Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 10
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Joh_10:4. τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα ] Lachm. and Tisch.: τὰ ἴδια πάντα , after B. D. L. X. à .** Cursives, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Lucif. Cant. πάντα , after the preceding occurrence of the word, passed mechanically over into πρόβατα .
Joh_10:5. ἀκολουθήσωσιν ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἀκολουθήσουσιν , after preponderating testimony; the Indicat. was displaced by the usual conjunct.
Joh_10:8. πάντες ] is omitted in D. Cant. 10 :Foss. Didym., and πρὸ ἐμοῦ is absent from E. F. G. M. S. U. Δ . à .* Cursives, Verss. the Fathers. The omission of πάντες is to be explained from its being superfluous; and that of πρὸ ἐμοῦ , which Tisch. has deleted, from the Gnostic and Manichaean misuse of the passage in opposition to the Old Testament.
The place of πρὸ ἐμοῦ after ἦλθον is decisively attested (Elz., Scholz.: before ἦλθον ).
Instead of τίθησιν , Joh_10:11, διδωσιν (Tisch.) is too feebly attested. So also δίδωμι , Joh_10:15.
Joh_10:12. τὰ πρόβατα after σκορπ . is wanting in B. D. L. à . Cursives, Verss. Lucif.; bracketed by Lachm. and suppressed by Tisch. But why should it have been added? Appearing as it would altogether superfluous, it might easily be passed over.
Joh_10:13. ὁ δὲ μισθωτ . φεύγει ] wanting in B. D. L. à . Cursives, Verss. Lucif.; bracketed by Lachm., rejected even by Rinck, and deleted by Tisch. But how easily might the eye of a copyist pass at once from ὁ δὲ μισθ . to ὅτι μισθ ., so that ὁ δὲ μισθ . φεύγει was omitted. This explanation is suggested further by A.*, which omits μισθ . φεύγει ὅτι .
Joh_10:14. γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν ] B. D. L. à ., most of the Verss. Cyr. Epiph. Nonn.: γινώσκουσίν με τὰ ἐμά . Recommended by Griesbach, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. This active turn is a transformation in harmony with the following verse, in which also there is no passive expression.
Joh_10:16. The position δεῖ με (Lachm. and Tisch.) is strongly supported, but would easily suggest itself as the more usual instead of με δεῖ .
γενήσεται ] B.D.L.X. and some Verss.: γενήσονται . Mechanically introduced after the preceding plural form.
Joh_10:18. αἴρει ] Tisch.: ἦρεν , only after B. à .*
Joh_10:26. Instead of οὐ γάρ we must read, with Tisch., ὅτι οὐκ , after B. D. L. X. à . Curss. Or. Cyr. Chrys.
καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν ] wanting in B. K. L. M.* à . Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. The apparent incongruity caused the omission.
Joh_10:29. ὅς δέδωκε ] D.: ὁ δεδωκώς . A stylistic alteration. B. L. à .* Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Goth. Tert. Hil.: ὅ δέδωκεν . A. B. X. It. Vulg. read μεῖζον afterwards. The latter is to be regarded as original, and because the neuter was not understood relatively to ὁ πατήρ as the source of the alteration, ὅ δέδωκεν
Joh_10:33. λέγοντες ] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., after preponderating testimony, to be deleted.
Joh_10:38. πιστεύητε ] Tisch.: πιστεύετε , after inadequate evidence for this irregularity, especially as πιστεύετε precedes and follows; for instead of the following πιστεύσατε , decisive evidence renders it necessary, with Tisch., to read πιστεύετε .
ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἵνα γνῶτε κ . γινώσκητε , after B. L. X. Curss. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Aeth. and some Fathers. Correctly; not being understood after γνῶτε , γινώσκ . was altered into πιστεύσ .
αὐτῷ ] B. D. L. X. à . Curss. and most of the Verss., also Or. Athan. and others, have τῷ πατρί . Recommended by Griesbach, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. With such decided witnesses in its favour, justly; for the emphasis lying in the repetition of the word might easily escape the copyists.
Joh_10:42. ἐκεῖ ] Decisive evidence assigns it its place after αὐτόν . So also Lachm. and Tisch.