2Co_10:16. Infinitive without a connecting
καί
, and all the less therefore dependent in its turn on
ἐλπίδα
δὲ
ἔχοντες
, but rather infinitive of the aim: we hope to become exceedingly large among you, in order to preach the gospel unto the lands lying beyond you,[316] not within the boundary-line of another to boast of what is already done. This negative part is a side-glance at the opponents who in Corinth, which lay within the range of the line drawn for Paul, and so
ἐν
ἀλλοτρίῳ
κανόνι
, had boasted in regard to the circumstances of the church there, which they had, in fact, found already shaped before they came, consequently
εἰς
τὰ
ἕτοιμα
. Comp. Calvin: “quum Paulus militasset, illi triumphum agebant.” Beza and Billroth, also de Wette and Hofmann (who thinks all three infinitives dependent on
ἐλπ
.
ἔχ
.), take the infinitive as epexegesis of
μεγαλυνθ
. by adding an id est; but this is precluded by the correct connection of
ἐν
ὑμῖν
with
μεγαλυνθ
. For, if Paul hopes to become large among the Corinthians, this cannot mean the same thing as to preach away beyond Corinth (
εἰς
τὰ
ὑπερέκεινα
ὑμ
.
εὐαγγ
.). No; that
μεγαλυνθ
. denotes the becoming capable for further extended working, the being put into a position for it, and accordingly the aim of this is:
εἰς
τὰ
ὑπερέκεινα
ὑμῶν
εὐαγγ
. Ewald would make the infinitives
εὐαγγ
. and
καυχ
. dependent on
κατὰ
τ
.
κανόνα
ἡμ
., so that they would explain in what more precisely this rule consists; but this is forbidden by the fact that
εἰς
περισσ
. is not placed before
κατὰ
τ
.
κ
.
ἡμ
.
The adverb
ὑπερέκεινα
, ultra, is bad Greek. See Thomas Magister, p 336:
ἐπέκεινα
ῥήτορες
λέγουσι
…
ὑπερέκεινα
δὲ
μόνοι
οἱ
σύρφακες
(the rabble). Comp. Bos, Ellips., ed. Schaef. pp. 288, 290.
εἰς
before
ὑπερέκ
. does stand for
ἐν
(Flatt and others), but comp. 1Pe_1:25; Joh_8:261Th_2:9.
οὐκ
ἐν
ἀλλοτρ
.
κανόνι
]
οὐκ
, not
μή
, is here used quite according to rule (in opposition to Rückert), since the
οὐκ
ἐν
ἀλλ
.
καν
. is correlative to the
εἰς
τὰ
ὑπερέκεινα
ὑμῶν
as contrast (Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 125 f.). And this correlation demands that
ἐν
be understood not of the object of
καυχᾶσθαι
(Hofmann), but locally, to which also the very notion of
κανών
(2Co_10:13) points: within the measuring-line drawn for another, i.e. as to substance: in the field of activity divinely destined for another.
On
εἰς
with
καυχ
., in reference to, comp. Arist. Pol. v. 10.
[316] “Meridiem versus et occidentem; nam Athenis Corinthum venerat, Act_18:1,” Bengel.