^{page 133 note 1} Windisch, Hans, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1924), p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 2} See, e.g., Robinson, J. A. T., The Body (London, 1952), p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 3} Bruce, F. F., 1 and 2 Corinthians (New Century Bible) (London, 1971), in loc.Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Black's New Testament Commentaries) (London, 1973), in loc.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 4} Hughes, Philip E., Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1962), p. 242.Google ScholarCompare Allo, E.-B., Saint Paul: Second Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1956), p. 190.Google Scholar Allo says that it is the repetition of rhetorical questions, all with the same bearing, which has led Paul to search for synonyms. He points out that most of the hapax legomena have affinities with words which Paul does use elsewhere (e.g. μετοχή occurs here only, but μετέχεıν is found five times in Paul). The exception is the term Βελίαρ, but this is not a strange word for a writer brought up in Judaism and familiar with the apocalypses. E. Best points out that three of the words in question, έμπερıπατέω, είσδήχομαı, and παντοκράτωρ, occur in Old Testament quotations, and cannot therefore be used in a stylistic argument against Pauline authorship.

^{page 133 note 5} Collange, J.-F., Énigmes de la Deuxième Épître de Paul aux Corinthiens (SNTS Monograph Series 18, Cambridge, 1972), p. 282.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 6} Ibid. p. 302.

^{page 134 note 1} Barrett, , op. cit. pp. 195–7.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} Bruce, , op. cit. p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Barrett, , op. cit. p. 202.Google ScholarSee also Jewett, Robert, Paul's Anthropological Terms (Leiden, 1971), pp. 184–6.Google Scholar Paul is here making use of ‘a traditional paraenesis’ deriving from Jewish apocalyptic. In this tradition the idea of keeping the spirit unspotted until the final judgement is typical. The phrase under discussion is therefore Pauline in all but the strictest sense.

^{page 134 noten 4} Cf. Hughes, , op. cit. p. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} Hurd, John C., The Origin of I Corinthians (London, 1965), pp. 240–70.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} Ibid. p. 237.

^{page 135 note 3} See Bruce, , op. cit. p. 213.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ‘Qumran and the interpolated paragraph in 2 Cor. 6: 14–7: 1’, C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 271–80Google Scholar, reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971), pp. 205–17.Google ScholarGnilka, Joachim, ‘2 Kor. 6: 14–7: I im Lichte der Qumranschriften und der Zwölf-Patriarchen-Testamente’, in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (Festschrift J. Schmid) (Regensburg, 1963), pp. 86–99Google Scholar; ET ‘2 Cor. 6: 14 – 7: 1 in the light of the Qumran texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, in Paul and Qumran, ed. Murphy, J. O'Connor (London, 1968), pp. 48–68.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} See also Gärtner, Bertil, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGärtner, , however, takes the passage as Pauline, pointing to significant parallels with I Cor. iii. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} See Fitzmyer, , Semitic Background, pp. 58–89.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} Ibid. p. 11.

^{page 137 note 3} That the fragment has undergone Christian revision is shown by the fact that it is Christ, not God, who is opposed to Beliar, and by the distinction between believers and unbelievers, which was not of importance to the Essenes (see Gnilka).

^{page 137 note 4} Bruce, , op. cit. pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 5} Barrett, , op. cit. p. 197.Google Scholar In the II Corinthians seminar it was suggested by C. J. A. Hickling and M. D. Hooker that what we find here might be a quite natural and independent development of such passages as Isa. ix. 2, xlii. 6–7.

^{page 137 note 6} Barrett, , op. cit. p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} Ibid. p. 199. In his commentary on I Corinthians (p. 90) Barrett notes that Hellenistic philosophers spoke of God as dwelling in the human heart (see, e.g., Epictetus, Discourses II. 8. 14). The theme of the church as a temple may be related to the Jewish apocalyptic idea that in the last days there would be a new, or renewed, temple.

^{page 138 note 2} Ibid. p. 200.

