Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:00 pm

In another place I recently encountered someone boasting about their prowess in Koine, that reading Greek NT was "effortless" and I got to thinking about it, I haven't even read the entire NT in Greek. Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians isn't my favorite book in the canon. I don't recall ever hearing anyone preach or teach from it. It wasn't a part of the "liturgy" as I remember it. I had a course where we were supposed to cover it but the Prof spent the whole term talking about Romans and 1st Cor.

So, I put in an ILL request for 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians NIGTC Murray J. Harris, 2005 and it arrived Saturday from Taylor Univ, In. I have had this commentary several times before. It is a prime example of NT exegesis as it was done in the 20th century. M. J. Harris has probably produced the best volume in the NIGTC series but perhaps there are some new ones I haven't seen. For someone encountering this epistle for the first time Harris could serve as a one stop source for every sort of question, textual criticism, lexical semantics, syntax but not discourse analysis. The bibliography and author index demonstrates reading in several modern languages, numerous German titles.

The risk of using this book is that you don't need to use any other. He covers everything. Anyway, I will be posting comments now and then. Anyone else that wants to read the epistle feel free to post questions or comments in this thread. Having Harris on hand isn't a requirement.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:12 pm

2Cor. 10:1 Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀπὼν δὲ θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς·
Harris points out that Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος is unusual in that the proper name isn't found elsewhere with Αὐτὸς ἐγὼ. I went looking for it elsewhere and didn't manage to find an example. Someone want to supply one?
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:35 pm

I have followed M.J. Harris' exegetical dance from 2Cor 10:1 to 12:1. It seems that having taught NT Greek exegesis according to the method describe by but not invented by Gorden Fee in his textbook on NT Exegesis, Harris has provided an extended demonstration of that method, right down to the details, e.g, textual criticism ... structural analysis. If someone wanted to write an exegesis paper vintage 1975, all they would need to do is minutely imitate what they find in Harris' commentary on 2Cor. People who studied NT greek using the Mounce_Wallace framework will have little difficulty picking up Harris and imminently understanding what he is doing. Harris evaluates all the time honored grammar tagging dilemmas found in traditional works on syntax. For example, Harris argues both sides of the subjective|objective[1] question for the genitive κυρίου in ὀπτασίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις κυρίου in 2Cor. 12:1.

2Cor. 12:1 Καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλεύσομαι δὲ εἰς ὀπτασίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις κυρίου.

Rev. 1:1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ,

This is at least my third pass on Harris 2Cor. If you need to own one book on 2Cor for detailed exegesis this book would probably serve. Harris cites nearly everything so he will save a lot of your time flipping back and forth between commentaries. The exegetical method is North American Evangelical Seminary instantly recognizable to millions of english speaking students of the NT.

[1]Carl Conrad has had some things to say about the adnominal genitive:
I think there's been a great deal of nonsense spoken and written about adnominal genitive constructions, much or most of it ... Carl W. Conrad
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... ense#p6685
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:23 pm

NA27 2Cor. 12:6 Ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, οὐκ ἔσομαι ἄφρων, ἀλήθειαν γὰρ ἐρῶ· φείδομαι δέ, μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται ὑπὲρ ὃ βλέπει με ἢ ἀκούει [τι] ἐξ ἐμοῦ 7 καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων. διὸ ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, ἄγγελος σατανᾶ, ἵνα με κολαφίζῃ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι.

SBLGNT 2Cor. 12:6 ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, οὐκ ἔσομαι ἄφρων, ἀλήθειαν γὰρ ἐρῶ· φείδομαι δέ, μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται ὑπὲρ ὃ βλέπει με ἢ ἀκούει τι ἐξ ἐμοῦ, 7καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων. διὸ ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ, ἵνα με κολαφίζῃ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι.

Both H. A. W. Meyer and H. Alford comment on the position of τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων relative to διὸ. If διὸ is read, a full stop should follow ἀποκαλύψεων, see NA27 and SBLGNT above. M.J. Harris devotes several pages to the various ways of understanding 2Cor. 12:6-7.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:41 pm

2Cor. 12:20 φοβοῦμαι γὰρ μή πως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε· μή πως ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθείαι, καταλαλιαί, ψιθυρισμοί, φυσιώσεις, ἀκαταστασίαι·

M. J. Harris[1] objects to translating (see below) this as if οὐχ negated the verb εὕρω. Furthermore he takes issue[2] with the standard grammars [3] by claiming that both εὕρω are positive εὑρεθῶ and it is the wish (θέλω, θέλετε) that is negated.

... I may not find you ... you may not find me ...



