Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 5
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After ἑκουσίως , A P à , several min. vss. etc., Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have: κατὰ Θεόν . The words are wanting in the Rec. after B K L, etc., Oec. etc.; Tisch. 7 had omitted them; they are probably a later addition, in order to complete the idea.
μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ] Rec. after B K P à , etc., Vulg. Copt. Thph. Beda (Lachm. Tisch. 8); Tisch. 7 reads, instead of μηδέ , μή , after A L, 68, al., Syr. etc., Oec.; this, however, appears to be a mere alteration on account of the preceding μή and the subsequent μηδέ .—1Pe_5:3. Following B, Buttmann has omitted the entire third verse; but as all authorities retain it, it cannot be regarded as spurious.—1Pe_5:5. ὑποτασσόμενοι ] Rec. according to K L P, etc., Thph. Oec.; is omitted in A B à , 13, etc., several vss. etc. Lachm. and Tisch. are probably right in omitting it, as it appears to be a correction introduced in order to make the sense plainer, perhaps after Eph_5:21. Wiesinger and Schott are against the Rec., Reiche is in favour of it.
Instead of ὁ Θεός , Buttm. has, following B, adopted Θεός (without article).—1Pe_5:6. ἐν καιρῷ ] In A and the most of the vss. ἐπισκοπῆς follows here; adopted by Lachm., erroneously, however, as it is a later addition after chap. 1Pe_2:12.—1Pe_5:8. Following the most numerous and best authorities, Griesb. already has justly erased the ὅτι of the Rec. before ὁ ἀντίδικος .
τίνα καταπίῃ Rec. after A, al., Vulg. Syr. Cyr. etc. (Tisch. 7); in its place K L P à , al., mult. Cop. etc. read τινὰ καταπιεῖν (Lachm.: τινά ; Tisch. 8: τίνα ); B has the inf. only, without τινα . The commentators (as also Reiche) prefer the Rec.; it appears, too, to be the more natural reading; but that very fact makes it suspicious. The reading of B is evidently a correction, as τινα seems to be inappropriate.—1Pe_5:9. B à have the art. τῷ before κόσμῳ (Tisch. 8); in the Rec. it is omitted, after A K L P, etc. (Tisch. 7).—1Pe_5:10. ἡμᾶς ] Rec. according to K, several min. Vulg. Syr. etc.; in place of it the most important authorities, A B L P à , very many min. and several vss. support ὑμᾶς , which is accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., and rightly declared to be genuine by de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche. The codd. A K L P have the name Ἰησοῦ after Χριστῷ (Rec. Lachm. Tisch. 7); in B à there is only Χριστῷ (Tisch. 8). The Rec. runs: καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς , στηρίξαι , σθενώσαι , θεμελιώσαι . Although these optatives convey an appropriate idea, still there is too little evidence for their genuineness; in the three last verbs the optative occurs only in min. several vss. Thph. and Oec.; in the first verb it is found also in K L P. As, however, the future καταρτίσει , etc., occurs in almost all authorities, it is to be preferred. Erasmus reads καταρτίσαι and then στερίξει . In similar passages of the N. T. the optat. is mostly used (thus undisputedly in Rom_15:13; Heb_13:21; 1Th_5:23, etc.), and this explains how, in employing the future, a change could have been made to the optative; cf. 2Co_9:10; Php_4:19. There is less force in the reason given for the use of the indicative, viz. that it is better suited to the subsequent doxology (Bengel), in opposition to which de Wette rightly refers to Heb_13:21.
The pronoun ὑμᾶς is wanting in the A B à , etc., and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its genuineness is at least doubtful; not less so is that of θεμελιώσει , which, however, Tisch. has retained, following K L P à , etc., whilst it is omitted in the A B, Vulg. etc. (Lachm.).—1Pe_5:11. ἡ δόξα καί ] does not occur in A B, 23, Aeth. Vulg.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; perhaps a later addition, after chap. 1Pe_4:11.
τῶν αἰώνων is erased by Tisch. 7, after B, 36, 99, Copt. Arm.; but retained by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, who follow A K L P à , the majority of min. several vss. etc.—1Pe_5:12. Lachm. omits the article τοῦ before πιστοῦ , appealing to B. Tisch., however, remarks on this: errabat circa B. The omission, for which certainly there is too little warrant, may be explained by the transcriber having construed ὑμῖν with πιστοῦ . According to Tisch., however, it is not certain whether B has the article or not; according to Buttm., it does not occur in B.
Instead of ἑστήκατε (Rec.), Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after A B à , many min. etc., read στῆτε . This reading would seem to be favoured by the fact that it is the more difficult one, and that the Rec. may have arisen out of Rom_5:2; but the idea itself decides in favour of ἑστήκατε , which is retained by Tisch. 7, following K L P, etc., Theoph. Oec.
The reading ἐν ᾗ (instead of εἰς ἥν ) in A is evidently a correction for the sake of simplicity.—1Pe_5:14. Instead of Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (in Rec. K L P à , al., pler. Vulg. Copt. etc., Thph. Oec.) Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted Χριστῷ only (A B, etc., Syr. Aeth. etc.). The final ἀμήν (Rec. in G K à , etc.) is likewise wanting in A B, etc., and is therefore omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.
The subsequent addition of Ἰησοῦ and ἀμήν is undoubtedly more easy of explanation than the subsequent omission of it.