Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philemon 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Phm_1:5. πρός ] Lachm.: εἰς , following A C D* E, 17, 137. An alteration, occasioned by πίστιν .
Phm_1:6. Instead of ἡμῖν , Elz. has ὑμῖν , in opposition to A C D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. The latter reading is to be traced to the mechanical copyists, who, as in the opening of the Epistle, had in view Philemon and those around him (Phm_1:3). The preceding τοῦ is deleted by Lachm, on too weak counter-evidence (A C, 17); how easily might it be passed over after the final syllable of ἀγαθοῦ !
Phm_1:7. Instead of χαράν , Elz. Tisch. have χάριν , in opposition to decisive evidence; the latter found its way into the text through reference to εὐχαριστῶ , Phm_1:4. Comp. Reiche.
ἔχομεν ] Lachm. has ἔσχον , which was also recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A C F G à , min. vss. Fathers. The other witnesses are divided between ἔχομεν and ἔσχομεν , but remain too weak to warrant either of these two readings. The plural appears an inappropriate following up of ἐν ἡμῖν in Phm_1:6, and ἔσχομεν also tells indirectly in favour of Lachm. The position after πολλ . is decidedly attested (Lachm.).
Phm_1:10. Before ἐγέννησα Lachm. ed. min. had ἐγώ , following A, min. Syr. p. Slav, ms. Chrys. Rightly; the emphasis resting upon ἐγώ , in accordance with the context, was overlooked; and it is more likely to have been dropped out on occasion of the following ΕΓΕ , than to have been introduced by the writing of ΕΓ twice.
After δεσμ . Elz. Scholz have μου , in opposition to decisive testimony.
Phm_1:11. After ἀνέπεμψα we have, with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A C D* E à * 57), to take in σοι , the omission of which is to be explained from the following σύ .
Phm_1:12. σὺ δέ ] is wanting in A C à * 17. Lachm., who, like Tisch., has deleted also προσλαβοῦ after σπλάγχνα . This προσλαβοῦ is wanting in A F G à * 17, while some min. place it immediately after σὺ δέ ; Arm. Boern. Theodoret, on the other hand, after αὐτόν . It is, though afresh defended by Reiche, to be looked upon as a supplement from Phm_1:17; the absence of the verb, however, involved, by way of redressing the construction, the omission of σὺ δέ , so that αὐτόν was regarded as governed by ἀνέπεμψα (comp. Lachm.: ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι , αὐτόν , τουτέστιν τὰ ἐμα σπλάγχνα ).
Phm_1:13. The position of μοι before διακ . (Elz. in reverse order) is decisively attested.
Phm_1:18. The form ἐλλόγα is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in conformity with A C D* ( ἐνλ .) F G à , 17, 31; ἐλλόγει was imported from the familiar passage, Rom_5:13.
Phm_1:20. Instead of Χριστῷ , Elz. has κυρίῳ . Repetition from what precedes, in opposition to decisive evidence.
Phm_1:21. ὑπὲρ ὅ ] Lachm.: ὑπὲρ ἅ , in accordance with A C à , Copt. We have no means of deciding the point.
Phm_1:23. Instead of ἀσπάζεται , Elz. has ἀσπάζονται , which has decisive witnesses against it. An emendation.
CONTENTS.
After the address and apostolic greeting (Phm_1:1-3), there follows a glorious testimony to the Christian character of Philemon (Phm_1:4-7); then the proper object of the Epistle, intercession for Onesimus (Phm_1:8-21); and finally, the bespeaking of a lodging, in the hope of being liberated (Phm_1:22). Salutations and concluding wish, Phm_1:23-25.