Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Php_2:3. ἤ ] Lachm. and Tisch. read, and Griesb. also recommended: ΜΗΔῈ ΚΑΤΆ , following A B C à , min. vss. and Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings Ἢ ΚΑΤΆ , ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤΆ , ΜΗΔῈΝ ΚΑΤΆ .
Php_2:4. Elz. Scholz, have ἝΚΑΣΤΟς in both places, which is defended also by Reiche. But ἝΚΑΣΤΟΙ , which is confirmed by preponderating testimony even before ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T.
Elz. has ΣΚΟΠΕῖΤΕ instead of ΣΚΟΠΟῦΝΤΕς , against decisive testimony.
Php_2:5. ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓΆΡ ] A B C* à *, min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ΤΟῦΤΟ only. But what led to the omission of ΓΆΡ was, that, ΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ being subsequently read, the preceding ἝΚΑΣΤΟΙ was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C à ). Moreover, the commencement of a lesson at ΤΟῦΤΟ favoured the omission.
ΦΡΟΝΕΊΣΘΩ ] The reading ΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ appears to have decisive attestation from the uncials, of which only C*** K L P favour the Recepta φρονείσθω . But it is incredible, if the well-known and very common imperative form φρονεῖτε was the original reading, that it should have been exchanged for the otherwise unusual passive form φρονείσθω , merely for the reason that it was sought to gain a passive form to be supplied with the following words ὁ καὶ ἐν Χ . Ἰ . (where the supplying of ἦν would have been sufficient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek authorities since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and nearly all min, is in favour of φρονείσθω , we must retain it as the original, which has been made to give way to the more current φρονεῖτε . The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following Lachmann.
Php_2:9. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ὄνομα alone instead of τὸ ὄνομα , in opposition to A B C à , 17, and several Fathers. The article has been suppressed by the preceding syllable.
Instead of ἐξομολογήσηται the future ἐξομολογήσεται is decisively attested.
Php_2:13. The article before Θεός (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony.
Php_2:15. γένησθε ] A D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Cypr. have ἤτε . So also Lachm. But the testimony is not decisive, and there is the more reason for defending the Recepta, because ΓΈΝΗΣΘΕ might be more readily glossed by ἬΤΕ than the converse, both in itself, and also here on account of the following ἘΝ ΟἾς ΦΑΊΝΕΣΘΕ Κ . Τ . Λ .
ἈΜΏΜΗΤΑ ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 have ἌΜΩΜΑ , following A B C à , min. Clem. Cyr. But the latter is the prevailing form in the N. T., and readily crept in (comp. var. 2Pe_3:14).
ἘΝ ΜΈΣῼ ] A B C D* F G à , min. Clem. have ΜΈΣΟΝ . Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is explanatory.
Php_2:19. κυρίῳ ] Lachmann reads Χριστῷ , upon too weak authority.
Php_2:21. Elz.: τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ . But τὰ Ἰησοῦ Χ . (Tisch.: τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ) has the preponderance of evidence in its favour.
Php_2:26. After ὑμᾶς , A C D E à *, min. vss. and some later Fathers have ἰδεῖν , which Lachm. places in brackets. To be adopted; because, after Php_1:8, its omission would be very probable, and there is no reason why it should have got in as a gloss here and not at Php_1:8.
Php_2:27. Elz.: ἐπὶ λύπῃ , against decisive testimony in favour of ἐπὶ λύπην .
Php_2:30. τὸ ἔργον του Χριστοῖ ] Tisch. 7 reads τὸ ἔργον merely; following, indeed, only C, but correctly, for the bare τὸ ἔργον appeared to need some defining addition, which was given to it by τοῦ Χριστοῦ or Χριστοῦ (Tisch. 8), or even by κυρίου (A à ).
παραβουλ .] The form παραβολ . has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. See the exegetical remarks.
[84] Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 213, would read τι instead of τινα ; but the former is found only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of a forced explanation (“si qua est vobis,” or “si quid valet”).—The old Latin versions, with their si qua or si quid, leave us uncertain as to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. has; si quis.