Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 3

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 3


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 3

1Ti_3:1. πιστός ] Instead of this, D has ἀνθρώπινος , and some Latin Fathers have humanus. “Haec lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. Quod si vero vetustior Hieronymo, vetustior quoque est nostris codicibus omnibus. Nemo tamen ita temerarius est, ut eam probaret,” Matthaei.—1Ti_3:2. Instead of νηφάλεον , Griesb., following the weightiest authorities, accepted the form νηφάλιον ; so, too, Scholz, Matthaei, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.—1Ti_3:3. The words μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ are left out in A D F G 5, 6, 17, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. etc. Griesb. is right, therefore, in striking them out; they were probably interpolated from Tit_1:7. De Wette’s suggestion, that they may have been omitted intentionally as superfluous, since ἀφιλάργυρον follows, is very improbable; comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. on this passage.—1Ti_3:4. For προϊστάμενον , à has the form προϊστανόμενον , occurring only in later authors.—1Ti_3:6. Several cursives have the reading καὶ παγίδα after διαβόλου , which, however, is manifestly taken from the next verse.—1Ti_3:7. δεῖ δὲ αὐτόν ] So Griesb. and Scholz, following the Rec.; Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. left out αὐτόν , because it is not found in A F G H 17, Copt. Boern.; in Matthaei it stands without dispute. The insertion is more easily explained than the omission.—1Ti_3:9. For ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει , à has the singular reading: καὶ καθαρᾶς συνειδήσεως —which can only be explained from an oversight occasioned by the genitive before.—1Ti_3:14. τάχιον ] Lachm. and Buttm. read ἐν τάχει , following A C D* 17, 71, 73, al. ( ταχεῖον and ταχέως are also found). The Rec., which has the testimony of D*** F G K L, al., Chr. Theodoret, al., and is retained by Tisch., is the more difficult reading; besides, in the other passages of the N. T. where the word occurs, the comparative form can be easily explained; ἐν τάχει seems to be an explanatory correction.

In 1Ti_3:15, D* Arm. Vulg. Clar. Or. Ambrosiast. have σε inserted after δεῖ .—1Ti_3:16. For the Rec. Θεός , the most important authorities have the reading ὅς , as A C F G[113] à 17, 73, 181. Further, the Copt. Sahid. and Gothic versions, also the Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm., have the relative. Orig., Theod. Mops., Epiph., Cyr. Al., Jerome, Eutherius, beyond doubt, found the latter reading in their MSS.; with several others it is at least probable. The Rec. ΘΕΌς is found, on the other hand, in D*** K L, in nearly all cursives, in the edd. Arab. p. Slav. MS., and besides, in Greg. Nyss. (who seems once, however, to have read Ὅς ) Chrys. Theodoret, Didym. (De Trinitate, p. 83) Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. In Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes. § 19) we find ΘΕῸς ἈΝΘΡΩΠΊΝΩς ΦΑΝΕΡΟΎΜΕΝΟς ; in the Apost. constitt.: Θεὸς κύριε ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν σαρκι ; in Hippol.: Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη ; in Gregor. Thaum. (see pot. Apollin. in Photius): Θεὴς ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς —all which passages seem to testify in favour of Θεός .

In the MS. gr. D* is found the reading ὅ . The It. and Vulg. have: mysterium s. sacramentum, quod manifestatum est, and in this they are followed by the Latin Fathers, excepting Jerome himself. This translation does not, however, point necessarily to the reading ὅ ; it might also be taken from ὅς , which was referred to μυστήριον . Till Wetstein, the reading ὅς was generally held to be the right one,—later also by Matthaei, Tittm. Scholz, Hahn, Heydenr. Linck, Mack; the reading ὅ is specially defended by Wetstein and Schulthess. Almost all later critics and expositors, both on external and internal grounds, have rightly preferred the reading ὅς , which is accepted also by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Comp. the thorough investigation by Reiche, Comment. crit. ii., on the passage.

[113] On the point that in A and C there was originally written not È ̄ Σ but ΟΣ , comp. Griesb. in Symb. crit. vol. I. pp. viii.–liv., and vol. II. pp. 56–76; further, Tisch. Prolegg. ad Cod. Ephr. sec. vii. p. 39, excursus on 1Ti_3:16.