^{page 139 note 1} Ibid. pp. 23–4.

^{page 139 note 2} Windisch, , op. cit. p. 220.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} Allo, , op. cit. p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 4} Collange, , op. cit. p. 304.Google Scholar Windisch himself admitted that, because of the difference in length, a ‘simple interchange of pages’ was not the answer.

^{page 139 note 5} The δıδόντες of verse 3 is presumably dependent upon the παρακαλοūμεν of verse I.

^{page 140 note 1} Plummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (The International Critical Commentary) (Edinburgh, 1915), p. XXV.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} Plummer, , op. cit. p. XXVGoogle Scholar; Allo, , op. cit. p. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Hughes, , op. cit. pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Collange, , op. cit. pp. 282–4.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} Barrett, , op. cit. pp. 194–5.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Collange, , op. cit. p. 284 n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 4} Ibid. p. 315.

^{page 142 note 5} Ibid. p. 319.

^{page 142 note 6} Barrett, , op. cit. p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} Collange, , op. cit. p. 305.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} Barrett, , op. cit. p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} Cf. Allo, , op. cit. p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} Cf. Schlatter, Adolf, Paulus der Bote Jesu, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1969), p. 576, who, in his treatment of II Cor. vi. 14–16, seems to suggest that Paul had iv. 4–6 in mind when writing these verses.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Barrett, , op. cit. p. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} See Rom. iv. 3–9, where Paul interprets Gen. xv. 6 by means of Ps. xxxii. 1–2 because the verb λογίομαı occurs in both passages. E. Best questions whether Paul made use of this sort of linguistic connection unless, as in his argument in Romans, there was also some connection in actual content, which would not be the case in the verses in II Corinthians. This is no doubt true when verses of the Old Testament are employed in the construction of a logical argument. But I am not claiming that any such argument is being constructed in II Cor. vi. 11 and 16. The suggestion is simply that the training and mental habits which made this kind of argumentation possible, and the exact verbal familiarity with the Old Testament which it demanded, would make it likely that when Paul used the comparatively infrequent phrase ή καρδία ήμῷν πεπλάτυνταı it brought to mind one of the few passages in the Greek Old Testament where a nearly identical phrase occurs, and reminded him of its content.

^{page 148 note 1} Brief mention should perhaps be made of the article by Betz, Hans Dieter, ‘2 Cor. 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?’, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 88–108.Google Scholar Betz argues that the passage is non-Pauline, and represents the theology of the Jewish-Christian opponents with whom Paul had to deal in Antioch and in Galatia. Their fundamental tenet was the necessity for Christians to observe the Torah, which led them either to attempt to impose the Torah upon Gentile Christians (as in Galatia) or to persuade Jewish Christians to separate themselves from Gentile adherents of the faith (as in Antioch). The latter policy is reflected in II Cor. vi. 14–vii. 1, where the opening exhortation Μή γίνεσθε έτερο⋯υγο⋯ντες άπίστοıς means that Jewish Christians are not to cast aside the yoke of the Torah by associating with Gentile Christians who are not faithful to the Law. The rest of the passage elaborates upon this precept. Betz's interpretation of vi. 14 is unconvincing, however. There is no evidence that Gentile Christians were ever called ᾄπıστοı, and the small amount of evidence relating to the terminology of the Antioch dispute suggests that they would have been refereed to, in some way or another, simply as ‘Gentiles’ (Gal. ii. 14, 15; Acts xv. 7, 19, 23). Moreover, the probable allusion to Lev. xix. 19 (τά κτήνη) σου ού κατοχεύσεıς ⋯τερούγῳ, Paul's contention (I Cor. ix. 9) that the Mosaic regulations about animals are to be applied allegorically to Christians, and the occurrences of ᾃπıστος in I Cor. vii. 12–15 with reference to marriages with pagans make it very probable that here we have Paul himself warning against close associations with pagans, whether by marriage or in some other way.