[1] 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians NIGTC Murray J. Harris, 2005, p. 897.
[2] ibid, p. 897, n25.
[3] A. T. Robertson, pp. 1159,1174; BDF §428.6, C. F. D. Moule, Idioms p. 157 §6, N. Turner, Syntax p. 283.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:00 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:2Cor. 12:20 φοβοῦμαι γὰρ μή πως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε· μή πως ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθείαι, καταλαλιαί, ψιθυρισμοί, φυσιώσεις, ἀκαταστασίαι·

M. J. Harris[1] objects to translating (see below) this as if οὐχ negated the verb εὕρω. Furthermore he takes issue[2] with the standard grammars [3] by claiming that both εὕρω & εὑρεθῶ are positive and in each instance it is the wish (θέλω, θέλετε) that is negated.

... I may not find you ... you may not find me ...



[1] 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians NIGTC Murray J. Harris, 2005, p. 897.
[2] ibid, p. 897, n25.
[3] A. T. Robertson, pp. 1159,1174; BDF §428.6, C. F. D. Moule, Idioms p. 157 §6, N. Turner, Syntax p. 283.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by Hylander » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:22 pm

M. J. Harris[1] objects to translating (see below) this as if οὐχ negated the verb εὕρω. Furthermore he takes issue[2] with the standard grammars [3] by claiming that both εὕρω & εὑρεθῶ are positive and in each instance it is the wish (θέλω, θέλετε) that is negated.
It seems clearly right to me (without having examined the larger context) that θέλω/θέλετε are the words negated in the Greek. The word order of the second clause makes that clear: κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε.

And the first clause really seems no less ambiguous, and must be parallel to the second: οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς.

However, I'm not sure it really makes much of a difference in English translation, does it? There isn't much difference between "I'm afraid I'll find you not as I want and you'll find me not as you want" and "I'm afraid I won't find you as I want and you won't find me as you want." If anything the latter seems more smooth and idiomatic. Perhaps the former suggests a slightly more emphatic disappointment.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3115
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by mwh » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:11 am

Here I disagree. In οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς the οιους θελω is a clause in itself, subordinate to ευρω. The negative may be taken as applying directly to οιους (“not of the kind I want” = “different from the kind I want”) or with ευρω (“not find you of the kind I want”). The former seems better, but it makes no real difference grammatically. What we cannot do is take the negative with θελω (“find you of the kind I don’t want”), jumping the clause boundary set by οιους.

In the continuation, κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε, on the other hand, it is θελετε that’s negatived, obviously. If the construction were the same as in the first limb the ου would not intervene between οιον and θελετε.
But the syntactical switch itself shows that it makes precious little functional difference.
EDIT. I’m not so sure of this last statement. On second thoughts I think there is a meaningful difference. He’s afraid he’ll not find them as he wants [i.e. faithful to his teaching not anyone else’s] and that they’ll find him as they positively don’t want [i.e. giving them a hard time for not being what he wants].

(I take it Hylander’s “no less ambiguous” is for “no more ambiguous” or “no less unambiguous.” Confusing things, negatives.)
Last edited by mwh on Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.


mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3115
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by mwh » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:29 am

Nice. But how about the main point?

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by Hylander » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:17 am

I see your point and confess error. I agree that in οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς, it can't be θέλω that is negated, and also that the negatives of the two limbs aren't parallel, and pointedly so.

What's wrong with ψιθυρισμοί? ῾Αδύ τι οἱ ψιθυρισμοί!
Last edited by Hylander on Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:54 pm

mwh wrote:Here I disagree. In οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς the οιους θελω is a clause in itself, subordinate to ευρω. The negative may be taken as applying directly to οιους (“not of the kind I want” = “different from the kind I want”) or with ευρω (“not find you of the kind I want”). The former seems better, but it makes no real difference grammatically. What we cannot do is take the negative with θελω (“find you of the kind I don’t want”), jumping the clause boundary set by οιους.
This was my error, I misread Harris. He agrees that οὐχ negates οἵους θέλω "not the kind of people I wish you to be ... "
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:55 pm

2Cor. 1:3-7 is notable for "texture" as defined in Systemic Functional Linguistics[1]. I was introduced to this notion by Cynthia Long Westfall, Phd (McMaster Divinity College) eons ago when she was working on her dissertation. Texture is a combination of textual features that bind a group of sentences and clauses together into a cohesive entity. The most obvious example in 2Cor. 1:3-7 is thematic keyword repetition.

2Cor. 1:3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως, 4 ὁ παρακαλῶν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. 5 ὅτι καθὼς περισσεύει τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς, οὕτως διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ περισσεύει καὶ ἡ παράκλησις ἡμῶν. 6 εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν. 7 καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν εἰδότες ὅτι ὡς κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων, οὕτως καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως.
παρακαλέω, παράκλησις, οἰκτιρμός, πάσχω, πάθημα, θλῖψις, θλίβω

A second feature that binds the text together is anaphoric reference, for example ὁ παρακαλῶν referring back to ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ... θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.

