Chapter Level Commentary: A B K,
à
, 3, 37, 80, et al. pler. Copt. Damasc. have
Πρὸς
Θεσσαλονικεῖς
αʹ
, the shortest and apparently the oldest title. It is also found in D E, but prefixing
Ἄρχεται
.
CHAPTER 1
1Th_1:1. After
εἰρήνη
, Elz. Matth. Scholz, Bloomfield (The Greek Testament, with English notes, 9th edit. vol. II., London 1855) add:
ἀπὸ
Θεοῦ
πατρὸς
ἡμῶν
καὶ
κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ
. Bracketed by Lachm. Correctly erased by Tisch. and Alford (The Greek Testament, with a critically revised text, etc., vol. III., London 1856), according to B F G 47, 73, 115, et al. Syr. Baschm. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Or. lat. seu Ruf. (dis.) Chrys. (comm.) Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. An interpolation, for the sake of completion, taken from the usual commencement of Paul’s Epistles. Recently the addition:
ἀπὸ
Θεοῦ
πατρὸς
ἡμῶν
καὶ
κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ
, is defended by Bouman (Chartae theologicae, lib. i., Traj. ad Rhen. 1853, p. 61) and Reiche (Commentar. criticus in N. T. tom. II. p. 321 sqq.), but on insufficient grounds. For that the addition might easily have been erroneously overlooked by scribes, on account of the similar preceding words:
ἐν
Θεῷ
πατρὶ
καὶ
κυρίῳ
Ἰησοῦ
Χριστῷ
, is very improbable on account of the difference in the prepositions and cases of the two forms; that it might have been erased as an inelegant repetition has 2Th_1:2 against it, for then there also traces of similar corrections in the critical testimonies would appear; and lastly, that the bare
χάρις
ὑμῖν
καὶ
εἰρήνη
, without any further definition, is not elsewhere found in any of Paul’s writings, would only occasion a doubt, were it in itself unsuitable; but this is not the case here, as, from the directly preceding words
ἐν
Θεῷ
τατρὶ
καὶ
κυρίῳ
Ἰησοῦ
Χριστῷ
, the specific Christian sense of the formula is self-apparent.—1Th_1:2.
ὑμῶν
, in the Receptus, after
μνείαν
, is wanting in A B
à
* 17, et al. It is found in C D E F G K L
à
****, in almost all min., as well as in many Greek and Latin Fathers. Lachm. and Tisch. 1st ed. erroneously erase it. How easily might
ὑμῶν
after
μνείαν
be overlooked on account of
ὑμῶν
before
μνείαν
! Comp. Eph_1:16, where, in a similar case, there is the same uncertainty of MSS.—1Th_1:3. Elz. has
ὑμῶν
τοῦ
ἔργου
τῆς
πίστεως
. Instead of this, D E F G, Syr. Arr. Aeth. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. have
τοῦ
ἔργου
τῆς
πίστεως
ὑμῶν
. An interpretation from misunderstanding.—1Th_1:5.
πρὸς
ὑμᾶς
] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Alford, Reiche have
εἰς
ὑμᾶς
. Against A C** D E F G, min. Copt. Chrys. ed. Theoph. ed.
Instead of the Receptus
ἐν
ὑμῖν
, A C
à
, min. Vulg. MS. have
ὑμῖν
; but
ἐν
was absorbed by the last syllable of
ἐγενήθημεν
.—1Th_1:7.
τύπον
] recommended to consideration by Griesb., received by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, according to B D* min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Pel. The Elz. Matth. Scholz, Reiche, read the plural
τύπους
(from which
τύπος
, in D** E 49, proceed, which Mill takes for a neuter form, as
πλοῦτος
), according to A C F G K L
à
, most min. and many Gr. vss.; but it is a correction the better to adapt the predicate to the collective subject, and thus apparently to strengthen the expressed praise; whilst the plural transfers to individual members of the church what the singular predicates of them in general, considered as a unity. Otherwise Bouman (l.c. p. 62 f.), according to whom
τύπους
of the Receptus is the original, from which
τύπος
was erroneously formed, and from it
τύπον
proceeded, being regarded as an error of the nom. sing., and it was considered the easiest method to correct the mistake by changing the nominative singular into the accusative singular.
καὶ
ἐν
τῇ
is to be received, according to A B C D E F G
à
, min. Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Theodoret, Ambrosiast. Pel., instead of the Receptus
καὶ
τῇ
; so Lachm. Scholz (with whom it has been omitted by an error of the press), Tisch.—1Th_1:8. Elz. has
καὶ
Ἀχαΐᾳ
. So also Tisch. Bloomfield, and Alford. But Griesb. Matth. Lachm. and Scholz have
καὶ
ἐν
τῇ
Ἀχαΐᾳ
, according to C D E F G K L
à
, min. plur. Syr. Slav. MS. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. Oec. Ambrosiast. Pelag. Correctly; for the repetition of the preposition and the article is necessary, as Macedonia and Achaia were to be distinguished as separate provinces.
The
καί
of the Receptus before
ἐν
παντὶ
τόπῳ
(defended by Matth. and Scholz, suspected by Griesb.) is to be erased, according to A B C D* F G
à
, 17, 37, et al. mult. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. It. Ambrosiast. ed.; so Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Because, being usually after
οὐ
μόνον
.
ἀλλά
, it was easily inserted.
ἡμᾶς
ἔχειν
] correctly changed by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. and Alford into
ἔχειν
ἡμᾶς
, according to A B C D E F G
à
, min. perm. Theodoret. The Receptus is an alteration, for emphasis, to contrast
ἡμᾶς
, 1Th_1:8, and
αὐτοί
, 1Th_1:9.—1Th_1:9.
ἔσχομεν
] Elz. has
ἔχομεν
against preponderating evidence, and devoid of meaning. On account of the similar form with
ε
in uncial MSS.,
σ
might easily be omitted.—1Th_1:10.
ἐκ
τῶν
νεκρῶν
] Elz. has
ἐκ
νεκρῶν
, against B D E F G L
à
, min. plur. and Fathers. The article
τῶν
was lost in the last syllable of
νεκρῶν
.
CONTENTS.
After the address and salutation (1Th_1:1), Paul testifies to his readers how in his prayers he constantly thanks God for them all, mentioning without ceasing their faith, love, and hope, being firmly convinced of their election; for, on the one hand, the gospel was preached to them with power and much confidence; and, on the other hand, they, amid many trials, had received it with joyfulness, so that they had become examples to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia: for from them the word of the Lord had spread, and the knowledge of their faith had penetrated everywhere, so that he had not to relate anything about it, but, on the contrary, he hears it mentioned by others what manner of entrance he had to them, and how they had turned from idols to the living and true God (1Th_1:2-10).