Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 7

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 7


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 7

2Co_7:3. For the order πρὸς κατάκρ . οὐ λέγω (Lachm.) even the testimony of B C à is not sufficient as against all the vss. and most of the Fathers.—2Co_7:8. Instead of the second εἰ καί , B has εἰ δὲ καί , and the γάρ after βλέπω is omitted by B D* Clar. Germ. (put in brackets by Lachm.); the Vulgate has read βλέπων (without γάρ ), and Rückert wishes to restore the text accordingly: εἰ δὲ καὶ μετεμελόμην βλέπων ὅτι … ὑμᾶς , νῦν χαίρω . But the Recepta has far preponderant attestation, and the variations are easily explained from it. It was rightly seen that with εἰ καὶ μετεμ . there starts a new portion of the discourse (whence in B δέ was inserted as an adversative conjunction), and either the apodosis was already begun at βλέπω , whence followed the omission of γάρ , or it was rightly perceived that the apodosis only began with νῦν χαίρω , and so βλέπων was substituted as a gloss for βλέπω γάρ .—2Co_7:10. Instead of the first κατεργάζεται , Lachm. Rück. Tisch. have only ἐργάζεται , following B C D E à * 37, Justin. Clem. Or. (thrice), Chrys. Dam. Rightly; the compound has crept in on account of the one following (comp. also 2Co_7:11); it is (in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 48) too rash to conclude from 2Co_7:11 that Paul wrote κατεργ ., for there, after the previous κατεργ ., the compound might present itself, naturally and unsought, to the apostle, even if he had used the simple form in the first half of 2Co_7:10.—2Co_7:11. ὑμᾶς ] is to be deleted as a supplementary insertion, with Lachm. and Rück., following B C F G à * 17, Boern. Ambrosiast. Au.

ἐν τῷ πράγματι ] The ἐν is wanting in witnesses of importance; bracketed by Lachm. and Rück.; deleted by Tisch. An explanatory addition to the dative.—2Co_7:12. οὐδέ ] B à ** 37, 73 have ἀλλʼ οὐδέ , an error of the copyis.

τὴν σπουδὴν ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ] B C D** E K L and many min., also Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Germ. Damasc. Oec. have τὴν σπ . ὑμῶν [253] Τ . ὙΠῈΡ ἩΜῶΝ . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. Rejected on account of the sense by Rück. and Hofm. But it is precisely the apparent impropriety in the sense of this reading which has given rise to the Recepta, just as πρὸς ὑμᾶς seemed also unsuitable, and is therefore wanting in Syr. Erp. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Ambrosiast. Pel. Lachmann’s reading appears, therefore, to be the correct one; it is defended also by Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 367.—2Co_7:13. ΠΑΡΑΚΕΚΛΉΜΕΘΑ ἘΠῚ Τῇ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΙ ὙΜῶΝ · ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΈΡΩς ΔῈ ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ ] Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. read: ΠΑΡΑΚΕΚΛΉΜΕΘΑ · ἘΠῚ ΔῈ Τῇ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΉΣΕΙ ἩΜῶΝ ΠΕΡΙΣΣ . ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ , according to considerably preponderating attestation. Rightly; the ἘΠΊ , twice taken in the same sense, caused ἘΠῚ Τῇ ΠΑΡΑΚΛ . ἩΜῶΝ to be attached to ΠΑΡΑΚΕΚΛΉΜΕΘΑ , and hence the position of ΔΈ to be changed; and now the sense further demanded the change of ἩΜῶΝ into ὙΜῶΝ . The Recepta is defended by Reiche.—2Co_7:14. ἠ καύχησις ἡμῶν ἡ ἐπὶ Τ .] ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν (Lachm.) is supported only by B F, with some vss. and Theoph. A mechanical repetition of ὑμῶν from what precedes.—2Co_7:16. The οὖν (Elz.) after χαίρω deleted, as a connective addition, by Griesb. and the later editors on decisive evidence.

[253] So also à , which, however, has ὑμῶν again instead of ἡμῶν , obviously through a copyist’s error, which is also found in D* F.