended to shield the household of Stephanus from some suspected odium which they might incur; 4) possibly Apollos if he was in Corinth after St. Paul’s departure, which however may not be very likely.

And so, St. Paul addressed to them a second letter, our First Epistle to the Corinthians (A.D. 51) to correct these abuses. He had by this time given up his previous intention of visiting them on his way to Macedonia. He now declares he shall go to Macedonia first (1 Cor 16:5). Apollos was at this time in Ephesus or its neighborhood, or at least St. Paul seems to have had personal communication with him (1 Cor 16:12). He may probably have returned from Corinth before Paul’s second visit.

Now either before this letter or at about the same time St. Paul sent off Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10), but I think that it is certain that Timothy did not visit Corinth, for: 1) the Apostle expresses a doubt whether he would (1 Cor 16:10—Ἐὰν δὲ ἔλθῃ Τιμόθεος), contemplating the possibility that he might have some business detaining him in Macedonia; 2) in the Acts, this mission of Timothy (for there is no reason for supposing it is another) is seen as a mission to Macedonia (Acts 19:22), seeming to imply that this was the limit of his journey before he was overtaken by St. Paul; 3) there is no mention in 2 Corinthians of Timothy’s visit to Corinth, but Titus seems to take his place. This is scarcely credible if Timothy had actually been there. It is not only that there is no mention of a visit by Timothy, but also that there is no mention of any information received from the Corinthian Church prior to the arrival of Titus (though indeed Giesler [?] p. 58 sees it otherwise), a circumstance which is very remarkable if there was a visit of Timothy which surely would have brought very definite news. The language of the Apostle is of one who entertains vague fears.

Nearly at the same time, perhaps even as the bearers of the letter, Paul dispatches οἱ ἀδελφοί (1 Cor 16:11, 12). Who then are οἱ ἀδελφοί mentioned in 1 Cor 16? Erastus accompanied him, but he probably did not proceed further than Macedonia (Acts 19:22), until St. Paul overtook them and he accompanied him to Corinth, the city of which he was a native and his name is found in the salutation for Romans (Rom 16:23).

I think that Titus was one of those that St. Paul had requested Apollos form a company with (Titus was known to Apollos—Titus 3:13), but Apollos declined doing so, thinking it was not a fit season (εὐκαιρία). He probably thought his visit would be ill-timed while his name was being made a handle for strife and division. In default of Apollos, it was not unnatural that St. Paul should select Titus, more especially as he felt there was some uncertainty of Timothy being able to extend his journey to Corinth during the other engagements. There was another brother with Titus (2 Cor 12:18). It would almost seem as if they were two strangers who arrived there on their missions—Titus and ὁ ἀδελφός.

Though the name Sosthenes is common, it is at least unlikely that two of the same name should both be so intimately connected to the fortunes of the Church in Corinth. Besides, the mention of the name of the ἀρχισυνάγωγος seems to show that afterwards he was a man of some note among the Christians (though it may have been simply to distinguish him from Gaius). It cannot be concluded from the absence of this name in Acts 18:18 that he did not accompany St. Paul as others of Paul’s previous companions are not mentioned. Aquila and Priscilla may only be alluded to in the account for their meeting with Apollos and the consequences of the meeting.

The name of Sosthenes is found with that of Paul in the superscription of 1 Corinthians. It is not improbable that this Sosthenes is the ἀρχισυνάγωγος of Acts 18:17. According to the Textus Receptus this is scarcely possible. The words οἱ Ἕλληνες (Acts 18:17) are to be rejected as unsupported, and the word πάντες refers naturally to αὐτοί i.e. the Jews. If so, Sosthenes may have excited the anger of the Jews by favoring the preaching of St. Paul and then subsequently have become a Christian and have been withdrawn from the anger of his fellow countrymen (Jews) at Corinth, as we find one Sosthenes here with Paul in Ephesus joining in the salutation to the Corinthians. The gloss, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, which is found in some manuscripts, seems to be the correct one. Alford’s objections to this view are invalid. I see no real probability in the party driven to the tribunal having been one of their antagonists before the tribunal. The words καὶ οὐδὲν τούτων τῷ Γαλλίωνι ἔμελεν (Acts 18:17) seem to explain any irregularity of this kind, and Alford’s question ‘why did they not beat Paul himself’ admits of a very simple answer: Sosthenes had become a renegade and therefore would be a particular object of their dislike.

Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaius may have formed part of a company, or they may have travelled separately. At all events, they would probably not return [to Macedonia] as they were all natives of Corinth. St. Paul tells the Corinthians that they should wait for the return of Timothy with the brethren (ἐκδέχομαι γὰρ αὐτὸν μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν—1 Cor 16:11). Now something occurred which prevented Timothy from accomplishing his mission; but we find St. Paul later on at Troas, evidently expecting Titus (οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον τὸν ἀδελφόν μου—2 Cor 2:13). It is probable therefore that this was the place of meeting agreed upon. Whether St. Paul expected anyone else with Titus and whether Titus had any companions on his return or whether on the other hand the company styled οἱ ἀδελφοί (in 1 Cor) had by this time dwindled down to Titus alone, we are not told. But I should certainly connect the mission of Titus with that of the οἱ ἀδελφοί of 1 Cor 16.

St. Paul, soon after writing the letter leaves Ephesus for Troas, perhaps earlier than he had intended. He is there distressed at not finding Titus, from whom he expected to hear tidings of the Corinthian Church. He passes on into Macedonia and there Titus joins him (2 Cor 2:12) bearing a very favorable report (2 Cor 7:6). On receiving this, Paul writes his third letter, our Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He is now on his way to Corinth, but not satisfied with this, he at once dispatches Titus with the other brethren, who are described but whose names are not given (2 Cor 8:6, 16-18) to reassure the Corinthians and at the same time to collect their contributions (2 Cor 8:3).

Timothy, who had not advanced beyond Macedonia, had by this time joined St. Paul (his name is found in the superscription) and perhaps Erastus too. They seem to have accompanied him on his third and last visit to Corinth, at least they were both with him when he wrote the letter to the church at Rome (Rom 16:21, 23). Paul remained in Greece this time for three months (see Acts 20:3), wrote the Epistle to the Galatians from here probably, and the Epistle to the Romans certainly. The next notice we have about the state of the church in Corinth is in the Epistle of St. Clement (see Conybeare and Howson, ii, p.155). But after his release in Rome St. Paul again visited Corinth (2 Tim 4:20).

The State of the Parties in the Corinthian Church

We are not led by the language of St. Paul to look for well-defined parties. Indeed, from the very nature of the case this is unlikely. We must rather regard 1 Cor 1:10 as describing symptoms which threatened to develop into definite sects. St. Paul’s words are ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσιν ‘there are strifes among you’ and later on (1 Cor 11:18) he says I hear that there are always divisions among you (σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω), and thus he says he is ready to believe as occurring in the natural order of things, ‘for there must be even sects among you’ (δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις); these σχίσματα must develop into αἱρέσεις so that those who are approved may be made manifest. And St. Paul’s words—Ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν (1 Cor 4:6) lead to the same conclusion. He has employed his own name and that of Apollos in a figure by way of giving a vividness to his representation, not that there were actually Paulines, Apollonians, and Petrines.

At the same time, the whole language of the Epistle requires us to believe, that the four names given (1 Cor 1:10) as the watchwords of different members do correspond in some degree to four shades of opinions held by members of the community, and threatening to develop into four distinct parties or sects. What opinions then do they represent?

The truth though one, has many sides. It may be regarded from many different points of view. One mind may dwell on one phase or another without however regarding that phase exclusively. Thus there is nothing derogatory to St. Peter or St. Paul or Apollos in supposing that the aspect in which they viewed Christianity was different, so far different that is, as not to distort the relation of its parts. And we cannot doubt that they had each their part amplified to them in building up the church because they each were calculated to serve the cause of truth in a different way. Heresy is the exaggeration of some part of the truth and the tendency to heresy is the tendency to this exaggeration. Sheer undiluted error could not stand for a moment. Man’s natural conscience would revolt against it. Heresy therefore must have some handle in truth. When undue prominence is given to one point, then there is danger of heresy.

