Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 5

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 5


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 5

2Co_5:3. εἴγε ] Lachm. reads εἴπερ , following B D E F G 17, 80, and τινές in Chrys. One of the two is hardly a grammatical correction, but simply an involuntary alteration of the copyists. Hence the preponderance of testimony is decisive, and that in favour of εἴγε , which has the support of C K L à among the uncials, and of almost all the cursives, as well as the strong weight of all the Greek Fathers. (The testimony of the vss. and Latin Fathers is not available her.

ἐνδυσάμενοι ] ἐκδυσάμενοι is found in D* F G, Ar. pol. It. codd. in Chrys. and Oec. Ambrosiast. Tert. Paulin. Primas. Ambros. Marcion. Preferred by Mill,[203] Seml. Michael. Ernesti, Schott, Schneckenb. Reiche, Osiander, and others. Recommended by Griesb.; not adopted, but declared decidedly as correct, by Rück., comp. also Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511; adopted by Tisch. But ἐκδυσ . is an old alteration, arising from the fact that ἐνδυσ ., οὐ γυμνοὶ were not regarded as contrasts, and hence the former was found inappropriate and unintelligible. Lachm. and Ewald also defend the Recepta ἐνδυσ .—2Co_5:4. After σκήνει Rück. reads τούτῳ , following D E F G min. and several vss. and Fathers. A defining addition.—2Co_5:5. ὁ δούς ] ὁ καί δούς is read by Elz. Scholz, Tisch, against B C D* F G à * min. and several vss. and Fathers. But comp. 2Co_1:22.—2Co_5:10. κακόν ] φαῦλου , favoured by Griesb., adopted by Tisch., is here (it is otherwise in Rom_9:11) too weakly attested (only by C and à among the uncials).—2Co_5:12. οὐ ] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have οὐ γάρ , but against preponderating evidence. Addition for the sake of connectio.

καί οὐ ] Lachm. reads καὶ μὴ ἐν . But μή is only in B à and some cursives, Theodoret; while ἐν is found in B D* F G à and some cursives, Copt. Syr. Vulg. It. Clem. Ambrosiast. Pel., so that μή and ἐν have not equal attestation, ΜΉ is an emendation, and ἘΝ supplementary.—2Co_5:15. ΕἸ ΕἾς ] Lachm. Rück. read ΕἿς , following far preponderating testimony, ΕἸ was inserted for the sake of a connection assumed to be wanting.—2Co_5:16. ΕἸ ΔῈ ΚΑΊ ] B D* à * 17, 39 have only ΕἸ ΚΑΊ . So Lachm. Rück. ΔΈ is only added by way of connection, just as the change of order ΚΑῚ ΕἸ in F G, Vulg., It. and Latin Fathers has been made for the sake of the connection, but likewise testifies to the non-genuineness of ΔΈ .—2Co_5:17. ΤΆ ΤΆΝΤΑ ] is wanting in important authorities. Deleted by Lachm. and Rück. But how easily it may have been passed over on account of the following ΤᾺ ΔΈ ΤΆΝΤΑ ! Some versions omit the latter.—2Co_5:21. γάρ ] is, according to preponderating testimony, to be deleted, with Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Instead of γινώμ ., γενώμ . should be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D E K L à , min. Or. Chrys. al. These witnesses are decisive; F and G also suggest the aor.

[203] According to whom the attempts to explain ἐνδυσάμ . are alleged to be “pleraque absurda, omnia dura, coacla et incongrua.” Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 362, quite agrees with him in this judgment.