Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The form ἑώρακαν (Lachm. and Tisch. 7) or ἑόρακαν (Tisch. 8) is more than sufficiently attested by A B C D* à *, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 90]; and on ἑόρ ., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th. 32.
Col_2:2. Instead of συμβιβασθέντες , Elzevir has συμβιβασθέντων , in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation.
πάντα πλοῦτον ] A C min. have πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are also joined by B à * Clem. with πᾶν πλοῦτος (so Tisch. 8). Here also (comp. Col_1:27) the neuter is the original; in thinking of the more common ὁ πλοῦτος the ΠΑΝΤΟ became ΠΑΝΤΑ , in accordance with which πλοῦτον also came to be written. The reading of Tisch. 8 is a restoration of the neuter form after the article had been lost.
Instead of the simple τοῦ Θεοῦ (so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. 7, Rinck; among modern expositors, Bähr, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ , while Lachm. reads τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ , and Tisch. 8 τοῦ Θεοῦ , Χριστοῦ . Among the numerous various readings, τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ (also adopted by Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is certainly strongly enough attested by B. Hilar, (but without vss.), while the simple τοῦ Θεοῦ has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116, Arm. ed. Venet. in its favour. A C * à , 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ( τοῦ ) Χ ., which Böhmer and Reiche prefer, whilst à ** Syr. p. have τ . Θεοῦ καὶ πατρ . τοῦ Χ ., and others still, such as Syr. Copt. Chrys. read τ . Θ . πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ , and consequently come nearest to the Recepta; but a few authorities, after the mention of God, insert ἐν Χριστῷ , as Clem. Ambrosiaster: τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χ . Regarding these variations we must judge thus: (1) the far too weak attestation of the bare τοῦ Θεοῦ is decisive against it; (2) the reading of Lachm.: τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ , is to be regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the amplifications τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χ .,[77] and τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρ . καὶ τοῦ Χ ., as well as the Recepta; (3) the reading τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ arose out of a gloss ( ἐν Χριστῷ ) written on the margin at ἐν ᾧ , in accordance with Col_1:27, which supplanted the original Χριστοῦ ; (4) the ἐν Χριστῷ thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, without, however, the original Χριστοῦ being reinserted, and thus arose the reading of Griesb. τοῦ Θεοῦ , which therefore—and with this accords its late and weak attestation—appears to be merely a half completed critical restoration.
Col_2:4. δέ ] is wanting in B à *, Tisch. 8; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before the syllable ΛΕ .
μή τις ] Lachm. and Tisch. read μηδείς , which, following preponderant codd. (A B C D E P à ), is to be preferred.
Col_2:7. ἐν τῇ πίστ .] Lachm. and Tisch. have only τῇ πίστει , following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast. Theophyl. Properly; the ἐν was mechanically introduced from the adjoining text.
ἐν αὐτῇ ] though suspected by Griesb., and rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C à *, min. Copt. Tol. Archel.), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned by the fact that περισσ . was found to be already accompanied by a more precise definition expressed by ἐν . The ἐν αὐτῷ read by D* à **, 1, Pel. VSS., though only a mechanical repetition of the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ , testifies indirectly to the fact that originally ἐν αὐτῇ was in the text.
Col_2:10. ὅζ ἐστιν ] Lachm. reads ὅ ἐστιν , following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction, occasioned by the reference of the preceding ἐν αὐτῷ to τὸ πλήρωμα .
Col_2:11. After σώματος Elz. has τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ; an exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. Comp. Rom_6:6.
Col_2:13. The second ὑμᾶς is indeed wanting in Elz., but receives so sufficient attestation through A C K L à *, min. VSS. and Fathers, that its omission must be explained on the ground of its seeming superfluous. B min. Ambr. have ἡμᾶς , which is conformed to the following ἡμῖν . Instead of this ἡμῖν , Elz. has ὑμῖν , in opposition to decisive testimony.
Col_2:17. ἅ ] Lachm. reads ὅ , following B F G It. Goth. Epiph. Ambrosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch as the plural was naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the things previously mentioned.
Col_2:18. ἃ μὴ ἐώρακεν ] μή is wanting in A B D* à *, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd. in Aug., Or. ed. Tert. ? Lucif. Ambrosiast., while F G have οὐκ . The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Ewald; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by Lachm.), although defended specially by Reiche, whom Hofmann also follows. An addition owing to misapprehension. See the exegetical remarks.
Col_2:20. εἰ ] Elz. reads εἰ οὖν , in opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of connecting, after the analogy of Col_2:16; Col_3:1.
[77] If this reading, relatively so strongly attested, were the original one, it would not be easy to see why it should have been glossed or altered. The original expression must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, and only the description of God as τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ could have done so.
Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for the salvation of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces (Col_2:1-3) what he has to urge upon them in the way of warning against the seduction of false teachers (Col_2:4-5), of exhortation to faithfulness (Col_2:6-7), and then, again, of warning (Col_2:8). He then supports what he has urged by subjoining the relative soteriological instructions and remindings (Col_2:9-15), from which he finally draws further special warnings as respects the dangers threatening them on the part of the false teachers (Col_2:16-23).