Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 13
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Joh_13:2. γενομένου ] B. L. X. à . Cant. Or.: γινομένου (but Or. has once γενομ .). So Tisch. The aorist was introduced through the non-observance of the point of time, as being the more current form in the narrative.
Ἰούδα Σίμ . Ἰσκ ., ἵνα αὐτὸν παραδῷ ] B. L. M. X. à . Copt. Arm. Vulg. Codd. It. Or.: ἵνα παραδῷ αὐτὸν Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης . So Lachm. on the margin, and Tisch. (both, however, reading παραδοῖ , according to B. D.* à . only). This reading, considering the important witnesses by which it is attested, is the more to be preferred, as it was very early misunderstood, because it was supposed that the seduction of Judas by the devil was here related (so already Origen). The Recepta is an alteration in consequence of this misunderstanding. The conjunctive form παραδοῖ , however, remains generally doubtful in the N. T.
Joh_13:3. ὁ Ἰησοῦς ] is wanting in B. D. L. X. Cursives, Vulg. It. Or. Bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch. It was mechanically repeated from Joh_13:1.
Joh_13:10. The position of the words οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν is decisively attested.
Instead of ἤ , important witnesses have εἰ μή (so Lachm.), which, however, is an attempt at explanation or correction. Tisch. has deleted ἢ τ πόδας , but only after à . Or. one Cod. of It. and Vulg. mss. An old omission, occasioned by the following καθαρ ὅλος .
Joh_13:12. ἀναπεσών ] Lachm.: καὶ ἀναπ . according to A. L. Verss. Chrys. In favour of καί , witness also B. C.* à . Or., which have καί ἀνέπεσεν (so Tisch.). The καί before ἔγαβ . is omitted by Lachm. after A. L. Verss. Since καί before ἀναπ . is in any case decisively accredited; since, further, the witnesses for ἀνέπεσεν are more important than for ἀναπεσών ; and since, had ἀναπεσών been the original reading, it would not have been resolved into καὶ ἀνέπεσεν , but into ἀνέπεσεν καί ,—we must read with Tisch. καὶ ἀνέπεσεν , so that the apodosis first begins with εἶπεν . This was not observed, and it was made to commence either after πόδας . αὐτῶν (thus arose the reading in Lachm.), or after ἱμάτ αὐτοῦ (hence the Recepta).
Joh_13:22. οὖν ] is wanting in B. C. and certain Verss.; deleted by Tisch. Was easily passed over after the last syllable of ἔβλεπον .
Joh_13:23. ἐκ τῶν (Elz.: τῶν ) is decisively attested.
Joh_13:24. πυθέσαι , τἰς ἄν εἴη ] B. C. L. X. 33. Aeth. 13 :Rd. Vulg. Or.: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ · εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν . So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly: the Recepta is added, as a gloss, after what John does in Joh_13:25. à . has the gloss alongside of the original reading in the text.
Joh_13:25. ἐπιπεσών ] B. C.* K. L. X. Π .* à .** Cursives, Or.: ἀναπεσών (so Lachm.). But ἐπιπίπτειν does not occur elsewhere in John; and how readily would the familiar expression of lying at table suggest itself to mechanical copyists!
Instead of οὖν , Elz. and Lachm. have δέ . Witnesses are much divided. Originally, no particle at all appears to have been found; so B. C. Or. Griesb.
After ἐχεῖνος , important witnesses (including B. C. L.) have οὕτως , which, however, although defended by Ewald, very readily arose from οὗτος , which was added to ἐκεῖνος in explanation, as it is still found in K. S. U. Λ .
Joh_13:26. βάψας τὸ ψωμίον ἑπιδώσω ] Tisch.: βάψω τ . ψ . καἱ δώσω αὐτῷ , after B. C. L. Copt. Aeth. Or. But ἐπιδιδόναι , which is not elsewhere found in John, does not betray the hand of an interpreter, and therefore the reading of Tisch. is rather to be considered as the usual resolution of the participle, with neglect of the compound.
Instead of βάψας , as above, Lachm. has ἐμβάψ ., following A. D. K. Π . Theodoret. Although these witnesses form the preponderance among those which read the participle, yet ἐμβάψ . might be very readily introduced from the parallels, Mat_26:23, Mar_14:20; and for the originality of the simple form, the weighty witnesses (B. C. L. etc.) who have βάψω (not ἐμβάψω ) are accordingly all the more to be taken into account. Therefore, too, below, instead of καὶ ἐμβάψας (so also Lachm.), with B. C. L. X. à . 33. Or. Cyr., βάψας οὖν (so Tisch.) ought to be read (D. has καὶ βάψας ).
After ψωμίον , Tisch. has, moreover, λαμβάνει καί , following B. C. L. M. X. à .** Aeth. Or. Rightly: it was, through misapprehension, omitted as irrelevant.
Instead of Ἰσκαριώτῃ , Lachm. should consistently, following B. C. L. M. X. à . Cursives, Codd. It. Or., here also (see on Joh_6:71) have read Ἰσκαριώτου (as Tisch. has).
Joh_13:30. Instead of εὐθέως ἐξῆλθ ., read with Lachm. and Tisch. ἐξῆλθ . εὐθύς .
Joh_13:31. After ὄτε , Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. have οὗν ; rightly, since B. C. D. L. X. à . Cursives, Verss. Or. Cyr., turn the scale in favour of οὖν , while the omission (Griesb. Scholz) was the more readily suggested, as there was an inclination to begin the new sentence with ἦν δὲ νύξ .
Joh_13:32. εἰ ὁ θ . ἐδοξ . ἑν αὐτῷ ] is rejected by Scholz as “inepta iteratio,” and bracketed by Lachm. The words are wanting in B. C.* D. L. X. π . à .* Cursives, Verss. Tert. Ambr. But the very repetition and the homoeoteleuton would so readily occasion the omission, that these adverse witnesses cannot overthrow the reading.
Joh_13:33. The order ἐγὼ ὑπάγω (Lachm. Tisch.) is too decisively attested to admit of its being derived from Joh_8:21.
Joh_13:36. The order ἀκολ . δἐ ὕστερον (without μοι ) is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch; so also in Joh_13:38, ἀποκρίνεται (instead of ἀπεκρίθη ).
Joh_13:38. The form φωνήσῃ (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively accredited; and instead of ἀπαρνήσῃ , ἀρνήσῃ is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B. D. L. X. 1. Or., to be read, in place of which the compound was introduced from Mat_26:34 and the parallel passages.