Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 1:13 - 1:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_1:13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious (2Co_1:10) περισσ . δὲ πρ . ὑμᾶς (2Co_1:12), in so far as it might be suspected as not honourably meant, he asserts his candour in writing, which must have been assailed by his opponents (comp. 2Co_10:10), who probably maintained, “His letters to us are not the expression of his genuine inmost opinion!”
For Znothing else do we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also understand; i.e. in our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our genuine opinion, but it agrees exactly with what the reading of the same, or your acquaintance with our mode of thinking and character, says to you. Comp. Theodoret. On γράφειν in its reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1Co_5:11. According to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought: “I cannot do otherwise, I must write thus.” But Paul is making an appeal to the readers.
ἀλλʼ ἤ ] praeterquam, nisi. For examples in which the previous negative sentence has also ἄλλος , see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 45; Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 354 B; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 36 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 5. The mode of expression depends on a blending of the two constructions
οὐκ ἄλλα … ἀλλά and οὐκ ἄλλα … ἤ ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 81 B; Kühner, II. p. 438.
ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε , ἢ κ . ἐπιν .] This latter ἤ is in no connection with the former, in which case it could not but have stood a ἃ ἢ ἀναγ ., ἢ καὶ ἐπιγ . This in opposition to Fritzsche’s way of taking it: “neque enim alia ad vos perscribimus, quam aut ea … aut ea, quae,” etc. ἀναγινώσκειν is to read, as it is usually in the Attic authors, and always in the N. T., not to understand, as Calvin, Estius, Storr,[129] following the Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this meaning often in classical Greek (Hom. Il. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206; Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6; Pind. Isthm. ii. 35; Herodian, vii. 7; comp. also Prayer of Manass. 12).
ἢ καὶ ἐπιγιν .] or also (without communication by letter) understand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily: “vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam aut tertiam lectionem, attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Rückert: “and doubtless also understand.” Quite against ἢ καί , which stands also opposed to the view of Hofmann: Paul wishes to say that he does not write in such a way, that they might understand something else than he means in his words. In this case we should have had καί only, since ἢ καί points to something else than to the reading, with which what he has written agrees.
The assimilation of the expressions ἀναγιν . and ἐπιγιν . (comp. 2Co_3:2) cannot be imitated in German, but in Latin approximately: legitis aut etiam intelligitis. Comp. on Act_8:30; Plat. Ep. II. p. 312 D.
ἐλπίζω δὲ κ . τ . λ .] The object to ἐπιγνώσεσθε is ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν κ . τ . λ ., and καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγν . ἡμ . ἀπὸ μέρ . is an inserted clause: “I hope, however, that you will understand even to the end,—as you have understood us in part,—that we are your boast,” etc. We might also consider on ὅτι καύχημα κ . τ . λ . as a nearer object to ἐπέγνωτε ὑμᾶς (Estius, Rosenmüller, Billroth, Rückert, de Wette); but, since in this way ἐπιγνώσεσθε remains without an object (Billroth supplies: “that I think the same as I write;” comp. Rückert; Osiander: “all my doing and suffering in its purity”), the above mode of connection is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, Luther, Grotius, and others, also Olshausen (Osiander doubtfully), take ὅτι as for, stating the ground for καθὼς κ . ἐπέγν . ἡμ . ἀπὸ μέρ . But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still more wanting, since from the general καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν κ . τ . λ . no inference to the ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς restricted by ἀπὸ μέρους is warranted; the reason assigned would not be suitable to ἀπὸ μέρους . The connection which runs on simply is unnecessarily broken up by Ewald holding 2Co_1:13 and 2Co_1:14 on to μέρους as a parenthesis, so that ὅτι , 2Co_1:14 (that), joins on again to 2Co_1:12.
ἕως τέλους ] does not mean till my death (Hofmann), but till the end, i.e. till the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1Co_1:8; 1Co_15:51 f.; Heb_3:6.—2Co_1:14. καθὼς κ . ἐπέγν . ἡμᾶς compares the future, regarding which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding which he knows. And therefore he adds a limitation in keeping with the truth, ἀπὸ μέρους (comp. Rom_11:25); for not all the Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite against the usage of the language, takes ἀπὸ μέρους of time, inasmuch as the apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present was only a part of what he had to live with them. In that case Paul would have written ἕως ἄρτι in contrast to ἕως τέλους . Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of knowledge, quodammodo (comp. 2Co_2:5), with which Paul reproaches the readers, ὡς μὴ παντελῶς ἀπωσαμένους τὰς κατʼ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένας δια βολάς , Theodoret. But a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to the connection; and certainly the readers to whom ἐπέγνωτε applies had not only understood him quodammodo, but wholly and decidedly, that, etc. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. Comp. Chrysostom, according to whom ἀπὸ μέ ρους is added from modesty; also Theophylact, according to whom Paul is thinking of the imperfect exhibition of his virtue. But how could the readers conjecture this!
ὅτι καύχημα κ . τ . λ .] that we redound for glory (i.e. for the object of καυχᾶσθαι ) to you, even as you to us on the day of the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day that you have had us as teachers, and it will be to our honour that we have had you as disciples. Comp. 1Th_2:19 f.; Php_2:16. With how much winning tact the addition κάθαπερ κ . ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν suppresses all appearance of self-exaltation! ὡς μαθηταῖς ὁμοτίμοις διαλεγόμενος οὕτως ἐξισάζει τὸν λόγον , Chrysosto.
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τ . κυρ . Ἰησοῦ ] belongs to the whole ὅτι καύχημα … ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν , not, as Rückert arbitrarily thinks, to καθάπερ κ . ὑμ . ἡμῶν merely (so Grotius, Calovius, and others); nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to καύχ . ὑμῶν ἐσμεν .
[129] Calvin thinks ἀναγιν . and ἐπιγιν . are distinguished as agnoscere and recognoscere. So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius makes the difference: “et recognoscitis antiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscitis recentia.