Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 8
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ] It is true that A B D E F G à , min[1290] Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have ἐγνωκέναι (recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch.); but what goes before it and what follows make it clear that ἘΓΝ . is a gloss. The reading ΕἾΝΑΙ , too, in 39, 91, 109, tells in favour of ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ .
ΟὐΔΈΠΩ ΟὐΔῈΝ ἜΓΝΩΚΕ ] Lachm. and Rück. have ΟὔΠΩ ἜΓΝΩ , which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very considerable weight, in substance the same as that in favour of ἘΓΝΩΚΈΝΑΙ instead of ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ . But the peculiarity of the emphatic Recept[1291] does not show the hand of a gloss-writer. What has taken place has rather been the reduction of the original reading to the simple ΟὔΠΩ ἜΓΝΩ , at first, perhaps, by omitting the superfluous ΟὐΔΈΝ , all the more readily that it was preceded by ΟὐΔΈΠΩ , whereupon ἜΓΝΩΚΕ became transformed into ἜΓΝΩ , either from the next word beginning with K, or by the influence of the inf. ΓΝῶΝΑΙ which follows, while ΟὐΔΈΠΩ was displaced, as in many other cases (Joh_7:39; Luk_23:53; Act_8:16), by the more familiar ΟὔΠΩ .—1Co_8:4. ἝΤΕΡΟς ] is wanting in A B D E F G à * min[1292], with several vss[1293] and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rück. But why should any one have added ἝΤΕΡΟς ? That it should be omitted, on the other hand, was all the more likely, because the word seemed superfluous, and might even appear offensive (“there is no other God but one” might by possibility mean: “there is but one other God”).—1Co_8:7. τῇ συνειδήσει ] Lachm. and Rück. read Τῇ ΣΥΝΗΘΕΊᾼ , with A B à , some min[1294] Copt. Bashm. Aeth. Syr. p[1295] (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Rinck. Τῇ ΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙ , however, as the more difficult reading, should be retained. See also Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 200 ff. It was noted on the margin how the συνείδησις τοῦ εἰδώλου arose, namely, by Τῇ ΣΥΝΗΘΕΊᾼ , and then this phrase easily crept into the place of the original Τ . ΣΥΝΕΙΔ .
It is preferable, however, to put ἝΩς ἌΡΤΙ before ΤΟῦ ΕἸΔΏΛΟΥ (Lachm. Rück. Tisch.), with B D E F G à 31, 37, 116, and several vss[1296] and Fathers; in the Recept[1297] we have transposition in the interest of the construction.—1Co_8:8. ΠΑΡΊΣΤΗΣΙ ] A B à , min[1298] Copt. Bashm. Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damasc. have παραστήσει . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Rightly; the presents which follow gave rise to the same tense here. ΣΥΝΊΣΤΗΣΙ , which has but weak support, is a gloss.
There is considerable evidence (especially A B à ) in favour of omitting the ΓΆΡ , and putting the negative clause first in what follows (Lachm. Tisch.). The transcriber would have a mechanical inclination to place the positive half of the statement first.—1Co_8:9. There is decisive evidence for reading ἈΣΘΕΝΈΣΙΝ instead of the Recept[1299] ἀσθενοῦσιν .—1Co_8:11. καὶ ἀπολεῖται ] In place of καί , A has οὖν after the verb (so Rück.), while B à * 17, Copt. Bashm. Goth. Clem. have γάρ , which is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The last of the three readings is the true one; γάρ not being understood, was explained in some cases by καί , in others by οὖν . Instead of ἀπολεῖται , read with Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. ἀπόλλυται , on the authority of A B D* à , several min[1300] Copt. Goth. Clem. Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, and Damasc. The future arises from a mechanical alteration of the text after οἰκοδομηθ .
ἀδελφός ] Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. have ὁ ἀδελφός after γνώσει , which has conclusive evidence in its favour. The Recept[1301] originated in a mistaken attempt to help out the construction.
ἐπί ] Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. read ἐν , which is supported by decisive testimony.
[1287] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1288] ss. vss. = versions.
[1289] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1290] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1291] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1292] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1293] ss. vss. = versions.
[1294] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1295] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[1296] ss. vss. = versions.
[1297] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1298] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1299] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1300] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1301] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
CONTENTS.
To eat flesh offered to idols is a thing morally indifferent for all who understand rightly what an idol is (1Co_8:1-6). Still, for the sake of those who are more weak, we should refrain from so eating, if it is a stumbling-block to them (1Co_8:7-13).