Rom_13:1.
ἀπό
] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 :
ὑπό
, which Griesb. also approved, according to preponderant evidence. But
ἀπό
also retains considerable attestation (D* E* F G, min., Or. Theodoret, Dam.), and may easily have been displaced by a
ὑπό
written on the margin from the following. After
οὖσαι
Elz. has
ἐξουσίαι
, which, according to a preponderance of evidence, has been justly omitted since Griesb. as a supplement; and
τοῦ
also before the following
Θεοῦ
is too feebly attested.
Rom_13:3.
τῷ
ἀγαθῷ
ἔργῳ
,
ἀλλὰ
τῷ
κακῷ
] commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche, according to A B D* F G P
à
, 6. 67**, several VSS., and Fathers. But Elz., Matth., Scholz have
τῶν
ἀγαθῶν
ἔργων
,
ἀλλὰ
τῶν
κακῶν
. A presumed emendation in case and number.
Rom_13:5.
ἀνάγκη
ὑποτάσσεσθαι
] D E F G, Goth. It. Guelph. Ir. have merely
ὑποτάσσεσθε
. Commended by Griesb. A marginal gloss, as the reading
ἀνάγκη
(or
ἀνάγκῃ
)
ὑποτάσσεσθε
(Lect. 7, 8, Aug., Beda, Vulg.: necessitate subditi estote; so Luther) plainly shows.
Rom_13:7.
οὖν
] is wanting in A B D*
à
*, 67**, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. ms. Tol. Damasc. Cypr. Aug. Ruf. Cassiod. Omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche. Rightly; for there was no ground for its omission, whereas by its insertion the logical connection was established.
Rom_13:9. After
κλέψεις
Elz. has
οὐ
ψευδομαρτυρήσεις
, against decisive evidence. Inserted with a view to completeness.
ἐν
τῷ
] bracketed by Lachm., is wanting in BFG, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. But its striking appearance of superfluousness might so readily prompt its omission, that this evidence is too weak.
Rom_13:11. The order
ἤδη
ἡμᾶς
is decisively supported. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Yet the latter has instead of
ἡμᾶς
:
ὑμᾶς
, according to A B C P
à
*, min. Clem., which, however, appeared more suitable to
εἰδότες
and more worthy of the apostle.
Rom_13:12.
καὶ
ἐνδυς
.] Lachm. and Tisch.:
ἐνδυς
.
δέ
, which also Griesb. approved, according to important witnesses; but it would be very readily suggested by the preceding adversative connection.