Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 1

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 1

Verse Commentaries:

Chapter Level Commentary: .

A B K à , min. have only πρὸς Κορινθίους B., the most simple, and doubtless the oldest superscription.

CHAPTER 1

2Co_1:6. εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα , ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως , τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων , ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν · καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν · εἰδότες κ . τ . λ .] So Beza, ed. 3, 4, 5, Beng. and Griesb., following A C, min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Flor. Harl. Vulg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast. Pel. Beda. But Elz. (following Erasm. ed. 2^[121]): Τῆς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗς ἘΝ ὙΠΟΜΟΝῇ ΤῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ ὯΝ ΚΑῚ ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ · ΕἼΤΕ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΎΜΕΘΑ , ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ὙΜῶΝ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΩς ΚΑῚ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς · ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜ . ΒΕΒ . ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ · ΕἸΔΌΤΕς Κ . Τ . Λ . Finally, Lachm. Tisch. Scholz, and Rück, read, with Matth., after Erasm. ed. 1 : ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜ . ΒΕΒ . ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ immediately after ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ , but in other respects with Elz., and have the support of B D E F G K L à , min. Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slav. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. Theophyl. Oec. The Recepta must be rejected on account of the want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most thoroughly by Reiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 318 ff. But the former, sufficiently attested, appears to be the original, in so far as from it the rise of the others is easily and naturally explained. An immediate transition was made from the first ΠΑΡΑΚΛ . to the second; the intermediate words were left out, and brought in again afterwards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded thus:—1. Original form of 2Co_1:6 as in Griesb. 2. First corruption: ΕἼΤΕ ΔῈ ΘΛΙΒΌΜΕΘΑ , ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ὙΜῶΝ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΩς , Τῆς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗς ἘΝ ὙΠΟΜ . ΤῶΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ΠΑΘΗΜ . ὯΝ Κ . ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΣΧΟΜΕΝ · ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΛΠῚς ἩΜῶΝ ΒΕΒΑΊΑ ὙΠῈΡ ὙΜῶΝ . 3. Erroneous restoration: εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα … ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν · εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα , ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλ . Anothe erroneous restoration (“ex judicio eclectico,” Beng. Appar.) is contained in the Received text. 4. The ΚΑῚ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς , still wanting, was finally added, in part rightly only after the first ΠΑΡΑΚΛ ., in part wrongly only after the second ΠΑΡΑΚΛ . (B, 176), in part wrongly after both.—2Co_1:8. ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ΘΛ .] A C D E F G à , min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch. have ΠΕΡῚ Τ . ΘΛ . So Lachm. Rück. But ΠΕΡΊ offered itself as more curren.

ἩΜῖΝ ] is wanting in preponderant witnesses. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Lachm. Rück. A superfluous gloss on ΓΕΝΟΜ .—2Co_1:10. ΚΑῚ ῬΎΕΤΑΙ ] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. So Rück. But B C à , 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have ΚΑῚ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΙ . So Lachm., but in brackets. Thus the Recepta, reverted to even by Tisch., has certainly preponderating testimony against it; still it retains the considerable attestation of D*** E F G K L, and most min. Vulg. Syr. p. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oec. Or. int. Jer., and the subsequent ῥύσεται might very easily be written at once after καί instead of ῥύεται , so that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration of what was left out, the spurious καὶ ῥύσεται in some cases remained, but in others was dropped without the genuine καὶ ῥύεται being put in its place.—2Co_1:11. εὐχαρ . ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ] The reading εὐχαρ . ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν , though preferred by Beng., recommended by Reiche, and adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and does not suit the sense.—2Co_1:12. ἁπλότητι ] A B C K à * min. Copt. Arm. Clem. Or. Damasc. have ἁγίοτητι . So Lachm. Rück. Rightly; ἁπλότητι , though defended by Reiche and Tisch., must be considered as a gloss of more precise definition; it was from our very Epistle well known and current, whereas ἁγίοτης was unfamiliar (only elsewhere in Heb_12:10).—2Co_1:13. The first ἤ is wanting in A, min. Bracketed by Rück. But appearing superfluous, and not being understood, it was omitted.—2Co_1:16. διελθεῖν ] A D* F G, 80, Copt. Chrys. Damasc.: ἀπελθεῖν . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Rück. Rightly; it was more natural to introduce the reminiscence of 1Co_16:5 than that of Rom_15:28.—2Co_1:17. βουλόμενος ] Elz. and Tisch. have βουλεύομενος , against preponderant evidence. Gloss in accordance with what follows.—2Co_1:18. ἐγένετο ] Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch. have ἔστιν , as Griesb. also recommended, in accordance with a great preponderance of testimony. ἐγένετο , which Reiche defends, came in from 2Co_1:19.—2Co_1:20. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ] A B C F G à , min. vss. and Fathers have διὸ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ . So Lachm. Rück. The Recepta arose in this way: ΔΙΌ fell out by an omission of the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then added to ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ after the previous ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ as a gloss, which accordingly came into the text. This alteration was the more natural, as the two definitions ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ and ΔΙʼ ἩΜῶΝ might seem not to accord. The liturgical reference of the ἈΜΉΝ does not appear a sufficient occasion for the insertion of ΔΙΌ , nor for the change from ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ into ΔΙʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ , particularly after the ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ which went before and was left unglossed. This in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Reiche, Comment. crit. I. 331 ff.

[121] Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading.