1Co_9:1.
οὐκ
εἰμὶ
ἐλεύθερος
;
οὐκ
εἰμὶ
ἀπ
.] So A B
à
, min[1373], and most of the vss[1374], with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb. Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is defended by Pott, Rinck, Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it was very natural to transfer
οὐκ
εἰμὶ
ἀπ
. to the first place as the more important point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (1Co_9:1-3).—1Co_9:2.
τῆς
ἐμῆς
] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read
μου
τῆς
, with B
à
, 17, 31, 46, Or. Rightly; the Recept[1375] is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in view of 1Co_9:3. Had
ΜΟΥ
crept in from the
ΤῸ
ἜΡΓΟΝ
ΜΟΥ
in 1Co_9:1, it would have been put after
ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛῆς
.—1Co_9:6.
ΤΟῦ
] is wanting, it is true, in A B D* F G
à
, 17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Rück.; but the omission was very naturally suggested by 1Co_9:4-5.—1Co_9:7.
ἘΚ
ΤΟῦ
ΚΑΡΠΟῦ
] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read
ΤῸΝ
ΚΑΡΠΌΝ
, with A B C* D* F G
à
*, 17, 46, 137, Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Recept[1376] is an alteration in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in meaning.—1Co_9:8.
ἢ
οὐχὶ
καὶ
κ
.
τ
.
λ
[1377]] There is decisive testimony in favour of
Ἢ
ΚΑῚ
Ὁ
ΝΌΜΟς
ΤΑῦΤΑ
Οὐ
ΛΈΓΕΙ
; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. It was altered because not understood.—1Co_9:10.
ἘΠʼ
ἘΛΠΊΔΙ
ΤΟῦ
ΜΕΤΈΧΕΙΝ
] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch., with A B C
à
*, 10, 17, 71, Syr[1378] utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recept[1379] again (defended by Reiche) is:
Τῆς
ἙΛΠΊΔΟς
ΑὐΤΟῦ
ΜΕΤΈΧΕΙΝ
ἘΠʼ
ἘΛΠΊΔΙ
. Since, however, this
ἘΠʼ
ἘΛΠΊΔΙ
is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence against it[1380] that it must be rejected at once;
τῆς
ἐλπίδος
αὐτοῦ
μετέχειν
, again, is so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not observed that we have to supply
ἈΛΟᾶΝ
after
ἈΛΟῶΝ
, the
ἘΠʼ
ἘΛΠΊΔΙ
ΤΟῦ
ΜΕΤΈΧΕΙΝ
remained unintelligible, and
Τῆς
ἘΛΠΊΔΟς
ΑὐΤΟῦ
was put in as a gloss to obviate the difficulty; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original words, in others, got mixed up with them (EIz.).—1Co_9:11.
θερίσομεν
] C D E F G L, min[1381] Vulg. It. Theodoret, have
θερίσωμεν
. So Lachm. on the margin. Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text; grammarians took offence at the subjunctive after
ΕἾ
.—1Co_9:13. There is decisive evidence for reading
ΠΑΡΕΔΡ
. here with Lachm. Rück. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in 1Co_9:15
Οὐ
ΚΈΧΡΗΜΑΙ
ΟὐΔΕΝῚ
Τ
., with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch.—1Co_9:15.
ἼΝΑ
ΤῚς
ΚΕΝΏΣῌ
] There is great diversity here. B D*
à
*, Sahid. Bashm. have
ΟὐΔΕῚς
ΚΕΝΏΣΕΙ
(so Lachm.). A has
ΟὐΔΕῚς
ΜῊ
ΚΕΝΏΣΕΙ
(so Rück.). F G, 26, give us
ΤΙς
ΚΕΝΏΣΕΙ
. The Recept[1382], which is specially defended by Reiche,
ἵνα
τὶς
κενώσῃ
, has only a partial support from C D*** E I K
à
**, the majority of the min[1383] and vss[1384], Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these authorities are in favour of
κενώσει
, which is adopted by Tisch. But the Received reading, as well as the
τις
κενώσει
, seems to be an attempt to amend the original—but not understood—text in B (which A only intensifies), so that we ought to read:
ἢ
τὸ
καύχημά
μου
οὐδεὶς
κενώσει
. See the exeget. remarks on the verse.—1Co_9:16.
