Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 3
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_3:9. ΠΡΟΕΧΌΜΕΘΑ ] D* G 31, Syr[725] Erp. Chrys. ms. Theodoret have ΠΡΟΚΑΤΈΧΟΜΕΝ (or ΚΑΤΈΧ .) ΠΕΡΙΣΣῸΝ , and, with several other authorities, omit Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΩς . This ΠΡΟΚΑΤ . ΠΕΡΙΣΣ . is an erroneous gloss; and the omission of Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΩς is explained by its being no longer suitable after the adoption of ΤΊ ΟὖΝ ΠΡΟΚΑΤΈΧΟΜΕΝ ΠΕΡΙΣΣΌΝ ; see Reiche, Comm. crit.
Rom_3:11. In important codices the article is wanting before συνίων and ἘΚΖΗΤῶΝ . But see LXX. Psa_14:2.
Rom_3:22. ΚΑῚ ἘΠῚ ΠΆΝΤΑς ] is wanting in A B C P à *, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Erp. Clem. Or. Cyr. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But when we consider that a gloss on ΕἸς ΠΆΝΤΑς was quite unnecessary, and on the other hand that ΚΑῚ ἘΠῚ ΠΆΝΤΑς was equally unnecessary to complete the sense, we may assume that the twice repeated ΠΆΝΤΑς may have even at a very early date occasioned the omission of ΚΑῚ ἘΠῚ ΠΆΝΤΑς .
Rom_3:25. Τῆς ΠΊΣΤ .] Τῆς is wanting in C* D* F G à , min[726], and several Fathers (A and Chrys. omit the whole διὰ τ . πίστ .). Suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Still the omission of the article might easily occur if the copyist, as was natural, glanced back at ΔΙᾺ ΠΊΣΤ ., Rom_3:22.
Rom_3:26. ΠΡῸς ἜΝΔΕΙΞ .] Following A B C D* P à , min[727], we should read with Lachm. and Tisch. πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξ . The article was passed over in accordance with Rom_3:25.
ἸΗΣΟῦ is wanting in F G 52 It.; and is expanded in other authorities ( ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ἸΗΣΟῦ , or ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ ἩΜ . ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ). Notwithstanding the preponderating testimony in its favour, it is properly deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7. Supplied from looking back to Rom_3:22.
Rom_3:28. ΓΆΡ ] Elz. and Tisch. 7. read ΟὖΝ , against very preponderating testimony, by which also the arrangement ΔΙΚ . ΠΊΣΤ . ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ (Elz.: Π . Δ . Ἄ .) is confirmed. Since according to the different modes of apprehending the connection, the emendation might be ΟὖΝ as well as ΓΆΡ , external attestation only can here be regarded as decisive.
Rom_3:29. The reading ΜΌΝΩΝ (so Tisch. 7. instead of ΜΌΝΟΝ ) is insufficiently attested by B, min[728] and Fathers; and arose easily out of the context.
οὐχὶ καί ] Elz.: ΟὐΧῚ ΔῈ ΚΑΊ , against decisive testimony. The ΔῈ was easily introduced into the text by the contrast, whether the two questions might be taken separately, or together as one.
ἘΠΕΊΠΕΡ ] A B C D** à , min[729], Clem. Or. Cyr. Didym. Damasc.: εἴπερ . Recommended by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may the ἘΠΕΊΠΕΡ , only occurring here in the N. T., and therefore unfamiliar to the copyists, have been exchanged for the familiar ΕἼΠΕΡ !
[723] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[724] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.
[725] yr. Peschito Syriac
[726] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[727] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[728] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[729] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.