1) An abbreviated version of this article was read at the meeting of the Philological Association of the Pacific Coast in San Diego, Calif., on Nov. 3o, 1974. 2) References to a representative sampling of the modern literature on the various interpretations can be found in BAUER'S article on ptpLa6e0c in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. W. F. ARNDT and F. W. GINGRICH, (Chicago, 1957). DELLING'S article on OptaVpEeco in KITTEL'S Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. W. BROMILEY, Vol. III, (Grand Rapids, 1966), is disappointingly brief and uninformative. I shall not attempt to present a systematic historical survey of the problems and their treatment. An outline of the history should in any case emerge in the course of the discussion. A good picture of the history of the controversy can also be found in Lamar WILLIAMSON, Jr., Led in Triumph. Paul's Use of Thriambeuo, Interpretation, 22 (1968), 317-332. Although I disagree with WILLIAMSON'S general conclusion, and several of his subsidiary points and interpretations as well, the present paper is in a real sense inspired by his treatment. I consider his arguments against some of the interpretations altogether sound, but I consider it important to present another perspective on these passages which involves some evidence which WILLIAMSON does not use. This seems particularly urgent in view of the fact that his article has been accepted in some quarters as authoritative. See e.g. M. RIssI, Studien zum zweiter Korintherbrief, (Stuttgart, I969), 17, note 20. Such views, if unchallenged, will contribute further to the perpetuation of some already entrenched, but (I believe) dubious, assumptions. 3) Hornm. V in Epist. II ad Cor., MPG, LXI 429 (quoted and discussed below).