Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 12
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Joh_12:2. ἀνακ . σὺν αὐτῷ ] Elz.: συνανακ . αὐτῷ , against decisive testimonies.
Joh_12:4. Instead of Ἰούδ . Σίμ . Ἰσκαρ ., Tisch. has merely Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαρ ., and that before εἷς , according to B. L. à . Cursives, Verss., where, however, the position before εἷς is not so strongly supported. Σίμωνος was, after Joh_6:71, Joh_13:2; Joh_13:26, readily added.
Joh_12:6. εἶχεν καί ] B. D. L. Q. à . Cursives, Copt. Vulg. Or.: ἔχων . A correction of the style.
Joh_12:7. εἰς τ . ἡμέρ . τ . ἐνταφ . μ . τετήρ .] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἵνα εἰς τ . ἡμέρ . τ . ἐνταφ . μου τηρήση , after decisive testimonies. Not being understood, the words were altered according to the thought in the parallel passages, especially Mar_14:8.
Joh_12:8 is entirely wanting in D., and, had the counter testimony been stronger, would have been liable to the suspicion of having been interpolated from Mat_26:11, Mar_14:7, if it stood before ἄφες , κ . τ . λ ., and occupied the characteristic position of words as in the Synoptics ( πάντοτε first).
Joh_12:13. ἐκραζον ] Lachm. and Tisch., ἐκραύγαζον , after preponderating evidence. The Rcc. is from Matt. and Mark.
Joh_12:15. θύγατερ ] θυγάτηρ (Lachm., Tisch.) is so decisively supported, that the vocative—which of itself might easily find its way into the text—must be traced to the LXX., Zec_9:9.
Joh_12:17. ὅτι ] The witnesses are much divided between ὅτι and ὅτε (Tisch.); but the latter (A. B. Q. à .) is the more strongly attested. Nevertheless ὅτι , which Lachm. also has, is to be preferred; it was changed into ὅτε , because mechanically referred to the preceding ὁ ἂν μετʼ αὐτοῦ .
Joh_12:22. καὶ πάλιν ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἔρχεται , and then before λέγουσιν : καί , according to A. B. L. Cursives, Codd. d. It. Aeth. Rightly. The more closely defining κ . πάλιν was added to the repeated ἔρχεται (so à ); and as this had at a later time displaced the verb, the καί before λέγουσιν also disappeared, as a disturbing element. Had the verb been written as a gloss, ἔρχονται would have been found.
Joh_12:25. Instead of ἀπολέσει , read with Tisch. ἀπολλύει , according to B. L. à ., etc. The future was introduced through the parallelism.
Joh_12:26. ἐάν τις ] Elz.: καὶ ἐάν τις , against such weighty testimony, that καί was already rightly deleted by Griesb.
Joh_12:30. The position of ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη (Lachm., Tisch.) is decisively accredited.
Joh_12:31. The first τούτου is wanting in witnesses of too weak authority to cause its rejection (Griesb.).
Joh_12:35. ἐν ὑμῖν ] Elz.: μεθʼ ὑμῶν , against preponderating testimonies. An interpretation.
Joh_12:35-36. Instead of ἕως , Lachm. and Tisch. have both times ὡς , after decisive testimony. The first ἕως arose through the final letter of the preceding περιπατεῖτε , and the more readily, as a reminiscence of Joh_9:4 suggested itself. The second ἕως then followed of itself, but has, besides, some other testimonies (including à .) than the first.
Joh_12:40. ἐπιστραφ .] Lachm. and Tisch.: στραφ ., according to B. D. à . 33. The compound form is from the LXX., Isa_6:10 (hence also many witnesses have ἐπιστρέψωσιν ). On the other hand, ἰάσομαι (so Lachm. and Tisch.) instead of ἰάσωμαι is so decisively supported by almost all the Uncials, that it is not to be traced to the LXX., but the conjunctive is to be regarded as an attempt to conform to what precedes.
Joh_12:41. ὅτε ] Lachm. and Tisch., after decisive testimony: ὅτι , which, not being understood, was altered.
Joh_12:47. καὶ μὴ πιστεύσῃ ] Lachm. and Tisch.: κ . μ . φυλάξῃ , according to preponderating testimonies, and rightly; for πιστ . has manifestly arisen from the preceding (Joh_12:44; Joh_12:46). The omission of the μή in D. and Codd. of the It. is to be explained from the apparent paradox.