FEB -5 1926 -C 1923 PREFACE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. THE General Editor does not hold himself responsible, 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 watchfulness 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 internal 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 consistently 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 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 Introduction 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. BIDEFORD. Michaelmas, 1903. |