Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Jam_2:3. Instead of the Rec. καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε , after A G à , several vss. Oecumenius, Bede (Lachm.), Tisch. has, after B C K, etc., adopted ἐπιβλέψητε δέ ; which reading is the original cannot be determined.
The αὐτῷ of the Rec. (after G K) is already rightly omitted by Griesb.; A B C à , etc., do not have it; it was inserted for the completion of the expression (against Reiche). In the second clause of the verse the Rec., after C** G K à , reads στῆθι ἐκεῖ ἢ κάθου ὧδε ; in A C* ὧδε is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.); B reads στῆθι ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ . The latter reading is recommended by the sharper contrast of στῆθι to the preceding κάθου ; but it is also possible that in this lies the reason of its origin; if ἐκεῖ belongs to στῆθι , ὧδε after κάθου could be easily inserted, partly from the preceding κάθου ὧδε καλῶς , partly to introduce the antithesis to ἐκεῖ ; but, on the other hand, the original ὧδε might also be omitted as superfluous (on account of the following ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπ .). Nothing can with certainty be decided.
For the addition of μου before τῶν ποδῶν , adopted by Lachm., only A and the Vulg. chiefly speak. Almost all other authorities are against it.
Jam_2:4. According to the Rec. this verse commences with καὶ οὐ διεκρίθητε (thus G K, etc., Tisch. 7); in A B** C à , many min. and vss. καί is wanting (Lachm. Tisch. 2); οὐ is also wanting in the original text of B: the omission of καί may indeed be more easily explained than its insertion, on account of which Reiche and Bouman consider it as genuine; but the most important authorities are against it; the reading in B is to be considered as a correction (Buttmann).
Jam_2:5. τοῦ κόσμου ( τούτου ) is a reading evidently explanatory (against Reiche, Bouman), instead of τῷ κόσμῳ , whose genuineness is, moreover, attested by A* B C* à ; the same also with the reading ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ .
Jam_2:10. Instead of the reading τηρήσει … πταίσει , attested almost only by G K, the conjunctives τηρήσῃ … πταίσῃ are to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch. (against Reiche and Bouman). Jam_2:11. The Rec. εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύσεις , φονεύσεις δέ , found only in K, several min. Theoph., Tisch. and Lachm. read the present μοιχεύεις , φονεύεις ; thus A C à ; according to Tisch. also B, but according to Buttm. B has μοιχεύεις , φονεύεις . Reiche and Bouman retain the Rec. as the original reading.
Jam_2:13. The Rec. ἀνίλεως (after G, etc.) is, after A B K à , very many min. Oecumenius, to be changed with the certainly entirely unusual form ἀνέλεος (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.); in the mode of writing this word there is, however, great variation, the forms ἀνήλεος , ἀνίλεος , ἀνείλεος , ἀνήλεως , ἀνήλιος occurring in different MSS. It is surprising that no MS. has the classical form ἀνηλεής or ἀνελεής .
According to the Rec. κατακαυχᾶται is connected with the preceding by καί , which, however, is found only in min.; A, some min. etc., have instead of it, after κατακ . the particle δέ (Lachm. ed. min.), which, however, appears only to have been inserted to avoid the asyndeton. There are many variations of κατακαυχᾶται ; A has κατακαυχάσθω ; C**: κατακαύχασθε , readings which owe their origin to the difficulty of the thought.
Instead of ἔλεος (after κατακαυχᾶται ), Rec., after A B (ed. Mai) à , etc. (Lachm. Tisch. Buttm.), C G K and B (apud Bentley), and many min. have the form ἔλεον , a nominative form which occurs indeed in the classics, but not in the N. T.
Jam_2:14. Instead of the Rec. τί τὸ ὄφελος , attested by A C** G K à , almost all min. Theoph. Oecumenius, Lachm. has adopted τί ὄφελος , after B C. On the distinction, see exposition.
Whether after the Rec. we are to read, with Tisch., λέγῃ τις , or, with Lachm., τις λέγῃ , cannot with certainty be decided; B G K à attest the former, A C the latter reading; yet the latter appears to be a correction.
Jam_2:15. After ἐάν the particle δέ is omitted in B à ; since its later insertion is not easy to be explained, the Rec. is to be retained as the correct reading. After λειπόμενοι Lachm. (after A G, etc.) reads ὦσιν , which, however, is a later addition.
Jam_2:16. Also here Lachm., after B C**, has omitted the article τό before ὀφελος .
Jam_2:17. Instead of the Rec. ἔργα ἔχῃ , ἔχῃ ἔργα is to be read, with Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. etc., after almost all authorities.
Jam_2:18. The Rec. ἐκ τῶν ἔργων is attested by too few authorities (G K, some min.) to be considered as genuine; Griesb. has consequently correctly adopted χωρὶς τῶν ἔργ ., attested by A B C à , etc. Almost all recent critics and interpreters, also Bouman, retain χωρὶς as the original reading; Reiche and Philippi certainly judge otherwise. With the reading ἐκ falls also the pronoun σου after ἔργων , which Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly omitted; it is wanting in A B à , several min. vss. etc., whilst C G K, etc., have it.
Also after τὴν πίστιν Tisch., after B C à , etc., has rightly omitted the pronoun μου (A G K, Lachm.); it appears to be added in order to bring more prominently forward the contrast to the first τὴν πίστιν σου .
Jam_2:19. The Rec. is ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστι ; so G. In the most important MSS., however, εἷς stands first; so in A B C à in favour of this reading is also the line of thought; yet the difference is found that ἐστιν in A à precedes (Lachm.), and in B C follows ὁ Θεός (Tisch.); which reading is the original cannot be decided, yet the former appears to be a correction. B omits ὁ before Θεός .
Jam_2:20. Instead of the Rec. νεκρά , after A C** G K à , several min. vss. Theoph. Oecumenius, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ἀργή , after B C* etc., which is preferred by Wiesinger, Brückner, Lange; whereas Reiche and Bouman prefer the Rec. It is possible that, in order to avoid the frequent repetition of νεκρά (see Jam_2:17; Jam_2:26), the word ἀργή = ἀεργη , as corresponding to χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων , was substituted; but it is also possible that the reference to that verse occasioned the displacement of ἀργή ; it is difficult to arrive at a sure decision.
Jam_2:24. The particle τοίνυν after ὁρᾶτε is already correctly omitted by Griesbach, being wanting in A B C à , etc.
Jam_2:25. Instead of ἀγγέλους , C G, etc., have κατασκόπους , which, however, is evidently borrowed from Heb_11:31.