Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The simplest and most ancient superscription is: πρὸς Ῥωμαίους , in A B C à .
CHAPTER 1
In Rom_1:7 ἐν Ῥώμῃ , and in Rom_1:15 τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ , are wanting in G. Börn.; and on Rom_1:7 the scholiast of cod. 47 remarks: τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει , οὔτε ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ μνημονεύει (who? probably the codex, which lay before the copyist). This quite isolated omission is of no critical weight; and is in no case to be explained by the very unnatural conjecture (of Reiche) that Paul in several Epistles (especially in that to the Ephesians) addressed the readers simply as Christians, and that then the place of residence was inserted by the copyists in accordance with the context or with tradition. In Rom_1:7 the omission might be explained by the reading ἐν ἀγάπῃ , which G and a few other authorities give instead of ἀγαπητοῖς ; but, since τοῖς ἐν Ῥ . is wanting in Rom_1:15 also, another unknown reason must have existed for this. Perhaps some church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public reading, may have, for their own particular church-use, deleted the extraneous designation of place, and thus individual codices may have passed into circulation without it. Rückert’s conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies without the local address to be sent to other churches, assumes a mechanical arrangement in apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and which seems even opposed by Col_4:16.
Rom_1:8. ὑπέρ ] A B C D* K, à , min[264], Dam. read περί , which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted: justly, on account of the preponderant attestation, since both prepositions, though ὑπέρ less frequently (Eph_1:16; Php_1:4), were used for the expression of the thought (in opposition to Fritzsche).
Rom_1:13. The less usual construction τινὰ καρπόν (Elz. κ . τ .) is established by decisive testimony; as also ὁ Θεὸς γάρ (Elz. ὁ . γ . Θ .) in Rom_1:19; and δὲ καί (Elz. τὲ καί ) in Rom_1:27, although not on equally strong authority.
Instead of οὐ θέλω in Rom_1:13, D* E G, It. and Ambrosiaster read οὐκ οἴομαι . Defended by Rinck. But the very assurance already expressed in Rom_1:10-11 might easily cause the οὐ θέλω to seem unsuitable here, if due account was not taken of the new element in the progress of the discourse contained in προεθέμην .
After εὐαγγ . in Rom_1:16 τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Elz.) is omitted on decisive authority; πρῶτον , however, which Lachmann has bracketed, ought not to be rejected on the inadequate adverse testimony of B G, Tert. as it might seem objectionable along with πιστεύοντι (not so in Rom_2:9 f.).
Rom_1:24. The καί is indeed wanting after διό in A B C à , min[265], Vulg. Or. al[266]; but it was very easily passed over as superfluous; comp Rom_1:26; Rom_2:1. Nevertheless Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have deleted it.
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἐν αὐτοις , following A B C D* à , min[268] But how frequently was the reflexive form neglected by the copyists. It occurred also in Rom_1:27 (B K).
Rom_1:27. ἄῤῥενες ] B D* G, 73, Or. Eus. Oec. read ἄρσενες . Adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche and Tisch. (7). Since two different forms cannot be supposed to have been used in the same verse, and in that which follows ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι is undoubtedly the true reading (only A* à , min[269], and some Fathers reading uniformly ἄῤῥ . ἐν ἄῤῥ .), we must here adopt the form ἄρσενες almost invariably used in the N. T. (only the Apocal. has ἄῤῥ .).
Rom_1:29. πορνείᾳ ] wanting after ἀδικ . in A B C K à , min[270], and several vss[271] and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Fritzsche, and Tisch., and rightly so; it is an interpolation introduced by those who did not perceive that the naming of this vice was not again appropriate here. It was written in the margin, and introduced at different places (for we find it after πονηρίᾳ also, and even after κακίᾳ ), so that it in some instances even supplanted πονηρίᾳ .
The placing of κακίᾳ immediately after ἀδικίᾳ (Lachm. on weak authority), or according to A à , Syr[272], after πονηρίᾳ (Tisch. 8), is explained by the aggregation of terms of a similar kind.
Rom_1:31. After ἀστόργους Elz. and Scholz read ἀσπόνδους , which Mill condemned, and Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted. It is wanting in A B D* E G and à *, Copt. Clar. Germ. Boern. and several Fathers. It is found before ἀστόργ . in 17, 76, Theophyl. Taken from 2Ti_3:3.
Rom_1:32. After ἐπιγνόντες , D E Bas. read οὐκ ἐνόησαν , and G, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν . That death is the wages of sin—this Christian doctrinal proposition seemed not at all to correspond with the natural knowledge of the Gentiles.
Instead of ΑὐΤᾺ ΠΟΙΟῦΣΙΝ , ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΣΥΝΕΥΔΟΚΟῦΣΙ B reads ΑὐΤᾺ ΠΟΙΟῦΝΤΕς , ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΣΥΝΕΥΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ; so Lachm. in margin. This arose from the fact, that ΕἸΣΊΝ was erroneously taken for the chief verb in the sentence; or else it was a consequence of the introduction of ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩΣΑΝ , which in other witnesses led to the insertion of ΓΆΡ or ΔῈ after Οὐ ΜΌΝΟΝ .
[264] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[265] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[266] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[268] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[269] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[270] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[271] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.
[272] yr. Peschito Syriac