Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The addition ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς after ἠκούσατε (Rec. after G K, etc.), already regarded as doubtful by Griesb., is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (after A B C à , al.); it was added from the preceding; Reiche, it is true, thinks otherwise.—1Jn_2:8. ἐν ὑμῖν ] Rec. The reading ἐν ἡ̔ μῖν , recommended by Griesb., has in A too feeble evidence.—1Jn_2:10. Instead of ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν (Rec. after B G K, al., Tisch.), A C à , al., have οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ (Lachm.).—1Jn_2:13. Instead of the Rec. γράφω ὑμῖν παιδία (K, al.), we must read, in accordance with A B C G à , many min. vss. and Fathers: ἔγραψα ὑμῖν παιδία (Lachm. Tisch.; also recommended by Griesb.); see, further, on this passage. Instead of τὸν πονηρόν , à erroneously reads τὸ πονηρόν .—1Jn_2:14. Instead of τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , B reads τὸ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , plainly following chap. 1Jn_1:1; this, however, is not accepted by Buttm.; in B the addition τοῦ Θεοῦ is wanting after ὁ λόγος .—1Jn_2:15. Instead of τοῦ πατρός (Rec. after B G K à , al., Vulg. Syr. utr. etc., Oec. Thph. etc.), A C, al. read Θεοῦ ; which reading is the correct one cannot be decided, as an intentional change of the one to the other cannot be proved. Ebrard considers Θεοῦ as original, but without adequate grounds. Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec.—1Jn_2:17. Although Griesb. approves of the omission of αὐτοῦ after ἐπιθυμία (following A), it must nevertheless be considered genuine. The difficulty of it easily explains why it would be left out. In some of the Latin Fathers there is found at the close of the verse the addition: quo modo et Deus manet in acternum, which Bengel, without reason, is disposed to regard as genuine.—1Jn_2:18. The article before ἀντίχριστος is at least doubtful; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is wanting in B C à *.—1Jn_2:19. Instead of ἐξῆλθον the more unusual form ἐξῆλθαν is probably, with Lachm. and Tisch. (after A B C), to be regarded as genuine. à , however, has ἐξῆλθον .
The generally prevailing reading: ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν , has been changed by Buttm. into ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν , according to his own statement, following B; Tisch. has not noticed this reading. In the following clause Tisch. reads: εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν after B C, al.; Lachm., on the other hand, has retained the Rec.: εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν , after A G K à , al. pl., Vulg. etc. It is remarkable that even Buttm.—against the evidence of B—has the Rec. It cannot be decided which reading is the correct one.—1Jn_2:20. Buttm. omits καί before οἴδατε , according to B; the πάντες , instead of πάντα presented (according to the statement of Tisch. maj.) by B, has not, however, been accepted by Buttm.—1Jn_2:23. The words ὁ ὀμολογῶν … ἔχει are wanting (after G K, etc., Oec.) in the Rec. Calvin, Milius, Wolf, etc., do not consider them genuine; but they are sufficiently attested by A B C à , etc. etc., and with justice admitted into the text by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch.—1Jn_2:24. The Rec. οὖν after ὑμεῖς is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C à , al., Vulg. etc.
ἐν τῷ πατρί ] Rec. after A C G K, al., Syr. utr. Sahid. al., Thph. Oec. (Tisch.). Lachm. has omitted ἐν (after B, Vulg. etc.). The omission of the preposition is perhaps explained by the fact that it appeared superfluous. à reads ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ .
Instead of ἠκούσατε , à has both times the unusual reading ἀκηκόατε .—1Jn_2:25. Instead of ἡμῖν , Lachm. in his small ed., following B, has accepted ὑμῖν (Buttm.); in the larger ed., however, ἡμῖν is rightly found, which is defended by almost all the authorities.—1Jn_2:27. On the form ἐλάβατε , received by Tisch. 7, following B*, comp. Ph. Buttmann’s compl. Gram. § 96, note 9, and Winer, p. 68, VII. p. 71.
Instead of ἐν ὑμῖν μένει is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., which Griesb. previously recommended: μένει ἐν ὑμῖν (after A B C à , several vss. etc.). Buttm., following B, has accepted, instead of ἀλλʼ ὡς , the reading ἀλλά , which probably arose through a correction. Instead of the Rec. to τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα (A B G K, etc., Thph. Oec. Hier.), retained by Lachm., with the approval of Bengel, Lücke, Brückner, τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα has been accepted by Tisch., following C, 4, 5, 7, al., which is approved of by Reiche and Braune; à has also αὐτοῦ , but instead of χρῖσμα , “ πνεῦμα ;” see the comm.
Instead of διδάσκει ὑμᾶς , Lachm. in his large ed. reads διδ . ἡμᾶς ; probably a misprint, as it is not noticed either by him or Tisch. as a special reading.
μενεῖτε ] Rec. after G K, al. (Tisch.); Lachm. has received instead of it the reading μένετε , recommended by Griesb., following A B C à , al. The overwhelming evidence of the authorities is in favour of this reading, which probably was changed at a later date in accordance with 1Jn_2:24; Reiche, however, has decided in favour of the Rec.; Düsterd. Ewald, Braune, and now Brückner also, justly prefer μένετε .—1Jn_2:28. The words at the beginning: καὶ νῦν … ἐν αὐτῷ , are wanting in à .
Instead of ἵνα ὅταν (Rec. after G K, al., Thph. Oec. Tisch.) we must read, with Lachm., following A B C à , al., Copt. Sahid.: ἵνα ἐάν . Instead of ἔχωμεν (Rec. after A G K, etc., Oec.), Lachm. and Tisch., following B C, al., Thph., read σχῶμεν . à * has σχῶμεν ; à 1 has ἔχωμεν . The words ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ are read by à not before, but after παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ .—1Jn_2:29. The Rec. ὅτι πᾶς (Lachm. Tisch. 2) is found in B G K, several min. vss. and Fathers; A C à , al., Vulg. read ὅτι καὶ πᾶς (Tisch. 7); if καί , on which Tisch. (ed. maj.) observes: cujus addendi nulla causa erat; ex Johannis vero usu est, be genuine, it serves “to bring out the agreement of the conclusion with the premises” (Ebrard).