Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 3
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
σαρκικοῖς ] Griesb. Lachm. Rückert, Tisch. read σαρκίνοις , with A B C* D* à , 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To be preferred on like grounds as in Rom_7:14. Here the interchange was especially aided by 1Co_3:3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence, σαρκικ . is the true reading; for the fact that D* F G, Or. Nyss. have σάρκιν . in 1Co_3:3 also, is simply to be set down as the result of mechanical repetition from 1Co_3:1, the difference in the sense not being recognised.[438]—1Co_3:2. οὐδέ ] Elz. has οὔτε , in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is necessary here (Fritzsche, a[439] Marc. p. 157), but had οὔτε very often substituted for it by the transcribers.
ἜΤΙ ] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how easily it might fall aside after ΟὐΔΈ through similarity in sound, or on the ground that it might be dispensed with when ΝῦΝ followed!—1Co_3:3. ΚΑῚ ΔΙΧΟΣΤΑΣΊΑΙ ] omitted in A B C à , some min[440] and several vss[441] and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch. Were it genuine, why should it have been left out? An addition by way of gloss (even in texts used by Irenaeus and Cyprian) from Gal_5:20.—1Co_3:4. ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΙ ] adopted also by Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss[442] and Fathers. The Recept[443] ΣΑΡΚΙΚΟΊ , although still defended by Fritzsche and Reiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials they have only L and à **), that it must be regarded as derived from 1Co_3:3. ΟὐΧΊ , too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, ΟὐΚ is to be restored, with Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch., in accordance with A B C à *, 17, Dam.—1Co_3:5. ΤΊς ] Lachm. and Rückert read ΤΊ , with A B à , min[444] Vulg. It. Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the masculine to transcribers.
The order Παῦλος … Ἀπολλώς (in Elz. and Scholz) arose from 1Co_3:4; compare 1Co_1:12.
Before ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟΙ , Elz. and Tisch. have ἈΛΛʼ Ἤ , which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must be regarded as an addition to denote the sense: nil nisi.—1Co_3:12. τοῦτον ] is wanting in A B C* à *, Sahid. Ambr. Deleted by Lachm. and Rückert. The omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by the fact that the word could be dispensed with.—1Co_3:13. τὸ πῦρ ] Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch. read τὸ πῦρ αὐτό , with A B C, min[445] Sahid. and several Fathers. Rightly; the αὐτό not being in any way essential was easily disregarded.—1Co_3:17. τοῦτον ] Lachm. and Rückert have αὑτόν , which Griesb. too recommended, with A D E F G, min[446] Syr[447] Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p[448] (on the margin) Vulg. and It. (illum), and Latin Fathers. But, after εἴ τις in the protasis, αὐτόν offered itself in the apodosis as the more common.—1Co_3:22. ἐστίν ] has preponderant evidence against it. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Rückert, and Tisch. A repetition from 1Co_3:21.
[437] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[438] Fritzsche, indeed (ad Rom. II. p. 46, and de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 49), holds that the form σάρκινος in this passage, Rom_7:14, and Heb_7:16, is an offspring of the transcribers. But it was precisely the other form σαρκικός , so well known and familiar to them, which thrust itself upon the copyists for involuntary or even deliberate adoption. Reiche, in his Comment. crit. I. p. 138, has made the most elaborate defence of the Recepta, and attempted to weaken the force of the evidence on the other side. See the same author, too, on Heb_7:16. The most decisive argument from the external evidence against the Recepta is, that precisely the weightiest Codices A B C à , are equally unanimous in reading σάρκινος in ver. 1, and σαρκικοί in ver. 3; and we cannot at all see why the hand of an emendator should have inserted the more classical word only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic σαρκικοί in ver. 3. Besides, we have σαρκίναις in 2Co_3:3, entirely without any various reading σαρκικαῖς , from which we may conclude that the distinction in meaning between the two words was well known to the transcribers.
[439] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[440] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[441] ss. vss. = versions.
[442] ss. vss. = versions.
[443] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[444] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[445] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[446] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[447] yr. Peschito Syriac
[448] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.