2 Corinthians 12:1

1. The text of this difficult verse is in exceptional confusion, the result of accidental mistakes and conjectural emendations. About εἰς ὀπτασίας … κυρίον there is no doubt; but in the first half of the verse the only words about which all witnesses agree are καυχᾶσθαι and οὐ and ἐλεύσομαι.

Before καυχᾶσθαι א3 39, f Vulg. insert εἰ, which may safely be rejected. καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ (BD3FGLP, d f g Vulg. Syrr. Goth.) rather than καυχᾶσθαι δέ (אD, Copt.) or καυχᾶσθαι δή (KM, Aeth.); but the confusion between ε and ει is so easy and frequent, that δέ may be right. οὐ συμφέρον (אBFG 17, 67) rather than οὐ συμφέρει (DD3KLP); and μέν (אBFGP 17, 67, f Vulg. Copt.) rather than μοι (D3KLM, Syr-Harc., Chrys.); but D, Aeth. Goth. have neither μέν nor μοι. ἐλεύσομαι δέ (אBFGP 17, 73, 80, 118, 213, f g Vulg. Copt. Arm.) rather than ἐλεύσομαι γάρ (DkL, Syrr. Goth.). B, 213 read ἐλεύσομαι δὲ καί. The whole should probably run: Καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ· οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλεύσομαι δέ: but Καυχᾶσθαι δὲ οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλεύσομαι δέ may be original. Certainty is unattainable. With the confusion between δεῖ and δή (KM above) comp. 1 Corinthians 6:20, where L has δεῖ for δή. In the best texts συμφέρον is preferred to συνφέρον: see Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 75.

1. Καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ· οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλεύσομαι δὲ κ.τ.λ. See critical note. The confusion as to the text need excite no suspicion that the whole verse is spurious. An interpolation of this kind, when once made, would be no more liable to corruption than an original text: an interpolator would be likely to insert what was simple, and in no need of tinkering. The variations in the text are such as would spring naturally from different mistakes in copying and different attempts to correct these mistakes. Assuming the text as quoted to be correct, translate; I must needs glory: it is not indeed expedient, but I will come to visions &c. He is forced to glory, although he knows that glorying is not good. But there is another point which he must urge, viz. the revelations granted to him. By οὐ συμφέρον is meant that it is not profitable: he glories, not because it pays to do so, But because he cannot help himself. Or, reading δὲ οὐ for δεῖ· οὐ, we have; But to glory is not indeed expedient, but I will come &c. Κυρίου belongs to both ὀπτασίας and ἀποκαλύφεις. These experiences were not delusions, and they were not the work of Satan. Κυρίου is probably the subjective genitive, of Him from whom the visions and revelations proceed, as in διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Galatians 1:12); not the objective, of Him who is seen and revealed, as in ὀπτασίαν� (Luke 24:23) or ἐν τῇ� (2 Thessalonians 1:7). The objective genitive would apply to Acts 9:4-6; Acts 18:9; Acts 22:18; Acts 23:11, and perhaps Acts 27:23; but not to Acts 9:12 or Acts 16:9 : the subjective genitive would cover all these, and also Galatians 2:2. The subjective genitive would here be more certain, if ἀποκαλύψεις stood alone: ἀποκάλυψις Κυρίου may = Κύριος�: but ὀπτασία Κυρίου cannot be thus resolved. An ὀπτασία is a special kind of ἀποκάλυψις: a revelation may be made without anything being seen. On the other hand, not all visions are revelations. But an ὀπτασία Κυρίου would be a revelation; He would not send it unless He had something to make known. Indeed, in Scripture, ὀπτασία seems not to be used, except of visions that are revelations (Luke 1:22; Luke 24:23; Acts 26:19; Malachi 3:2; Theodotion’s version of Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:1; Daniel 10:7-8; Daniel 10:16, where in the LXX. we have ὅρασις or ὅραμα). Three times in the Apocrypha ὀπτασία is otherwise used (Sir 43:2; Sir 43:16; and the addition to Esther 4:13). But in the canonical books other words are employed, where mere sight or appearance, as distinct from divine manifestation, is meant. The word ὀπτασία is not classical; and it was probably colloquial before it became Biblical. It survives in modern Greek. See Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 154.

The conjecture that S. Paul is here answering an attack which had been made on him respecting his claim to have had ‘visions and revelations’ seems to receive some confirmation from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, a sort of religious romance, in parts of which S. Paul appears to be criticized in the person of Simon Magus. That Simon throughout represents S. Paul is an untenable hypothesis; for specially Pauline doctrines are not attributed to Simon and condemned by S. Peter. But here and there the Judaizing authors or compilers of these two writings have, under cover of Simon Magus, made a hit at the Apostle, whose teaching and work they so disliked; and they may be employing an old taunt against S. Paul when they laugh at the ‘visions’ of Simon Magus; see especially Hom. xvii. 14–20. “Simon said, Visions and dreams, being God-sent, do not speak falsely in regard to those things which they have to tell. And Peter said, You were right in saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely. But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a God-sent dream” (15). Comp. Hom. xi. 35, ii. 17, 18; Recog. ii. 55, iii. 49, iv. 35; and see Hort, Clementine Recognitions, pp. 120 ff.; also Hastings’ DB. iv. p. 524.