Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The second συστατικῶν (after ὑμῶν ) is wanting in A B C à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Theodoret, and several Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Rück. An addition by way of gloss, which in F G is further increased by ἐπιστολῶν .—2Co_3:3. καρδίας ] So Iren. Orig. Vulg. But A B C D E G L à and many min. have καρδίαις . So Lachm. An error of the copyist after 2Co_3:2.—2Co_3:5. ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν ] has its correct position after λογίσ . τι , as is abundantly attested by A D E F G, It. Vulg. Goth. and Latin Fathers (so also Lachm. Tisch. and Rück.). The Recepta after ἰκανοί ἐσμεν , and the position before ἰκανοί in B C à , min. Copt. Arm. Bas. Antioch. are to be regarded as superfluous transpositions to connect the ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν With ἱκανοί ἐσμεν .—2Co_3:7. ἐν γράμμασιν ] Lachm.: ἐν γράμματι , following B D * F G. A mechanical repetition of the singular from 2Co_3:6.
Before λίθοις , Elz. Scholz have ἐν . An explanatory addition against decisive evidence.—2Co_3:9. ἡ διακονία ] A C D* F G à , min. Syr. utr. Clar. Germ. Or. Cyr. Ruf.: τῇ διακονίᾳ . So Lachm. and Rück. An interpretation instead of which Sedul. and Ambrosiast. have ex or in ministerio, while others applied the interpreting at δόξα , as still Vulg. Sixtin. Pel. read ἐν δόξῃ .
ἐν δόξῃ ] ἐν is wanting in A B C à * ( δόξα ), 17, 39, 80, Tol. Vulg. ms. Deleted by Lachm., bracketed by Rück. The ἐν slipped in easily from 2Co_3:8; comp. 2Co_3:11.—2Co_3:10. οὐ ] Elz.: οὐδέ , against decisive evidence. Originated by the first syllable of the δεδοξ . that follows.—2Co_3:13. Instead of ἑαυτοῦ , αὐτοῦ is, according to decisive testimony, to be read with Lachm. and Tisch.—2Co_3:14. ἡμέρας ] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation, and was passed over as superfluous (comp. 2Co_3:15).—2Co_3:15. ἀναγινώσκεται ] Lachm. and Rück.: ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται , in accordance with A B C à , while D E have the subjunctive, but not ἄν . Since the ἄν before ἀναγ . might be introduced through a mistake of the copyist just as easily as it might be left out, we have merely to decide according to the preponderance of the evidence, which proves to be all the more in favour of Lachmann’s reading, because this is supported also by D E with their retention of the subjunctive (without ἄν ), while they betray the copyist’s omission of the ἄν .—2Co_3:17. ἐκεῖ ] is wanting in A B C D à * 17, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Nyss. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. An addition of the copyists, who had in mind the current use elsewhere of ἐκεῖ after οὗ (Mat_18:20; Mat_18:24; Mat_18:28; Jam_3:16, al.), an usage not found in Paul. See Rom_4:15; Rom_5:20.
CONTENTS.[154]
This, again, is no recommendation of self; for we need no letters of recommendation, since you yourselves are our letter of recommendation in the higher sense (2Co_3:1-3). But with this confidence we wish to ascribe our ability not to ourselves, but to God, who has made us able as servants of the new covenant, far exalted over the old covenant (2Co_3:4-6). How glorious is this service compared with the service of Moses (2Co_3:7-11)! Hence we discharge it boldly, not like Moses with his veil over his face (2Co_3:12-13). By this veil the Jews were hardened; for up to the present time they do not discern that the old covenant has ceased (2Co_3:14-15). But when they are converted to Christ, they will come to unhindered discernment; we Christians, in fact, all behold without hindrance the glory of Christ, and become ourselves partakers of it (2Co_3:16-18).
[154] See on chap. 3, Krummel in the Stud. und Krit. 1859, p. 39 ff.