1Co_5:1. After
ἔθνεσιν
Elz. has
ὀνομάζεται
, which is defended by Matthaei and Reiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, perhaps from Eph_5:3. Equally decisive is the evidence against
ἐξαρθῇ
, 1Co_5:2 (Elz.). From 1Co_5:13.—1Co_5:2.
ποιήσας
] Rück. and Tisch. read
πράξας
, which Griesb., too, recommended, with A C
à
, min[739] Or.? Manes (in Epiph.), Epiph. Bas. The external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase
ποιεῖν
ἔργον
was very familiar to the transcribers from the N. T.; hence
πράξας
should have the preference.—1Co_5:3.
ἀπών
] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have
ὡς
ἀπ
., against A B C D*
à
, min[740] and several VSS[741] and Fathers. According to the analogy of the
ὡς
παρών
which follows,
ὡς
(as embracing the whole
ἀπών
…
πνεύμ
.) was first of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text.—1Co_5:4.
Ἰησοῦ
alone (without
Χριστοῦ
) is the reading in both cases of A B D, Aeth. Clar. Lucif., and, as regards the second, of several other vss[742] and Fathers. So also Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Rightly; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the addition of
Χριστοῦ
.—1Co_5:5.
τοῦ
Κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ
] So also
à
. Rückert reads
τοῦ
Κυρ
.
ἡμῶν
Ἰ
.
Χριστοῦ
, with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but probably taken from 1Co_1:8. Lachm. brackets
ἡμῶν
Ἰ
.
Χ
.; for B, Or. (thrice) Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply
τοῦ
Κυρίου
. So Tisch. But since
Ἰησοῦ
occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and since their discrepancies concern only
ἩΜῶΝ
and
ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ
, the Rec[743]
ΤΟῦ
ΚΥΡΊΟΥ
ἸΗΣΟῦ
should be retained; for
ἸΗΣΟῦ
might very easily be overlooked, especially where four words, one after another, end in
ΟΥ
.—1Co_5:6.
ΖΥΜΟῖ
] The various readings
ΔΟΛΟῖ
(D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and
ΦΘΕΊΡΕΙ
(Lat. in Cerular.; corrumpit: Vulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations.—1Co_5:7. After
ἐκκαθάρ
. Elz. has
ΟὖΝ
, against a great preponderance of evidence. A connective addition, as are also
ΚΑΊ
before
Οὐ
in 1Co_5:10, and
ΚΑΊ
before
ἘΞΑΡ
. in 1Co_5:13. After
ἩΜῶΝ
Elz. and Scholz read
ὙΠῈΡ
ἩΜῶΝ
, contrary to decisive testimony. An inappropriate (for the apostle is speaking only of the death of Christ in itself, see Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 161 ff.) dogmatic gloss.—1Co_5:10.
ἢ
ἅρπ
.]
καὶ
ἅρπ
. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm. Rück. and Tisch.);
Ἤ
was mechanically taken up from the context.—1Co_5:11. Instead of
ᾞ
before
ΠΌΡΝ
. Elz. has
Ἤ
, contrary to Syr[744] utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Ir. Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min[745] The
ἤ
, which occurs in B** D
à
, came in mechanically from the succeeding context.—1Co_5:12.
ΚΑΊ
] is wanting in A B C F G
à
, min[746] and several VSS[747] and Fathers (suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rück.); the authorities which omit it are so decisive, that it must be regarded as an addition in favour of the apostolic power of discipline as respects those that are within.—1Co_5:13.
ἘΞΑΡΕῖΤΕ
]
ἘΞΆΡΑΤΕ
, approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch., has perfectly conclusive evidence in its favour. The former reading has arisen from Deu_24:7, a passage which has also given origin to the weakly-attested
ΚΑΊ
before
ἘΞΑΡ
. in Elz.
[739] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[740] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[741] SS. vss. = versions.
[742] ss. vss. = versions.
[743] ec. Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[744] yr. Peschito Syriac
[745] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[746] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
