Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ] In the later MSS. there is great variety in the reading, partly by arranging the words differently, partly by adding the article to one or other of them, partly by inserting the word πατρός ; τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ , 73, 80, 116, 213, al., Arm.
τοῦ σωτῆρος Θεοῦ ἡμῶν , 37.
Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν , 38, 48, 72, al., codd.
καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ] καί is omitted by various cursives, or placed before σωτῆρος ; the latter in the MSS. just named, as well as in Ambros., who has Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ; the former in Ar. pol., which has Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν , κυρίου . In many cursives καί is omitted along with κυρίου following it; Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν , in 17, 31, al.; τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν , 43, and in those above mentioned, 38, 48, 72, and in Ambros.
Cod. 118 has τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ . Χ . καὶ κυρίου Ἰ . Χ .
κυρίου is wanting in the most important authorities, A D* F G, many cursives and translations (Syr. both, Copt. Sahid. Aeth., etc.); hence it is omitted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., while Matthaei has retained it with the remark: ita omnes omnino mei.
Instead of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , the most important MSS., etc., have the reading Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ , which is therefore adopted by Griesb. à has the same reading as the Rec.: καὶ κυρίου Ἰησ . Χρ .—1Ti_1:2. ἡμῶν after πατρός is wanting in A B D* F G 17, 23, al., Copt. (not Sahid.) Arm. Slav., etc., and is therefore to be deleted; the interpolation is easily explained from a comparison with the other Pauline Epistles.—1Ti_1:4. For γενεαλογίαις , κενολογίαις occurs as a conjecture.
Instead of ζητήσεις , à , A and some cursives have ἐκζητήσεις , which is adopted by Tisch. 8. This reading may be the original one, which as a ἁπαξ λεγομ . in the N. T. was changed into the usual ζητήσεις ; the meaning is the same.
Οἰκοδομίαν (Rec.) is found perhaps in no Greek MS. According to Tisch., D*** has it; but this is denied by Reiche (Comment crit. in N. T. II. p. 356). It is, according to Reiche: “nil nisi error typothetarum Erasmi, aut conjectura Erasmi ipsius;” the latter he considers more probable. By far the most have οἰκονομίαν ; only D* and Iren. gr. ap. Epiph. have οἰκοδομήν (aedificationem: Lyr. Erp. Syr. p. in m. Vulg. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast.). The reading οἰκονομίαν is supported by authorities so important, that we cannot doubt its correctness. Matthaei says: οἰκονομίαν ita omnes omnino mei, ac ii quidem, qui scholia habent, etiam in scholiis, uti quoque interpretes editi, οἰκοδομίαν nihil nisi error est typothetarum Erasmi, δ cum ν confuso, nisi Erasmus deliberato ita correxerit ad Latinum aedificationem.—1Ti_1:8. Instead of χρῆται , Lachm. reads χρήσηται , after A 73, Clem. The common reading is more natural, and is to be considered right, as the other has not sufficient testimony.—1Ti_1:9. Instead of the regular forms πατραλῴαις and μητραλῴαις , A D F G 48, 72, 93, al. have πατρολῴαις and μητρολῴαις , which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted; several cursives have πατραλοίαις and μητραλοίαις .—1Ti_1:11. In D* and several versions there stands before κατά the art. τῇ ; a manifest interpolation in order to connect κατὰ κ . τ . λ . with the foregoing διδασκαλίᾳ .—1Ti_1:12. καὶ χάριν ἔχω ] The most important authorities, A F G 17, 31, 67** 71, al., Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., etc., also à , are against καί , which seems to have been added in order to join this verse more closely with the previous one. In Matthaei καί stands without dispute. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 left it out; Tisch. 7, with Wiesinger, had retained it, following D K L, several versions, and Fathers.
ἐνδυναμώσαντί με ] à has the pres. ἐνδυναμοῦντι , and omits με ; a reading supported by no other authority.—1Ti_1:13. τὸν πρότερον ὄντα ] A D* F G à 17, 67*** 71, 80, al., Dial. c. Marc. have τό instead of τόν . The latter is a correction in order to join the partic. and the following subst. more closely with the previous με . Lachm. and Tisch. adopted τό . Matthaei, on the other hand, reads τόν , with the remark: τό πρ . in nullo meorum inveni, nisi in uno Chrysostomi α qui fortasse voluit, τὸν τὸ πρότερον . Muralto likewise reads τόν .
After ὄντα , A 73 have με , which is also adopted by Lachm. It disturbs, however, the natural connection, and the authorities for it are not sufficient; hence it is not adopted by Tisch.—1Ti_1:15. à omits τόν before κόσμον .—1Ti_1:16. Lachm. and Tisch. 7, following A D, etc., read Χρ . Ἰησ .; Tisch. 8, following à K L P, reads Ἰησ . Χρ .
Instead of πᾶσαν , according to D K L, Tisch, rightly adopted ἅπασαν from A F G, etc.—1Ti_1:17. Instead of ἀφθάρτῳ , D* has the reading ἀθανάτῳ , and F G have this word inserted after μόνῳ .
The word σοφῷ is rightly rejected by Griesb. Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. and others, since A D* F G à 37, 179, 73, the Syr. Copt. Arm. and other versions testify against it. It was probably an interpolation from Rom_16:27; Matthaei retained it, remarking: Vulgatum habet et repetit Chrys. xi. 569, 570; item i. 464, c. v. 393, e. Ath. ii. 425, 433. Attamen σοφῷ abest ap. Cyrill. v., a. 295, haud dubie casu ac per errorem. Ex omnibus omnino Codd. omittunt soli A D F G 37. Reiche (Comment. crit. in N. T. II. pp. 360–363) maintains that σοφῷ cannot be an interpolation from Rom_16:27, because the doxology there is not genuine. See, on the other hand, Meyer in his critical remarks on the passage; he holds σοφῷ to be genuine, on internal grounds, viz.: (1) Because Paul had no reason for emphasizing the unity of God against the heretics; and (2) because the reading μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ is the more difficult one. But these internal grounds are insufficient against the weight of the authorities.—1Ti_1:18. Instead of στρατεύῃ , à has στρατεύσῃ .