Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 4

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 4


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 4

1Ti_4:1. πλάνοις ] For this, many cursives and Fathers have πλάνης , which, however, is only a correction, perhaps after 1Jn_4:6.—1Ti_4:2. Instead of the form κεκαυτηριασμένων (Rec. Tisch.), we should probably, after A L à , read κεκαυστηριασμένων (Lachm. smaller ed., Buttm.).

For ἰδίαν συνείδησιν , which is supported by the weightiest authorities, D* has (in Matthaei, E) συνείδησιν ἑαυτῶν .—1Ti_4:6. For Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , so many important authorities (A D F G, many cursives, etc.) have Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ , that the latter must be held the right reading.

τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ] for which some cursives, etc., have τῇ καλῇ διδασκαλίᾳ , which may have arisen from a belief that these words are co-ordinate with τοῖς λόγοις .

For the Rec. ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας (Tisch.), Lachm. smaller ed., and Buttm., following A 80, have adopted the gen. ἧς παρηκ ., an attraction seldom occurring, but not without examples; see Winer, p. 148 [E. T. p. 204].—1Ti_4:8. In à the preposition πρός is wanting before ὀλίγον ; possibly πρὸς ὀλίγον may have been formed on the analogy of the πρὸς πάντα .

For the Rec. ἐπαγγελίαν , which is found in the weightiest authorities, and is received by nearly all critics and editors, K à , many cursives have the plural ἐπαγγελίας . This is defended by Matthaei and Rinck as the original reading, but is disputed by Reiche (Comment. crit. I. pp. 389 f.). It is at least possible that the singular found its way into the text as a correction.—1Ti_4:10. καὶ κοπιῶμεν , Rec., supported by F G K, most cursives, etc. (Tisch. 7); in A C D à 17, 47, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. etc., καί is wanting, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8. Its genuineness is very doubtful.

Instead of the Rec. ὀνειδιζόμεθα (supported by D L, most versions, Theodoret, etc., Tisch. 7), A C F G K à , al., have the reading ἀγωνιζόμεθα , which has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. The authorities give a preference to the latter reading, yet it may have arisen from Col_1:29. Reiche defends the Rec.; we cannot decide with certainty which is original; see further in the exposition of the verse.—1Ti_4:12. Between ἐν ἀγάπῃ and ἐν πίστει the Rec. has ἐν πνεύματι ; rightly withdrawn from the text as not genuine by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., following the weightiest authorities (A C D F G 31, 47, 70, 71, al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Clemens, Chrys. etc.); comp. Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 392).—1Ti_4:15. For ἐν πᾶσιν , Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly adopted πᾶσιν (without ἐν ), after A C D F G à 17, 31, al., Syr. Erp. Copt, etc., Clem. Chrys. etc. It is defended, too, by Reiche as the original reading; ἐν appears to have been inserted from the analogy of Rom_1:19; 1Co_11:19.