ft1. Several monographs, proceeding from German scholars are devoted to the description and history of Corinth: Wilchen’s “Rerum Corinthiarum specimen ad illustrationem utriusque Epistolae Paulinte.” 1747. Barth’s “Corinthiorum Commercia et Mercaturae particula.”

Berlin, 1814. A very interesting chapter in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of Paul is devoted to this subject. Vol. 1: ch. 12. See also Winer’s Real Wörterbuch, and Arnold’s Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. ft2. Instead of shmeio~n , a sign , the MSS., A. B. C. D. E. F. G., besides many others of later date, read shmei~a , signs , which almost all the modern editors adopt. ft3. The common text here is tou~ eijde>nai ti< , The tou~ is omitted in the MSS. A, B. C. D. E. F. G. The rending adopted in the recent editions is ti< eijde>nai . ft4. Instead of sarkikoi~v , unto carnal , Griesbach, Tischendorf and others read sarki>noiv , to those made of flesh , comp. 2 Corinthians 3:3.

The latter term, used in a moral sense, would be stronger than the former, as indicating the very nature as carnal. In all the places in the New Testament where the form sa>rkinov appeals, except in Corinthians 3:3, the reading is doubtful. Romans 7:14; Hebrews 7:16, and here. ft5. Instead af the future ejxegerei~ , will raise up , Lachmann and Tischendorf after A. D. read ejxegei>rei , he raises up . Meyer after B. 67, prefers ejxh>geire he raised up . According to this last reading the resurrection of believers is represented as involved in that of Christ. As they died when he died, so they rose when he rose. The common text however is the best supported and gives a good sense. ft6. The last clause of this verse is omitted by all the modern editors from Griesbach down. They are not found in the MSS. A. B. C. D. E. F. G., nor in several of the ancient versions. ft7. Instead of ojfeilome>nhn eu]noian of the received text, A. B. C. D. E.

F. G. have the simpler reading, ojfeilh>n , which most editors adopt.

The same authorities omit the words th|~ nhstei>a| kai> , in the latter part of the passage. ft8. The MSS., A.B.C.D.E.E.G., read oJ ku>riov with ejme>rise , and oJ qeo>v , with keklh|ken . ft9. Instead of suneidh>sei the MSS., A. B. 17, 46, and the Coptic, Ethiopic and Syrian versions read sunhqei>a , which reading is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The meaning would then be ‘through custom of an idol,’ i.e. from being long accustomed to believe that there were such beings. The great weight of authority, however, is in favor of the common reading. ft10. The MS. A. B., the great majority of the ancient versions and many of the Fathers put eleu>qerov before ajpo>stolov , which is the natural order of the words, and which, after Griesbach, has been adopted by almost all editors. ft11. The question is discussed by Neander, in his Planting of the Church, p 554; by Winer, in Real Wörterbuch, under the head of Jacobus; by Prof. Schaf, who has devoted to it a volume; and by many other writers, ancient and modern. ft12. The common text is th~v ejlpi>dov aujtou~ mete>cein ejp ’ ejlpi>di .

Griesbach Lachmann, Schohz and Tischendorf all read ejp ’ elipidi tou~ mete>cein , on the authority of the MSS. A. B. C. ft13. In reference to this mode of expounding the passage, Calvin says:

Nequc etiam quasi velit allegorice exponere praeceptum illud: quemadmodum nonnulli vertiginosi spiritus occasionem hinc arripiunt omnia ad allegorias transferendi: ita ex canibus faciunt homines, ex arboribus angelos, et totam Scripturam ludendo pervertunt. ft14. The MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G. all read ejbapiqhsan were baptized , instead of ejbapti>santo , allowed themselves to be baptized ; and yet the majority of editors prefer the latter reading as the more difficult. ft15. Fuit (ille puteus Numbers 21:16) sicut petra, sicut alveus apum et globosus, et volutavit, etc., et ivit cum ipsis in itineribus ipsorum. Bammidhbar. R S. 1. ft16. Instead of Cristo>n the MSS. B. C., and the Coptic and Ethiopic versions read ku>rion . The MS. A. has qeo>n . The common text is sustained by the MSS. D. E. F. G. H. I. K., by the Syriac, Vulgate, the old Latin and Sahidic versions, and by Chrysostom and other Fathers.

