Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_2:8. μέν after ἀπειθ . is wanting in B D* G à *, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), but was easily passed over from inattention as seeming superfluous.
The order ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (thus also Lachm. and Tisch.) is decisively attested.
Rom_2:13. The article before νόμου , which Elz. and Fritzsche read both times, but which Lachm. and Tisch. both times omit, is wanting in A B D E (which however has it in the first case) G à , 31, 46, Damasc.; and betrays itself in the general form of the saying as inserted in order to denote the Mosaic law.
Rom_2:14. ποιῇ ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ποιῶσιν , following A B à , min[576], Clem. Or. Damasc. (D* G have ποιοῦσιν ). The plural is an amendment suggested by the context.
Rom_2:16. Instead of ὅτε Lachm. following A and some Fathers, has ᾗ .; an interpretation; as is also ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ in B.
Rom_2:17. εἰ δέ ] The too weakly attested Recept[577] ἴδε or ἰδέ is either a mere copyist’s error, or an alteration to get rid of the supposed anakoluthon. See Reiche, Comm. crit.
[574] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[575] Defended also by Philippi and Reiche, Comm. crit., who thinks that the κιά has been rejected on account of ἀποκαλ . appearing not to receive more precise definition. See on the other hand van Hengel.
[576] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[577] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).