For then next feature we need to look at the entire segment.
2Cor. 1:3 (NRSV)   Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, 4 who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. 5 For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ. 6 If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation; if we are being consoled, it is for your consolation, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we are also suffering. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our consolation.
A third feature that binds this text is the logic of Paul's argument. Observe how Paul works from one level to the next with a chain of inference, each stage of the argument dependent on the previous stage. The following analysis was just thrown together on the fly. It is not intended to be anything more than a general illustration of cohesiveness. So exegetical nitpicking is pointless.
4 ὁ παρακαλῶν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει

4 who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction

5 ὅτι καθὼς περισσεύει τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς, οὕτως διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ περισσεύει καὶ ἡ παράκλησις ἡμῶν.

5 For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ.

6 εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν.

6 If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation; if we are being consoled, it is for your consolation, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we are also suffering.

[1] Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Morgan, ... texture-the property of "being a text ... (Halliday and Hasan 1976:4
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Reading Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corintintians

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:13 pm

As the author of 2Peter said
2Pet. 3:15 καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, 16 ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστιν δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν.
2Cor. 2: 2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ὁ εὐφραίνων με εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ;
Commentators ancient and modern have had difficulties agreeing on what to make of 2Cor. 2:2. Chrysostom[1] and others appear to read it as if Paul was in some sense pleased or gratified (?) that his former letter(s) had caused pain. Alford and Meyer think this reading doesn’t fit the immediate context.
2Cor. 1:23 Ἐγὼ δὲ μάρτυρα τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦμαι ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν, ὅτι φειδόμενος ὑμῶν οὐκέτι ἦλθον εἰς Κόρινθον. 24 οὐχ ὅτι κυριεύομεν ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως ἀλλὰ συνεργοί ἐσμεν τῆς χαρᾶς ὑμῶν· τῇ γὰρ πίστει ἑστήκατε. 2:1 Ἔκρινα γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν. 2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ὁ εὐφραίνων με εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ; 3 καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην σχῶ ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔδει με χαίρειν, πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν.
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary - Alford

2.] γάρ, reason why I would not come to you in grief: because I should have to grieve those who formed my proper material for thankfulness and joy.
ἐγώ has a peculiar emphasis: ‘If I cause you grief’.… implying, ‘there are who cause you sufficient.’
καί prefixed to a question denotes inconsequence on, or inconsistency with, the foregoing supposition or affirmation: so Eur. Med. 1388, ὦ τέκνα φίλτατα! “μητρί γε, σοὶ δʼ οὔ.” κἄπειτʼ ἔκτας; see other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 147. It is best expressed in English by ‘then:’ who is he then, &c. as in E. V.
The explanation of Chrys., who has been followed by Erasm., Bengel, Olsh., al., is curious, and certainly inconsistent with the context: εἰ καὶ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, χάριν μοι παρέχετε κἀν τούτῳ μεγίστην, ὅτι δάκνεσθε ὑπὸ τῶν παρʼ ἐμοῦ λεγομένων. Hom. iv. p. 456. Some of these Commentators refer the singular to the offender, vv. 5-8. But however the words may bear the meaning, and however true the saying might be, it is pretty clear that it would be beside the subject: nay, would give a reason the other way,—why he should come to them.


Alford's citation from Chrysostom[1]:

Εἰ καὶ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, χάριν μοι παρέχετε κἀν τούτῳ μεγίστην, ὅτι δάκνεσθε ὑπὸ τῶν παρ' ἐμοῦ λεγομένων.

κἀν crasis for καὶ ἐν not καὶ ἄν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ is an adverbial "even in this." Hyperbaton χάριν ... μεγίστην.

"Though I make you sorry, even herein ye bestow on me a very great favor in that ye are hurt at what I say." Rev. J. Ashworth, C. M. Marriott, T. W. Chambers

