^{page 380 note 2} Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 11 (Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1964), pp. 258–81. Other studies with comparable findings and some degree of dependence on Georgi includeGoogle ScholarOostendorp, D. W., Another Jesus. A Gospel of Jewish-Christian Superiority in II Corinthians (Kampen, 1967),Google ScholarRissi, M., Studien zum zweiten Korintherbrief, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 56 (Zürich, 1969),Google ScholarCollange, J.-F., Énigmes de la deuxième Épître de Paul aux Corinthiens, S.N.T.S. Monograph Series 18 (Cambridge, 1972), and (covering the whole Corpus)CrossRefGoogle ScholarGunther, J.J., St Paul's Opponents and their Background, Supplements to Novum Testamentum xxxv (Leiden, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 3} Thus Georgi claims (op. cit. pp. 274–82, developing a suggestion made by Schulz, S. in ‘Die Decke des Moses’, Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), pp. 1–30) that Paul was sending back to Corinth with extensive corrective interpolations a midrash composed by his opponents. How this had become accessible to him, and how the recipients were to recognize it, identify Paul's emendations, and respond to what seems a curiously academic mode of conducting controversy, is not made clear.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 4} Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black's New Testament Commentaries (London, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 1} As given in the commentaries of, e.g., Plummer (I.C.C. 1915), Windisch (Meyerkommentar 1924), and Allo (Études Bibliques 1956). Cp. also Käsemann, E., Perspectives on Paul (London, 1971), pp. 148–152.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 2} CpKäsemann, E., ‘Die Legitimät des Apostels…’, Z.N.W. XLI (1942), pp. 33–71, where Paul‘s opponents in Corinth are seen as closely connected with the Jerusalem Church.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 3} CpKeyes, C. W., ‘The Greek Letter of Introduction’, American Journal of Philology LVI (1935), P. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 1} Cp. H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (⁹1924), p. 105.

^{page 382 note 2} Reading ὐμ⋯ν with ℵ and its small number of supporters, and rejecting ⋯μ⋯ν, even though it is the harder reading and very well attested, as probably an assimilation to the ⋯μ⋯ν earlier in the verse (cp. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 96 note 3). But the textual problem is difficult. If the harder reading is preferred, we have the comprehensible if somewhat tortuous sense that Paul's own anxious pastoral concern for the Corinthians was such as a man would have for those with whom he was in a genuine relationship of trust and of accepted authority.

^{page 383 note 1} Alio, E.-B., Saint Paul: Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens (Études Bibliques) (Paris, 1956), p. 27, describes i. 18 as ‘une de ces belles “digressions”, de ces soudains élans vers les sommets, qui caractérisent ces épîtres passionées du grand apôtre contemplatif’; compare his description of iii. I – vii. 4 as a section which ‘sort, en jaillissement, de l'é1an imprimé à la dictée dès 2: 14’ (p. 78).Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 2} Used first in general reference to his communications with the Corinthians by letter or by word of mouth, but secondly of his preaching of the gospel, for which λ⋯γος becomes virtually a technical term, e.g. I Thessalonians i. 6.

^{page 383 note 3} Cpvan Unnik, W. C., ‘Reisepläne und Amen-Sagen, Zusammenhang and Gedankenfolge in 2 Korinther 1: 15–24’, in Studia Paulina, ed. Sevenster, J. N. and Van Unnik, W. C. (Haarlem, 1953) (now in Sparsa Collecta, Part One, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. XXIX, Leiden, 1973), pp. 215–34, especially p. 230, andGoogle ScholarHahn, F., ‘Das Ja des Paulus und das Ja Gottes’, in Neues Testament und christliches Existenz (Festschrift for H. Braun), ed. Betz, H. D. and Schottroff, L. (Tübingen, 1973), pp. 229–39, especially p. 238.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 4} For arguments against detecting a break so great as to indicate editorial juxtaposition of originally separate fragments, see T. W. Manson, ‘2 Cor. 2: 14–17; Suggestions towards an Exegesis’, in Studia Paulina (as above), pp. 155–61, esp. p. 161; M. Rissi, op. cit. p. 15, and C. K. Barrett, 2. Corinthians, pp. 96 f.

^{page 383 note 5} Presumably i. 23 refers to a change of plan, which may well have been sudden; cp. M. Rissi, op. cit. p. 16.

^{page 383 note 6} In what capacity is of course disputed according to the sense given to θριαμβεὐοντι, v 14. Even if Paul thinks of himself as a captive rather than as a member of the Emperor's entourage, the general sense is the same; cp. Allo, op. cit. p. 44.

