Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 10
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After ἡμεῖς Elz. has Χριστοῦ . An addition condemned by a great preponderance of evidence.—2Co_10:8. τε ] is wanting in B F G, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Bracketed by Lachm., and deleted by Rück. But how easily might the omission of the particle take place, as it might quite well be dispensed with, while there was no ground whatever for inserting it!
καί before περισσ . has against it the principal uncials and vss. An addition produced by the sense of clima.
ἡμῖν ] is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary insertion, instead of which μοι is also found.—2Co_10:12-13. The words οὐ συνιοῦσιν · ἡμεῖς δέ , which follow after ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς in the Recepta, and are defended by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Eeiche, are wanting in D* F G 109, codd. of the Itala, Ambrosiast. Auct. gr. de singul. cleric. (in Cyprian) Vigil. taps. Idacius, Sedul. (while in 74** Vulg. Lucif. Pel. Fulg. only οὐ συνιοῦσιν is wanting). Condemned by Mill, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Griesb. Rosenm. Flatt, Fritzsche, Billr., Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 165 f.; Ewald. But the very fact that we have only Occidental evidence on the side of the omission makes the latter suspicious, and the difficulty of the words (which, with the reference of αὐτοί to Paul so easily suggesting itself after ἀλλά , cannot at all be overcome), while in the event of their omission the passage runs on smoothly, makes their deletion appear an expedient critically violent and resorted to in the interest of explanation. Where οὐ συνιοῦσιν only is wanting (see above), ἡμεῖς δέ appears to be an imperfect restoration of the imperfect text.
The following καυχησόμεθα also is wanting in D* Clar. Germ., while F G, Boern. Auct. de singul. cler. read καυχώμενοι . But if the word had not been original, but added by way of gloss, the makers of the gloss after their mechanical fashion would not have used the future, but the present, in accordance with the previous τολμῶμεν , to which the comparison of 2Co_10:15 also might induce them. Hence it is to be assumed that in the witnesses adduced above καυχησόμεθα has dropped out. By what means we do not know; perhaps it is simply due to the similar final letters in ἄμετρΑ and καυχησόμεθΑ . The καυχῶμενοι , subsequently introduced instead of καυχησόμεθα , is to be considered as a critical restoration, made under the influence of 2Co_10:15.—2Co_10:14. οὐ γὰρ ὡς μή ] Lachm. reads ὡς γὰρ μή , on the authority of B and two min. only, so that he puts a note of interrogation after ἑαυτούς . Too weakly attested.
Ch. 10–13. contain the third chief section of the Epistle, the apostle’s polemic vindication of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, and then the conclusion.