Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 11
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
ΑὐΤῊ Ἡ ΦΎΣΙς ] A B C D H à , min[1737] Damasc. have ἡ φύσις αὐτή (so Lachm. and Tisch.); F G Arm. Tert. simply Ἡ ΦΎΣΙς . In the absence of grounds of an internal kind, the weight of evidence on the side of Ἡ Φ . ΑὐΤΉ should make it be preferred.—1Co_11:17. ΠΑΡΑΓΓΈΛΛΩΝ … ἘΠΑΙΝῶ ] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read ΠΑΡΑΓΓΈΛΛΩΝ … ἘΠΑΙΝῶΝ , on the authority of A B C* F G min[1738] Syr[1739] utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Börn. Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. Bede. This is a preponderance of evidence—all the more that D*, with its reading of ΠΑΡΑΓΓΈΛΛΩ , ΟὐΚ ἘΠΑΙΝῶ , must here remain out of account. Then, too, 1Co_11:2 compared with 1Co_11:22 made ΟὐΚ ἘΠΑΙΝῶ come most naturally to the copyist; so that altogether we must give the preference to Lachmann’s reading, which is, besides, the more difficult of the two (against Reiche, who defends the Recept[1740]).—1Co_11:21. ΠΡΟΛΑΜΒΆΝΕΙ ] A, 46, al[1741] have ΠΡΟΣΛΑΜΒ . So Rückert. But this is plainly an alteration, because the ΠΡΌ , prae, was not understood.—1Co_11:22. ἐπαινέσω ] So also Lachm. on the margin (but with ἘΠΑΙΝῶ in the text) and Tisch., following A C D E K L à , all min[1742], several vss[1743] Chrys. Theodoret. The present crept in from its occurrence before and after.—1Co_11:24. After εἶπε Elz. has ΛΆΒΕΤΕ , ΦΆΓΕΤΕ ; but in the face of decisive evidence. Taken from Mat_26:26.
ΚΛΏΜΕΝΟΝ ] omitted in A B C* à *, 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. In D* we have ΘΡΥΠΤΌΜΕΝΟΝ ; in Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. al[1744], διδόμενον . Justly suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Mere supplements.—1Co_11:26. The τοῦτο which stands after ποτήριον in Elz. is condemned by decisive evidence. So, too, the τοῦτον , which Elz. has after ἄρτον in 1Co_11:27, is a later addition.—1Co_11:29. ἀναξίως does not occur in A B C à *, 17, Sahid. Aeth.; nor does τοῦ Κυρίου (after σῶμα ) in these and some other witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. delete them both; and both are glosses. What reason was there for omitting them if in the original?—1Co_11:31. There is a great preponderance of evidence in favour of δέ instead of γάρ . The latter is an explanatory alteration.—1Co_11:34. εἰ ] Elz. has εἰ δέ ; but there is conclusive evidence for rejecting it.
[1732] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1734] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1735] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1736] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1737] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1738] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1739] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1740] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1741] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1742] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1743] ss. vss. = versions.
[1744] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
CONTENTS.—(1) How requisite it is that women cover their heads in the public assemblies for the worship of God,[1745] 1Co_11:2-16. (2) Regarding the abuses of the Agapae, and the right way of celebrating them, 1Co_11:17-34.
[1745] Much fruitless trouble has been taken to connect even the non-veiling of the women with the state of parties at Corinth. Now it has been the Pauline party (Neander), now the Christ-party (Olshausen), and now the followers of Apollos (Räbiger), who have been represented as the opponents of veiling.