^{page 384 note 1} CpPrümm, K., Diakonia Pneumatos, II I (Rome, 1960), p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 2} CpMoule, C. F. D., ‘2 Cor 3:18b, καθ⋯περ…⋯π⋯ κυρ׀ου πνε⋯ματος’, in Neues Testament und Geschichte (O. Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag), ed. Baltensweiler, H. and Reicke, B. (Zürich, 1972), pp. 231–7, esp. pp. 232 f.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 3} Bultmann points out that the πεπο׀θησις of iii. 4 has the same weight and content as the κα⋯χησις of i. 12, T.W.N.T. III, 649 note 37.

^{page 385 note 1} Some such meaning is clearly required by the context, though in attempting to establish δι⋯κονος θεο⋯ as a fixed concept indicating ‘der Gesandte Gottes im Sinne des vollmächtigen Repräasentanten’ Georgi surely relies too heavily on Epictetus, op. cit. p. 33.

^{page 385 note 2} I Corinthians xi. 25. The Marcan narrative, with its divergent interpretation of the Cup (or rather of its contents), does not use the word καιν⋯, but the covenant he supposes to have been made at that moment was obviously a new one, and the Marcan phrase as a whole together with the Pauline version suggest that this idea was fairly widespread in early Christianity.

^{page 385 note 3} Cp. C. K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 107.

^{page 385 note 4} The close connection between the content of the gospel and the apostolic work by which it is communicated is explored by Asting, R., Die Verkündigung des Wortes im Urchristentum (Stuttgart, 1939); cp. especially p. 388, and van Unnik, art. cit. p. 231. It is in iv. 10 f. that Paul comes nearest to regarding his experiences as a missionary as representing the contents of the apostolic preaching.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 1} C. K. Barrett's translation, op. cit. p. 109.

^{page 386 note 2} CpDunn, J. D. G., ‘2 Corinthians III 17’, J.T.S. (N.S.) XXI (1970), pp. 310 f.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 3} CpBarrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last (London, 1962), p. 54, and the passage there quoted fromGoogle ScholarRostovtzeff, M., Dura-Europos and its Art (Oxford, 1938), p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 1} De Vita Mosis II, XIV.

^{page 387 note 2} It is interesting that a gloss to Targum Neofiti on Exodus XXXIV. 29 asserts that Moses ‘did not know that they praised the glory of his face’ ([יו]ᗤאד ןוהוויז.וחבש). The editor, A. Diez Macho, says of the gloss in question (‘M’) that it ‘podría representar una recensión antigua del Targ. Pal.…conteniendo una tradición tan antigua por lo menos que F de la Geniza’ [i.e. the MS designated ‘F’ in P. E. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, Stuttgart, 1927, vol. 11] (Neophyti I, Tomo II, Exodo, Madrid, 1970, p. 23). It is thus possible that a tradition of interpretation of this passage known to Paul may already have directed attention to the honour paid by the people to the mediator of the Sinaitic covenant.

^{page 387 note 3} The meaning of Πνε⋯μα in this antithesis, which had surely been formulated as part of Paul‘s apologetic against Jews before he wrote II Corinthians (he makes use of it in a quite different context in Romans ii. 29) is – despite much dispute – the Holy Spirit: cp. e.g. the commentaries of Michel and H. W. Schmidt on the Romans verse just mentioned, and J. D. G. Dunn, art. cit. p. 310 note 2, and literature there cited.

^{page 387 note 4} As indicated (by only two quotations) in S.B. III, 515.

^{page 387 note 5} C. K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 52.

^{page 387 note 6} Schulz finds two mutually contradictory evaluations of Moses in this passage, and by this means supports his claim that Paul quotes and modifies a pre-existent midrash, art. cit. pp. 4 ff. This is open to the objection that if he had before him an exegetical exercise of whose heretical tendency he was as vividly aware as is supposed, it would have been more economical and efficient to have substituted for it one of his own which left no hostages to fortune by appearing to accept the false view at some points. The presence of inconcinnities of this kind is surely an indication of a deep-seated ambivalence in Paul's attitude to his race and to his religious past.

^{page 388 note 1} Here, at least, one must acknowledge the force of the argument that τ⋯ν καταργουμ⋯νην is an addition to a Vorlage as claimed by Schulz, art. cit. p. 8, and Georgi, op. cit. p. 278. Yet the order of words is difficult on any showing: whether it was his own paraphrase of the LXX text or his opponents' midrash that he was interpreting, Paul could have introduced the participle within rather than after the phrase τ⋯ν δ⋯ξαν το⋯ προσώπου αὐτο⋯. Possibly he preferred a word-order which showed that, in the fashion of the rabbis, he was finding a new meaning in the text (cp. O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 2 Reihe, 18, Gütersloh, 1929, reprinted Darmstadt, 1972, p. 96); or used this order for emphasis, cp. Blass-Debrunner, § 473.