Meyer's NT Commentary


2 Corinthians 2:2. As reason for his undertaking not to come to his readers again ἐν λύπῃ, Paul states that he on his own part could not in this case hope to find any joy among them. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:3. For if I afflict you, who is there also to give me joy, except him who is afflicted by me?—i.e., if I on my part (ἐγώ is emphatic[138]) make you afflicted, then results the contradiction that the very one who is afflicted by me is the one who should give me joy. Against this view Billroth and Rückert object that εἰ μὴ … ἐμοῦ is superfluous, and even in the way. No; it discloses the absurdity of the case conditioned by εἰ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς. Pelagius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth, render: who yet so much gladdens me as he who lets himself be afflicted by me (which is a sign of amendment)? Comp. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Erasmus, and others. So also Olshausen, who sees here an indirect warning to take the former censure more to heart. But against this perversion of ὁ λυπούμενος in a middle sense, we may decisively urge:—(1) that the sense of 2 Corinthians 2:2 would not stand in any relation to 2 Corinthians 2:1 as furnishing a reason for it; and (2) the οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε in 2 Corinthians 2:4. Rückert sees in εἰ … ὑμᾶς an aposiopesis; then begins a new question, which contains the reason why he may not afflict them, because it would be unloving, nay, ungrateful, to afflict those who cause him so much joy. Hence the meaning, touchingly expressed, is: “I might not come to you afflicting you; for if I had done so, I should have afflicted those very ones who give me joy: this would have been unloving on my part.” This is all the more arbitrary, since, logically at least, it must have stood in the converse order: καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰ μὴ ὁ εὐφραίνων με. Hofmann holds still more arbitrarily and oddly that εἰ γάρ is elliptical protasis, and ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς apodosis: if I come to you again in affliction, I make you afflicted, and who is there then who gladdens me, except him whom affliction coming from me befalls? The well-known omission of the verb in the protasis after εἰ is, in fact, a usage of quite another nature (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 213; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 497; Krüger, § lxv. 5. 11). Besides, this subtlety falls with Hofmann’s view of 2 Corinthians 2:1.

καί] also, expresses after the conditional clause the simultaneousness of what is contained in the apodosis, consequently without the interrogative form: there is also no one, etc. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f.; Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 311 [E. T. 362].

ὁ λυπούμενος] does not mean the incestuous person (so, against the entire connection, Beza, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heumann); but the singular of the participle with the article denotes the one who gives joy, as such, in abstracto. Comp. 1 Peter 3:13, al.; Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 20, al. Paul might have written τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ κ.τ.λ., but he was not under necessity of doing s.

ἐξ ἐμοῦ] source of the λυπεῖσθαι. See Bernhardy, p. 227; Schoem. ad Is. p. 348; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 385]. Comp. ἀφʼ ὧν, 2 Corinthians 2:3; but ἐξ is “quiddam penitius,” Bengel.

[138] This emphasis is usually not recognised. But in the ἐγώ there lies a contrast to others who do not stand in such an intimate relation to the readers as Paul. Comp. Osiander.
[1]For the citation I have provided the context. The quote from Chrysostom as cited by Alford comes at the very end of his discussion 2Cor 2:2 shown below.
Εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς,
καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ εὐφραίνων με, εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπού-
μενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ; Ποία αὕτη ἀκολουθία; Μεγίστη μὲν
οὖν. Σκόπει δέ· Οὐκ ἠθέλησα, φησὶν, ἐλθεῖν πρὸς
ὑμᾶς, ἵνα μὴ λυπήσω ὑμᾶς πλέον, ἐπιτιμῶν, ἀγα-
νακτῶν, ἀποστρεφόμενος. Εἶτα ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὐτὸ σφο-
δρὸν ἦν, καὶ κατηγορίαν αὐτῶν εἶχεν, εἴ γε οὕτως
ἔζων ὡς Παῦλον λυπεῖν, ἐπιδιορθώσει χρώμενος, φη-
σίν· Εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ εὐ-
φραίνων με, εἰ μὴ ὁ λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ; Ὃ δὲ
λέγει, τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐν λύπῃ ἔμελλον εἶ-

βʹ. Καὶ ὅρα σύνεσιν. Ὃ γὰρ τοῦ νόμου τῶν μαθητῶν
ἦν, τὸ ἀλγεῖν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι ἐπιτιμωμένους, τοῦτο
ὡς χαριζομένους αὐτοὺς εἰσάγει. Οὐδεὶς γάρ με οὕτως
εὐφραίνει, φησὶν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἐπιστρεφόμενος τῶν
ἐμῶν ῥημάτων, καὶ λυπούμενος ὅταν βλέπῃ με ὀργι-
ζόμενον. Καίτοι τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἦν εἰπεῖν. Εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ
λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ δυνάμενος ὑμᾶς εὐφρᾶναι;
ἀλλ' οὐ λέγει τοῦτο, ἀλλ' ἀντιστρέφει πάλιν αὐτὸ,
θεραπεύων αὐτοὺς, καὶ λέγων· Εἰ καὶ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς,
χάριν μοι παρέχετε κἀν τούτῳ μεγίστην, ὅτι δάκνεσθε
ὑπὸ τῶν παρ' ἐμοῦ λεγομένων.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply