Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read the prep. εἰς between οἶκος πνευματικός and ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον , after A B C à 5, al., several vss. and K V. The common reading is supported by K L P, many min., Vulg., other versions, Clem. etc.; Tisch. 7 has retained it; de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche have in like manner declared themselves in favour of the Rec.; de Wette speaks of the interpolation of εἰς “as facilitating a transition, otherwise abrupt, to another conception;” on the other hand, Brückner and Hofmann prefer the other reading, which is attested by weightier witnesses. The εἰς may be omitted, inasmuch as the thought might seem inappropriate that an οἶκος should be built up to an ἱεράτευμα .
τῷ before Θεῷ is doubtful; for it are L P, etc.; against, A B C à , al. Lachm. and Tisch. have doubtless correctly omitted it.—1Pe_2:6. διότι ] with Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. etc., according to almost all the authorities instead of the Rec. διὸ καί , which is to be found only in min. and in Orig.
ἐν τῇ γραφῇ ] Rec., after K L P, several min. etc.; Tisch. reads, after A B à 38, 73: ἐν γραφῇ ; Lachm. has adopted ἡ γραφή , which is found in C, several min. Vulg. Hier. Aug. This last reading seems, however, to be only a correction, in order to avoid the difficulty which lies in connecting the verb περιέχει with ἐν ( τῇ ) γραφῇ .
Instead of ἐπʼ αὐτῷ , à (pr. m.) has ἐπʼ αὐτόν , which is not supported by other witnesses.—1Pe_2:7. Instead of the ἀπειθοῦσιν of the Rec., after A K L P, etc. (Tisch. 7, Lachm. Buttm.), Tisch. 8, after B C à , al., has adopted ἀπιστοῦσιν . Perhaps the Rec. is a correction after 1Pe_2:8.
λίθον ] Rec., after C** K L P à (pr. m.), al., Thph.
Retained by Tisch.; in its stead Lachm. has λίθος ; this reading is found in A B C* several min. Oec. Since in Greek it is by no means uncommon that the substantive is often put in the same case as the relative which it precedes, λίθον need occasion no surprise; as in addition to this, λίθον is found in the LXX., λίθος seems to have been the original reading, which became changed into λίθον , following the LXX. and the common usage in Greek.
The words λίθος … γωνίας καί are wanting in the Syr. ver.; Grotius, Mill, Semler, Hottinger, therefore consider them spurious, for which, nevertheless, sufficient justification is wanting.—1Pe_2:11. ἀπέχεσθαι ] Rec., after B K à , several min. vss. and K V; retained by Lachm. and Tisch., whilst A C L P, several min. read ἀπέχεσθε , which Buttm. has adopted; see on this the commentary; Lachm. adds ὑμᾶς , after the Vulg., as Tisch. remarks: ex errore de C.—1Pe_2:12. Instead of ἐποπτεύσαντες , Rec., after A K L P, al., ἐποπτεύοντες must be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., after B C à , al., Thph. Oec.; on account of the δοξάσωσιν following, the present could easily have been changed into the aorist.—1Pe_2:13. ὑποτάγητε οὖν ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit οὖν , after A B C à , al. Didy. Cassiod.; οὖν (Tisch. 7) is supported only by K L P, many min. etc.; it is possible that οὖν was interpolated in order to obtain a firmer connection of thought. In Cod. à (pr. m.) ἀνθρωπίνῃ is wanting, but is supported by almost all witnesses.—1Pe_2:14. The Rec., following C and several min., retains μέν after ἐκδίκησιν , which had been rightly rejected already by Griesbach.—1Pe_2:18. à has after δεσπόταις the pron. ὑμῶν .—1Pe_2:19. Different adjuncts to χάρις are found in different codd., as Θεοῦ , Θεῷ , παρὰ Θεῷ , παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ , which have been all interpolated later, in order to define the idea more precisely.
Several min. and C have, instead of συνείδησιν Θεοῦ : συνείδησιν ἀγαθήν ; in A* both readings are combined: συνείδησιν Θεοῦ ἀγαθήν .—1Pe_2:20. The Rec. has τοῦτο χάρις ; this reading Tisch. 8 has retained, as he asserts, following B C K L P à , etc.; on the other hand, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7 read τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις , after A. According to Buttm., this reading is found also in B ( à ?).—1Pe_2:21. The codices vary between the Rec. (ed. Elzev.) ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν , ὑμῖν , which is found in A B, C à , several min. Oec. Amb. etc. (Lachm. Tisch. 8); ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν , ὑμῖν in K L P, al., Slav. Vulg. Cyr. etc. (Scholz, Tisch. 7, Reiche), and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν , ἡμῖν in several min. etc. (Rec.). Tisch. remarks: nil probabilius quam ἡμῖν ὑμῖν in caussa fnisse, cur bis ab aliis ὑμῖν ab aliis ἠμῖν scriberetur. Quod tota oratio ad lectores incitandos instituta est, id emendatori magis ὑμῖν quam ἡμῖν commendabat. According to almost all the authorities, ὑμῖν is the original reading; it is possible that in accordance with it ἡμῶν was changed into ὑμῶν ; it is also possible that the application of Χρ . ἔπαθεν to the readers alone seemed inappropriate to the copyist, and that he changed ὑμῶν into ἡμῶν . Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. hold ἡμῶν , and Brückner ὑμῶν , to be the original reading; the weightiest authorities decide for ὑμῶν .— à reads ἀπέθανεν instead of ἔπαθεν , supported by general testimony, and in 1Pe_2:23, ἐλοιδόρει (pr. m.) instead of ἀντελοιδόρει .—1Pe_2:24. The αὐτοῦ after μώλωπι (Rec.) is supported only by L P à (pr. m.) 40, al., Thph. Oec., whilst A B C K have it not; Lachm. has accordingly omitted it, whilst Tisch., on the other hand, has retained it. Although αὐτοῦ is in itself the more difficult, still, on account of the preponderating evidence against it, it can hardly be regarded as the original reading; its addition can be explained also partly from the endeavour to form this relative clause as similarly as possible to the preceding ὃς … αὐτός , partly from the circumstance that it is to be found in Isa_53:5, LXX.; although Tisch. says: οὗ … αὐτοῦ emendatori deberi incredibile est; nec magis credibile αὐτοῦ ex LXX. inlatum esse servato inepte οὗ . Wiesinger, Brückner, Schott, Hofm. hold αὐτοῦ to be original.—1Pe_2:25. πλανώμενα ] Rec., after C K L P, etc., Thph. Oec.; on the other hand, Lachm. and Tisch., following A B à , etc., Tol. Harl. Fulg. have adopted πλανώμενοι , which is probably the original reading; the change into πλανώμενα was very natural on account of the πρόβατα , immediately preceding.