^{page 388 note 2} C. K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 117.

^{page 389 note 1} The combination of biblical allusions here being ascribed to Paul is probably best thought of as a spontaneous linking arising out of the image which suggested itself to his mind in the manner suggested earlier, cp. C. K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 107. The procedure bears some resemblance, however, to well-known techniques in rabbinic exegesis, CpBonsirven, J., Éxégèse Rabbinique et Éxégèse Paulinienne (Paris, 1939), p. 94. Cp. also E. Käsemann, op. cit., p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 2} There is in these verses a transition from one meaning of δ⋯ξα, indicating a very high degree of personal worth or reputation, to the quasi-concrete sense it frequently bears in the LXX (CpBrockington, L., ‘The Septuagintal Background to the New Testament Use of ΔОΑ’, in Studies in the Gospels (essays in memory of R. H. Lightfoot), ed. Nineham, D. E. (Oxford, 1957), pp. 1–8) of ‘splendour, radiance’. It is curious that the gloss on Targum Neofiti mentioned above (p. 387 n. 2) seems to be aware of a similar ambiguity (Jastrow's lexicon seems to indicate a clear differentiation between ארקי, ‘honour’, etc., and ויו, ‘splendour’, also ‘countenance’).Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 1} Indeed, an interval must have occurred, according to the MT, on each occasion when this sequence took place, for v. 34 states that Moses left the divine presence a second time with his face ablaze ‘and spoke to the Israelites what he was commanded’, i.e. surely further divine injunctions in supplement to what had been delivered at v. 32. In neither case could Paul, whether reading the Hebrew or the Greek as we have them, suppose that all this took place during ‘a brief, terrifying interval’, pace C. K. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, p. 114.

^{page 390 note 2} Just possibly, too, Paul might have contrasted Moses' having brought his mediatorial work to an end, κατ⋯παυσε λαλ⋯ν πρ⋯ς α⋯το⋯ς v 33, with his own consciousness of divinely imposed obligation to continue preaching wherever the Christian message had not yet been heard, I Corinthians ix. 16, Romans xv. 19–21, Philippians i. 25. More obviously, to cover one's face in most cases, at least, impedes speech, if it does not prohibit it altogether! To some extent, van Unnik's argument from the Aramaic idiom ןיפא הלג, ‘to uncover the face’ (‘With Unveiled Face’, XAPIΣ KAl ΣOФIA, Festschrift Rengstorf, K. H., Novum Testamentum VI (1963), pp. 153–69 [now in Sparsa Collecta, see n. 3, p. 383, pp. 194–210] esp. p. 161), only reinforces a commonsense point. At least it is clear that the image of Moses veiled provides ‘das Gegenbeispiel zur apostolischer Offenheit’Google ScholarPrümm, K., op. cit. I, 133.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 3} Cp. Windisch, op. cit. p. 119: ‘die δ⋯ ξα nicht zu profanieren’.

^{page 391 note 1} It may have been Philo's, loc. cit.: τροφ⋯ς ἔχων ⋯μείνους τ⋯ς δι⋯ θεωρאας αῑς ༄νωθεν ⋯π' οὐρανο⋯ καταπνε⋯μενος…⋯βελτιο⋯το,…ὠς τοὺς ׀δ⋯ντας ὔστερον ⋯πιστεῖν. Cp., for what it is worth, Tanhuma אשח יכ 121^a, cited by S.-B. III, p. 514: the glory was imparted by ‘contagion’ or alternatively during reception of the Torah.

^{page 391 note 2} The transfiguration narratives in the synoptic gospels indicate that a similar idea could be entertained. According to these, Jesus' face ‘shone like the sun’ (Matthew xvii. 2) and the disciples ‘saw his glory’ (Luke ix. 32), but the continuation of the narrative leaves no doubt that the transformation had ceased when Jesus and the three disciples redescended from the mountain. M. McNamara quotes pseudo-Philo's description of Moses' death as possible evidence for a view, in sharp contrast with that of the rabbis, that Moses' glory had been transient, since it was restored ‘when Moses heard’ (the word spoken to him) (‘et audiens Moyses,…mutata est effigies eius in Gloria’, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 19. 6); see The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica 27 (Rome, 1966), p. 174. The Lucan transfiguration narrative, perhaps rather more than the others, offers certain parallels with Exodus xxxiv; and it has recently been thought that the transfiguration of Jesus was in the minds of Paul's opponents: they ‘gloried in appearance (v. 12) and must have attributed to the visible Jesus the same glory they emphasized in the face of Moses’, J.J. Gunther, op. cit. p. 211. But – quite apart from the doubtful use of II Corinthians v. 12 – this seems a groundless speculation, and no conclusion can be safely drawn about either the Pauline or the Lucan passage from such parallels as exist.

