Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Colossians 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary: A B K min. Copt. have the superscription πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς . So Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. on Col_1:2.
Col_1:2. Κολοσσαῖς ] K P, also C and à in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Or. Nyss. Amphiloch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. al. have Κολασσαῖς . Approved by Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst.; adopted by Matth. Lach. Tisch. 7. The Recepta is supported by B D E F G L à , min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. The matter is to be judged thus: (1) The name in itself correct is undoubtedly Κολοσσαί , which is supported by coins of the city (Eckhel, Doctr. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod. vii. 30 (see Wessel. and Valck. in loc.); Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 (see Bornem. in loc.); Strabo, xii. 8, p. 576; Plin. N. H. v. 32. (2) But since the form Κολασσαί has so old and considerable attestation, and is preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various reading, as also in Polyaen. viii. 16, and therefore a mere copyist’s error cannot be found in the case—the more especially as the copyists, even apart from the analogy which suggested itself to them of the well-known κολοσσός , would naturally be led to the prevalent form of the name Κολοσσαί ,—we must assume that, although Κολοσσαί was the more formally correct name, still the name Κολασσαί was also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name which Paul himself wrote, and that Κολοσσαῖς is an ancient correction. If the latter had originally a place in the text, there would have been no occasion to alter the generally known and correct form of the name.
After πατρὸς ἡμῶν , Elz. (Lachm. in brackets) has καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , in opposition to B D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. A complementary addition in accordance with the openings of other epistles, especially as no ground for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 351 f.).
Col_1:3. καὶ πατρί ] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: πατρί . So B C*, vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have τῷ πατρί . Since, however, Paul always writes ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου (Rom_15:6; 2Co_1:3; 2Co_11:31; Eph_1:3; also 1Co_15:24; Eph_5:20), and never ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ τ . κ . or ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ τ . κ ., the Recepta, which has in its favour A C** D*** E K L P à , min. Vulg. and Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The καί was readily omitted in a mechanical way after the immediately preceding Θεοῦ πατρός .
Instead of περί , Lachm. reads ὑπέρ , which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E* F G, min. Theophyl. Not attested by preponderating evidence, and easily introduced in reference to Col_1:9 (where ὑπέρ stands without variation).
Col_1:4. Instead of ἣν ἔχετε (which is recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz. Matth. Scholz have τήν merely, but in opposition to A C D* E* F G P à , min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If τήν were originally written, why should it have been exchanged for ἣν ἔχετε ? On the other hand, ἣν ἔχετε , as it could be dispensed with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word preceding concludes with the syllable HN, and the word following ( εἰς ), like ἔχετε , begins with E. The grammatical gap would then, following Eph_1:15, be filled up by τήν .
Col_1:6. καὶ ἔστι ] καί is wanting in A B C D* E* P à , min. and some vss. and Fathers; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But, not being understood, this καί , which has the most important vss. and Fathers in its favour, was omitted in the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection.
καὶ αὐξανόμενον ] is wanting in Elz. Matth., who is of opinion that Chrys. introduced it from Col_1:10. But it is so decisively attested, that the omission must be looked upon as caused by the homoeoteleuton, the more especially as a similar ending and a similar beginning here came together (ONKA).
Ver 7. καθὼς καί ] καί is justly condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition from the preceding.
ὑμῶν ] ABD*GF à *, min.: ἡμῶν ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both precedes and follows ( ἡμῶν … ἡμῖν ), it was put here also by careless copyists.
Col_1:10. After περιπατῆσαι , Elz. Tisch. 7 have ὑμᾶς , against decisive testimony; a supplementary addition.
εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz. Tisch. 8 have τῇ ἐπιγνώσει . So A B C D* E* F G P à , min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks the support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. in scientia Dei) have read the Recepta εἰς τ . ἐπίγν . attested by D*** E** K L and most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Theophyl. Oec., or with à ** and Chrys. ἐν τῇ ἐπιγνώσει . The latter, as well as the mere ô ῇ ἐπιγν ., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult εἰς τ . ἐπίγν ., which, we may add, belongs to the symmetrical structure of the whole discourse, the participial sentences of which all conclude with a destination introduced by εἰς .
Col_1:12. ἱκανώσαντι ] Lachm.: καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι , according to B, whilst D* F G, min. Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil. have καλέσαντι merely. Looking at the so isolated attestation of καλ . κ . ἱκαν ., we must assume that καλέσαντι was written on the margin by way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with καί , and in others without καί substituted for ἱκανώσ .
Instead of ἡμας , Tisch. 8 has ὑμᾶς ; but the latter, too weakly attested by B à , easily slipped in by means of the connection with εὐχαρ .
Col_1:14. After ἀπολυτρ . Elz. has διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ , against decisive testimony; from Eph_1:7.
Col_1:16. τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τά ] Lachm. has erased the first τά and bracketed the second. In both cases the τά is wanting in B à *, Or.; the first τά only is wanting in D* E* F G P and two min. But how easily might TA be absorbed in the final syllable of πάν TA; and this would then partially involve the omission of the second τά ! The assumption that the final syllable of πάντα was written twice would only be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in the case of the second τά , were stronger.
Col_1:20. The second δἰ αὐτοῦ is wanting in B D* F G L, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl. and Latin Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. It was passed over as superfluous, obscure, and disturbing the sense.
Col_1:21. Instead of the Recepta ἀποκατήλλαξεν , Lachm., following B, has ἀποκατηλλάγητε . D* F G, It. Goth. Ir. Ambrosiast. Sedul. have ἀποκαταλλαγέντες . Since, according to this, the passive is considerably attested, and the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν , although most strongly attested (also by à ), may well be suspected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between the two passive readings ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες , in favour of the former, because the latter is quite unsuitable. If the Recepta were original, the construction would be so entirely plain, that we could not at all see why the passive should have been introduced.
Col_1:22. After θανάτου , A P à , min. vss. Ir. have αὐτοῦ , which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested so weakly, as to seem nothing more than a familiar addition.
Col_1:23. τῇ before κτίσει is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, following A B C D* F G à , min. Chrys.
Instead of διάκονος , P à have κήρυξ κ . ἀπόστολος . A gloss; comp. 1Ti_2:7. In A all the three words κήρυξ κ . ἀπ . κ . δίακ . are given.
Col_1:24. νῦν ] D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have ὅς νῦν . Rightly; the final syllable of διάκονος in Col_1:23, and the beginning of a church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of ὅς , which, however, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole progress of the discourse.
After παθήμ . Elz. has μου , against decisive testimony.
ὅ ἐστιν ] C D* E, min.: ὅς ἐστιν . So Lachm. in the margin. A copyist’s error.
Col_1:27. The neuter τί τὸ πλοῦτος (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and Fathers sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation: comp. on 2Co_8:2.
ὅς ἐστιν ] A B F G P, min. (quod in Vulg. It. leaves the reading uncertain): ὅ ἐστιν . So Lachm. A grammatical alteration, which, after Col_1:24, was all the more likely.
Col_1:28. After διδάσκ ., πάντα ἄνθρωπον is wanting in D* E* F G, min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be defended. The whole καὶ διδάσκ . πάντα ἄνθρωπ . was omitted owing to the homoeoteleuton (so still in L, min. Clem.), and then the restoration of the words took place incompletely.
After Χριστῷ Elz. has Ἰησοῦ , against decisive testimony.