Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 1
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary: B. à . have merely κατὰ Ἰωάνν . Others: τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάνν . ( ἅγιον ) εὐαγγ . Others: ἐκ τοῦ κ . Ἰωάνν . Others: εὐαγγ . ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάνν . See on Matthew.
Joh_1:16. καὶ ἐκ ] B. C* D. L. X. à . 33. Copt. Aeth. Arm. 1 Verc. Corb. Or. and many Fathers and Schol.: ὅτι ἐκ . So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.; ὅτι is to be preferred on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, and because Joh_1:16 was very early (Heracl. and Origen) regarded as a continuation of the Baptist’s discourse, and the directly continuous καὶ naturally suggested itself, and was inserted instead of the less simple ὅτι .
Joh_1:18. νἱός ] B. C.* L. à . 33. Copt. Syr. Aeth. and many Fathers: θεός . Dogmatic gloss in imitation of Joh_1:1, whereby not only υἱός , but the article before μονογ . (which Tisch. deletes), was also (in the Codd. named) suppressed. The omission of υἱός (Origen, Opp. IV. 102; Ambrose, ep. 10) is not sufficiently supported, and might easily have been occasioned by Joh_1:14.
Joh_1:19. After ἀπέστειλαν , B. C.* Min. Chrys. and Verss. have πρὸς αὐτόν . So Lachm., an addition which other Codd. and Verss. insert after Λευΐτας .
Joh_1:20. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ ] A. B. C.* L. X. Δ . à . 33. Verss. and Fathers have: ἐγὼ οὔκ εἰμι . So Lachm., Tisch. Rightly, on account of the preponderating evidence. Comp. Joh_3:28, where οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ is attested by decisive evidence.
Joh_1:22. The οὖν after εἶπον (Lachm. Tisch. read εἶπαν ) is deleted by Lachm., following B. C. Syr.cu,—testimonies which are all the less adequate, considering how easily the οὖν , which is not in itself necessary, might have been overlooked after the final syllable of εἶπον .[60]
Joh_1:24. The article before ἀπεσταλμ . is wanting in A.* B. C.* L. à .* Origen (once), Nonn. Perhaps a mere omission on the part of the transcriber, if ἀπεστ . ἦσαν were taken together; but perhaps intentional, for some (Origen and Nonn.) have here supposed a second deputation. The omission is therefore doubly suspicious, though Tisch. also now omits the art.
Joh_1:25. Instead of the repeated οὔτε , we must, with Lachm., Tisch., following A. B. C. L. X. à . Min. Origen, read οὐδέ .
Joh_1:26. δέ after μέσος must, with Tisch., on weighty testimony (B. C. L. à . etc.), be deleted, having been added as a connecting particle.
Joh_1:27. Against the words αὐτός ἐστιν (for which G. Min. Chrys. read οὗτός ἐστιν ) and ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν the testimonies are so ancient, important, and unanimous, that they must be rejected together. Lachm. has bracketed them, Tisch. deletes them. αὐτός ἐστιν is an unnecessary aid to the construction, and ὃς ἔμπρ . μου γέγονεν (though defended by Ewald) is a completion borrowed from Joh_1:15; Joh_1:30.
Joh_1:28. Βηθανίᾳ .] Elz.: Βηθαβαρᾷ (adopted of late by Hengstenberg), against conclusive testimony, but following Syr.cu and Origen (Opp. II. 130), who himself avows that ΣΧΕΔῸΝ ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙ ΤΟῖς ἈΝΤΙΓΡΆΦΟΙς is found ΒΗΘΑΝΊᾼ , yet upon geographical grounds decides in favour of ΒΗΘΑΒΑΡᾷ ,—a consideration by which criticism cannot be bound. See the exegetical notes.
Joh_1:29. After ΒΛΈΠΕΙ Elz. has Ὁ ἸΩΆΝΝ ., against the best testimonies. Beginning of a church lesson.
Joh_1:32. Ὡς ] Elz.: ὩΣΕΊ , against the oldest and most numerous Codd. See Mat_3:16; Luk_3:22.
Joh_1:37. ἬΚΟΥΣ . ΑὐΤΟῦ ] Tisch., following B. à ., puts ΑὐΤΟῦ after ΜΑΘΗΤ .; C.* L. X. T.b have it after ΔΎΟ . The Verss. also have this variation of position, which must, however, be regarded as the removal of the ΑὐΤΟῦ , made more or less mechanically, in imitation of Joh_1:35.
Joh_1:40. ἼΔΕΤΕ ] B. C.* L. T.b Min. Syr. utr. Origen, Tisch.: ὌΨΕΣΘΕ . Correctly; the words which immediately follow and Joh_1:47 (comp. Joh_11:34) make it much more likely that the transcriber would write ἼΔΕΤΕ for ὌΨΕΣΘΕ , than vice versa. After ὥρα Elz. has δέ , against which are the weightiest witnesses, and which has been interpolated as a connecting link.
Joh_1:43. Ἰωνᾶ ] Lachm.: Ἰωάνου , after B.; the same variation in Joh_21:15-17. We must, with Tisch., after B.* L. à . 33, read Ἰωάννου . Comp. Nonnus: υἱὸς Ἰωάνναο . The Textus Receptus has arisen from Mat_16:17.
Joh_1:44. After ἠθέλησεν Elz. has ὁ Ἰησοῦς , which the best authorities place after αὐτῷ . Beginning of a church lesson.
Joh_1:51. ἀπάρτι ] wanting in B. L. à . Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. and some Fathers, also in Origen. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Omitted, because it seemed inappropriate to the following words, which were taken to refer to actual angelic appearances.
[60] Matthaei, ed. min. ad x. 39, well says: “In nullo libro scribae ita vexarunt particulas καί , δέ , οὖν , πάλιν … quam in hoc evangelio. Modo temere incul carunt, modo permutarunt, modo omiserunt, modo transposuerunt. Accedunt interpretes, qui cum demum locum aliquem tractant, illas particulas in principio modo addunt, modo omittunt.”