2Co_2:1.
πάλιν
ἐν
λύπῃ
πρὸς
ὑμᾶς
ἐλθεῖν
] Elz.:
πάλιν
ἐλθεἶν
ἐν
λύπῃ
πρὸς
ὑμᾶς
, in opposition to A B C K L
à
, min. Theodoret, Damasc., also in opposition to D E F G, 14, 120, al., Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. and the Latin Fathers, who have
πάλιν
ἐν
λύπῃ
ἐλθεῖν
πρὸς
ὑμᾶς
(so Tisch.). The Recepta[135] is evidently a transposition to connect
πάλιν
with
ἐλθεῖν
, because it was supposed that Paul had been only once in Corinth.—2Co_2:2.
ἐστιν
after
τίς
is wanting in A B C
à
, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Dam. Lachm. Tisch. Supplemental addition.—2Co_2:3.
ὑμῖν
] after
ἔγρ
. is to be struck out as an explanatory addition. So Lachm. and Tisch., who follow A B C*
à
* 17, Copt. Arm. Damasc. Ambrosiast.—2Co_2:3.
λύπην
] D E F G, min. Vulg. It. Syr. p. Pel. Beda:
λύπην
ἐπὶ
λύπην
. Amplification, in accordance with 2Co_2:1.—2Co_2:7.
μᾶλλον
] is wanting in A B, Syr. Aug. (deleted by Rückert). In D E F G, Theodoret, it stands only after
ὑμᾶς
. As it was superfluous, it was sometimes passed over, sometimes transposed.—2Co_2:9. Instead of
εἰ
, A and B have
ᾗ
. But how easily might
εἰ
be dropped before
εἰς
(so in 80), and then be variously replaced (109:
ὡς
)!—2Co_2:10.
ὃ
κεχάρισμαι
,
εἰ
τι
κεχάρισμαι
] So A B C F G
à
, min. Vulg. It. Damasc. Jer. Ambrosiast. Pacian. Pel. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Rück. Tisch. But Elz. has
εἰ
τι
κεχάρισμαι
,
ᾧ
κεχάρισμαι
, defended by Reiche. This reading arose from the Codd., which read (evidently in accordance with the previous
ᾧ
)
ᾧ
κεχάρισμαι
,
εἴ
τι
κεχάρισμαι
(so still D*** E, 31, 37). The repetition of
κεχάρισμαι
caused the
εἴ
τι
κεχ
. to be left out;[136] afterwards it was restored at a wrong place.—2Co_2:16. Before
θανάτου
and before
ζωῆς
there stands
ἐκ
in A B C
à
, min. Copt. Aeth. Clem. Or. and other Fathers. Rightly; the
ἐκ
seemed contrary to the sense, and was therefore omitted. Accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., rejected by Reiche.—2Co_2:17.
οἱ
πολλοί
] D E F G L, min. and some versions and Fathers have
οἱ
λοιποί
, which Mill favoured, Griesbach recommended, and Reiche defended. But
οἱ
πολλοί
has preponderating evidence;
λοιποί
was a modifying gloss, and displaced the othe.
κατενώπιον
]
κατέναντι
, as well as the omission of the following article, has preponderating attestation, and hence, with Lachm. and Rück., it is to be preferred.
[135] Which, perhaps, has no authorities at all; see Reiche, Comm. Crit. I. p. 355 f.
[136] Also with the reading
ὅ
this omission of the copyist took place, as still 39, 73, Aeth. Ambr. hare merely
ὅ
κεχάρισμαι
.