Bearing this in mind, we shall have no difficulty in explaining the position of these half-developed parties described by the words Ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, Ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλῶ, Ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, though the favorite Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ will present some difficulty (1 Cor 1:12). Does not St. Paul’s language here and elsewhere in dealing with these divisions in Corinth show the true gentleman? Observe the ascending scale—Paul, Apollos, Peter, Christ. He places himself in the lowest grade next to the teacher who is associated with him, and highest of human instructors of him who was placed by his ‘enemies’ in direct antagonism with him. Again, when he wants to enforce the opposition between the servant and the master, between the human agent and the divine head, he selects his own name as the meanest of all μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν; and again in 1 Cor 3:5 τί οὖν ἐστιν Ἀπολλῶς; τί δέ ἐστιν Παῦλος; There is no mention of Cephas here. His well-known friendly relations with Apollos allowed him to mention his name here and again at 1 Cor 4:6. The very fact that his relation with St. Peter had been so misrepresented makes him abstain, with true gentlemanly feeling, from any expression that might seem to depreciate his supposed adversary. In the Epistle to the Galatians where he found it necessary to defend his apostleship, the case is different.

St. Paul preached the liberty of the Gospel and its spirituality. The Pauline faction degraded liberty into license and found in the spiritual character of Christianity an excuse for disregarding all outward observances—even decent forms. Theirs was an antinomian tendency. They viewed their γνῶσις with self-complacency. The directions about meat offered to idols (1 Cor 8) have reference to them. To such St. Paul says Ἐλεύθερος γὰρ ὢν ἐκ πάντων πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα, ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω (1 Cor 9:19) and again Πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει. πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ (1 Cor 10:23).

Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew. He would dwell on all that is mystical in Christianity. He would enforce his teaching with great eloquence and with frequent application of allegorical interpretation. This style would possess a charm for the Corinthians, which they could not find in the simple teaching of St. Paul. Paul’s rebuke to the Apollonians can be found in 1 Cor 1:18 sq. and 1 Cor 2:1 sq.

St. Peter would dwell on the connection of Christianity with the older dispensation. The Petrines would represent the Judaizing tendencies in the Corinthian Church i.e. the express leaning toward outward observances—the direct antithesis to the Paulines, though doubtless the Judaism of Corinth would be less decided in its character than that found elsewhere, the social influence of the place being opposed to strict formalism. There is no reason for supposing that St. Peter had ever been to Corinth. Indeed the silence regarding him in 1 Cor 3:6 seems to show that he had not been there. His recognized position as the Apostle to the circumcision would mark him out to the Judaizers, as the proper antagonist of St. Paul.

But who were the Christ party? The words Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ would naturally lead to the view that they were those who discarded all apostolic authority. They rejected Paul, Apollos, and Cephas alike together with their views that were supposed to be characteristic of each. Their distinctive views were entirely negative. And thus while professing the greatest Catholicity, as often happens with such negative tendencies, they degenerated into the narrowest sectarianism. Schaff gives a good parallel in the sect of ‘Christians’ in the United States of America (Vol. I, p. 339 note). The natural character of these self-styled “we are of Christ” persons would be arrogance and self-complacency. They would depreciate the labors and authority of the Apostles, of St. Paul chiefly as the most active and influential. We can scarcely doubt that the reference is to them in 2 Corinthians 10:7. Clement in Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 47 mentions only the three former parties—ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας πνευματικῶς ἐπέστειλεν ὑμῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τε Κηφᾶ καὶ Ἀπολλώ, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι· Schaff (Vol. I, p 337) rightly explains his silence about the fourth party by supposing that when Clement wrote, it had ceased to exist “which” he says “is the more probable if it consisted of personal disciples of Jesus.” The latter supposition is in itself very improbable. But the disappearance of the sect is easily explained if it had that negative character which we have assigned to it. A negative bond can only be temporary. It has no element of continuance in it.

While the First Epistle was directed chiefly against the former two parties—the Paulines and Apollonians, the Second Epistle has in view almost entirely the Petrines, and the self-style ‘Christians.’ But with the same delicacy that has been noticed before, St. Paul avoids mentioning the name of Cephas. The rebukes which the former letter contain seem to have been successful with those who acknowledged the authority of St. Paul himself and his fellow teacher, Apollos. The report of Titus was most cheering.

The Outhne of 2 Corinthians

The treatment in this Epistle is historical. The idea of ‘suffering for Christ’ and the παρακλήσις that attends it, with which the Epistle opens, runs throughout the letter. The common division of the letter is as exact as any which can be made:

These we may characterize as thus comprising:

Of course in a letter we cannot expect that the subjects will be kept entirely distinct and must require a well-defined line of demarcation.

↑ Back to top