καύχημα
] D E F G
à
*, It.:
χάρις
. Not strongly enough attested; an old gloss in accordance with Luk_6:32-34. Instead of
γάρ
after
οὐαί
, Elz. has
δέ
, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
εὐαγγελίσωμαι
in place of the second
εὐαγγελίζωμαι
; the Recept[1385] is a repetition from the first.—1Co_9:18. Elz. and Scholz have
ΤΟῦ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ
after
ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛ
., in opposition to decisive evidence.—1Co_9:20.
ΜῊ
ὪΝ
ΑὐΤῸς
ὙΠῸ
ΝΌΜΟΝ
] omitted in Elz., but given by almost all the uncials and many vss[1386] and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton.—1Co_9:21. The genitives
ΘΕΟῦ
and
ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ
(Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have decisive testimony in their favour, as
ΚΕΡΔΆΝΩ
ΤΟῪς
ἈΝ
. also has (so Lachm. Rück. Tisch.); the Recept[1387]
ΚΕΡΔΉΣΩ
ἈΝΌΜΟΥς
was formed upon the model of 1Co_9:20.—1Co_9:22. The
Ὡς
before
ἈΣΘ
. is wanting in A B
à
*, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses.
The article before
ΠΆΝΤΑ
(Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority.—1Co_9:23.
ΤΟῦΤΟ
] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss[1388] and Fathers, have
ΠΆΝΤΑ
; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch.
ΤΟῦΤΟ
is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely; for the same reason Sahid. Arm. read
ΤΑῦΤΑ
ΔῈ
ΠΆΝΤΑ
.—1Co_9:27.
ὙΠΩΠΙΆΖΩ
] So Elz. Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A B C D*
à
, min[1389] Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings,
ὑποπιάζω
(F G K L min[1390] Fathers) and
ὑποπιέζω
(D*** E, min[1391] Fathers), must be rejected even on the ground of external evidence alone, all the more that the vss[1392]castigo (Vulg.), subjicio, macero, affligo, domo, do not show clearly which reading they follow. Notwithstanding,
ὑποπιάζω
has been defended of late, especially by Matth. (“
ΠΙΆΖΕΙΝ
loco
πιέζειν
aliquos male habuit”), Reiche, Hofm., and adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with
ΠΙΆΖΩ
or
ΠΙΈΖΩ
, but took offence at
ὙΠΩ
(with
Ω
).
[1373] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1374] ss. vss. = versions.
[1375] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1376] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1377] .
τ
.
λ
.
καὶ
τὰ
λοιπά
.
[1378] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1379] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1380] Reiche would attach this addition (which quite mars the sense in the Recepta) to the next verse; but there, too, especially as standing first, it would obtrude upon the antithesis something quite foreign to it and unsuitable.
[1381] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1382] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1383] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1384] ss. vss. = versions.
[1385] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1386] ss. vss. = versions.
[1387] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1388] ss. vss. = versions.
[1389] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1390] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1391] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1392] ss. vss. = versions.
CONTENTS.
That principle of loving self-denial which Paul had just laid down for himself in respect of the single point in question (1Co_8:13), he now confirms by referring to his general demeanour, of which that one resolve was merely a particular expression, and shows, in a frank, deeply impressive, and striking elucidation, how he, notwithstanding that he was free and an apostle (1Co_9:1-3), yet refrained from pressing his well-grounded right to have himself (and a consort as well) supported by the churches (1Co_9:4-18), and adapted himself to the needs of all men (1Co_9:19-23). His readers, therefore, should be like champions at the games in striving for the everlasting crown, preparing themselves to this end through the exercise of self-control, even as he too sought, by self-renunciation, to become worthy of the prize (1Co_9:24-27). Not until chap. 10 does he come back from this digression to the special topic (of the sacrificial flesh) with which it stands connected. It is not of the nature of an apology as regards its whole plan and design, but only incidentally so in some isolated references (1Co_9:2-3; 1Co_9:5; 1Co_9:12).