It is retained, therefore, by the majority of editors. As the more difficult reading it is the more likely to be the original one. The temptation was strong to change cristo>n into ku>rion , but no one would be disposed to put the former word for the latter. ft17. The common Text here reads paragge>llwn oujk ejpainw~ . Lachmann and Tischendorf read paragge>llw oujk ejpainw~n on the authority of the Mss. A. C. F. G. and others of later date, and the Syriac, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions. The common reading is preferred by the majority of editors. ft18. Haec communicatio corporis Christi, quam nobis in coena exhiberi dico nec localem praesentiam, nec Christi descensum, nec infinitam extensionem, nec aliud quicquam tale flagitat.... Locum non mutat, ut nobis adsit, sed e coelo praesentem in nos carnis snae virtutem transmittat. ft19. The MSS. A. B. C. omit klw>menon Griesbach questioned its genuineness, Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it. ft20. The word ajnaxi>wv , unworthily, is omitted by the MSS. A. C., and is rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf. If discarded, the sense of the passage is either, ‘The eater and drinker, i.e. he who eats and drinks at the Lord’s table as at an ordinary meal, eats judgment to himself;’ or, ‘He that eats not discerning the Lord’s body, eats judgment to himself.’ The common text has in its support the majority of ancient MSS., and is followed by most editors. ft21. BENGEL’ S remark on this clause is: kri>ma sine articulo judicinm aliquod, morbum, mortemve corporis, ut qui Domini corpus non discernunt, corpore suo luant. Non dicit To to< kata>krima , condemnationem. ft22. The common text is o[ti , the MSS. A. C. D. E. F. I., and many of the versions and Fathers have o[ti o[te (that when ), which reading is adopted by Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf. The construction is then irregular. ft23. It may be remarked in passing that bapti>zesqai ejn pneu>mati cannot mean to be immersed in the Spirit, any more than bapti>zesqai u[dati Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5, can by possibility mean to be immersed in water. ft24. CALVIN says, Mysteria et res occultas, ideoque nullius utillitatis.

Mysteria hic Chrysostomus accepit honorifice, pro eximiis Dei revelationibus: ego vero in malam partem pro aenigmatibus obscuris et involutis, quasi diceret, loquitur quod nemo percipiat. Calvin’s view of the gift of tongues seems to have been very little higher than that of some of the moderns. ft25. Acsi diccret: Non potest homo dare citharae aut tibiae animam: vocem tamen affingit ita temperatam, ut discerni qucat; quam igitur absurdum est homines ipsos intelligentiae praeditos confusum nescio quid sonare? — Calvin. This would seem to mean that the speaker with tongues uttered a confused noise, with no more meaning in it than thrumming on a harp. ft26. CALVIN says, Sensus planus est. Si ergo idiomate mihi ignoto preces concipiam, ac spiritus mihi verba suppeditet: ipse quidem spiritus qui linguam meam gubernat, orabit; sed mens mea vel alibi vagabitur, vel saltem non erit orationis particeps. This implies, that the gift of tongues, at least when disjoined from the gift of interpretation, was the power to speak in a lauguage which the speaker himself did not at the time understand. Accordingly, just before he had asked, Si donum linguae ab intelligentia separetur, ita ut qui pronuntiat, sit ipse sibi barbarus, quid proficiet sic balbutiendo? Yet Calvin himself regarded this as ridiculous. Quam ridiculum fuisset, linguam hominis Romani formari Dei Spiritu ad pronuntiandas voces Graecas, quae loquenti essent prorsus ignotae: qualiter psittaci, et picae, et corvi humanas voces fingere docentur? It is very certain, however, that the gift of tongues was possessed by those who had not the gift of interpretation, and yet, even in those cases, it was edifying to the speaker. It therefore follows, that this view of the nature of the gift must be erroneous.