Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Romans 4
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rom_4:11. ΠΕΡΙΤΟΜῆς ] Griesb. recommended ΠΕΡΙΤΟΜΉΝ , which however is only attested by A. C*, min[943], Syr[944] utr. Arm. and some Fathers; and on account of the adjoining accusatives very easily slipped in, especially in the position after ἜΛΑΒΕ .
ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΟῖς ] ΚΑῚ is wanting in A B à *, min[945] Ar. pol. Vulg. ms. Orig. in schol. Cyr. Damasc. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8). But after the final syllable NAI the καί , not indispensable for the sense, was very easily overlooked. On the other hand the ground assumed for its addition, by Reiche, that “the copyists would not have the Jews altogether excluded,” cannot be admitted as valid, because in fact the Jews are immediately after, Rom_4:12, expressly included.
The article before ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΝ , which Tisch. (8) has omitted, has preponderant attestation. Its omission is connected with the old reading (A) ΕἸς ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΝ (comp Rom_4:9; Rom_5:3). Rom_4:12. Τῆς ἘΝ Τῇ ἈΚΡΟΒ . ΠΊΣΤ .] The reading Τῆς ΠΊΣΤ . Τῆς ἘΝ Τ . ἈΚΡΟΒ ., recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Scholz, lacks the authority of most and the best uncials, and seems a mechanical alteration after Rom_4:11. The article Τῇ however is, with Tisch. in accordance with decisive testimony, to be deleted, and to be regarded as having been likewise introduced from ver 11 (not as omitted after Rom_4:10, as Fritzsche thinks).
Rom_4:15. ΟὟ ΓΆΡ ] A B C à *, min[947], Copt. Syr. p[948] (in margin), Theodoret, Theophyl. Ambr. Ruf. read ΟὟ ΔΈ . Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. (8). An alteration, occasioned by the contrast on failing to perceive the appropriateness of meaning in the ΓΆΡ .
Rom_4:17. ἘΠΊΣΤΕΥΣΕ ] F G and some vss[949] and Fathers read ἘΠΊΣΤΕΥΣΑς (so Luther). The ΚΑΤΈΝΑΝΤΙ ΟὟ Κ . Τ . Λ [950] was still regarded as belonging to the passage of Scripture.
Rom_4:19. οὐ ] Wanting in A B C à , 67**, 93, 137, Syr[951] Erp. Copt. Chrys. Damasc. Julian. Condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8). But this omission of the οὐ , as well as the very weakly attested ὡς and licet, manifestly arose from incorrectly having regard here to Gen_17:17 (as is done even by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 305 f. and Hofmann). See the exegetical remarks.
ἤδη ] Wanting in B F G 47 et. al[952] and several vss[953] and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. It is to be regarded as an addition, which suggested itself very easily, whereas there would have been no reason for its omission.
[941] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[942] yr. Peschito Syriac
[943] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[944] yr. Peschito Syriac
[945] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[947] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[948] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.
[949] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.
[950] . τ . λ . καὶ τὰ λοιπά .
[951] yr. Peschito Syriac
[952] t. al. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[953] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.