^{page 391 note 3} Whatever may be thought of this reconstruction, it is surely no more improbable than Schulz's view that ‘Moses als Vermittler des alttestamentlichen Bundes wird in dieser paulinischen Deutung zum “Gnostiker”, der die nichtssagende Vergänglichkeit desselben samt seiner Doxa “längst” erkannt hat, aber seine Volksgenossen vor dieser höheren Einsicht schützen möchte’ art. cit. p. 9.

^{page 392 note 1} W. C. van Unnik, ‘With unveiled face’ (see p. 390 n. 2), p. 162 (the italics in the translation of Isaiah xxix. 10 are van Unnik's).

^{page 392 note 2} Art. cit. p. II.

^{page 392 note 3} Cp. the use of the similar verse in Isaiah vi. 10 at Mark iv. 12, and the comments of Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961, second impression 1973), pp. 166–7.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 4} Pseudo-Philo, Antiquitates Biblicae 12. I, quoted by Windisch, op. cit. p. 114.

^{page 393 note 1} C. F. D. Moule, art. cit. p. 234, cp. J. D. G. Dunn, art. cit. pp. 312 ff., and M. McNamara, op. cit. p. 178.

^{page 393 note 2} And in iv. 6 it is certainly meant that the light began to shine in order to remain a permanent source of illumination. It is of course clear that the break indicated by the present division of chapters should not conceal from us how much of what Paul has derived from Exodus xxxiv continues to influence both his thought and its expression in iv. 1–6.

^{page 394 note 1} M. McNamara, drawing on the work of R. Le Deaut, has suggested that the use of this word instead of the ε׀σεπορε⋯ετο of the LXX is one of the indications that Paul at this point has Exodus xxxiii. 7 ff. in mind (op. cit. p. 180). Granted, however, that the general theme of repentance and forgiveness in the expansions of the MT by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan offers a certain parallel to what Paul is saying, it remains hard to see that Paul could really have had this interpretative tradition in mind. The only point of contact that is at all exact is the equivalence between ⋯πιστρ⋯Ꭻη and "ררהר (‘who used to return’), on which no argument can be safely based.

^{page 394 note 2} C. K. Barrett takes the subject of ⋯πιστρ⋯Ꭻη to be (probably) the καρδ׀α of the previous verse, and that of περιαιεῑtau;αι, which he reads as middle, to be ‘the Lord’ of the first half of the verse 2 Corinthians, p. 122). This seems to assume the punctuation of Kilpatrick, with a colon after κεῖται. But if Dunn and Moule are right in regarding the whole passage as to a great extent controlled by the Exodus narrative by which Paul seems to have been somewhat fascinated, we should expect the hope (towards which he was perhaps moving) for Israel's ultimate salvation to fasten eagerly on Exodus xxxiv. 34, and to make use of its authority in what is intended as an only slightly modified quotation (modified in the direction of his own interpretation in the way which we know to have been frequent in Jewish exegesis). Moreover, if the Exodus story was in Paul's mind as he dictated, the change of subject for περιαιρεῖται would seem somewhat harsh. Verse 16 is surely a modified quotation, with V. 17 as its pesher (so Dunn, art. cit. pp. 313 ff.).

^{page 394 note 3} The view that ⋯στιν in v. 17 means, in effect, ‘allegorically signifies’, seems to be gaining ground. Possibly, however, we should take Paul to mean that when Moses ascended Sinai it was in fact the Spirit himself, the source of freedom, that he met; the carrying of the stone tables down the mountain afterwards, and the subsequent recitation of legal commandments, were the result of an archetypal ὠρωσις on the part of Moses; Israel is to a great extent exculpated, and the burden of guilt falls on Moses himself. In some respects the suggestion is not without attractiveness, but it is difficult to fit into a passage already embarrassingly rich in diversified theological motifs.

^{page 394 note 4} Together with a converted Moses? If sufiicient weight is placed on ήμεῑς π⋯ντες, the verse can be read as an anticipation of Romans xi. 25 f.

^{page 395 note 1} CpMunck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London, 1959; E.T. of Paulus und die Heils-geschichte, Copenhagen, 1954), pp. 36–61. Munck's view is, however, open to criticism; cp. C. J. A. Hickling, ‘On Putting Paul in his Place’, in What About the New Testament? (see above, p. 380, n. i), pp. 76–88.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} An earlier draft of this article formed the last part of a paper submitted at its first meeting in September 1973 to the seminar on II Corinthians convened by Professor E. Best under the auspices of the S.N.T.S. I am most grateful for many suggestions then made in discussion about the problem of chapter iii, as also for stimulus to, and assistance in, the study of these on many occasions in Professor C. F. Evans' seminar for New Testament specialists at King's College, London.