Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 14
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Joh_14:3. καί before ἑτοιμ . is wanting in A. E. G. H. K. Δ . Curss., some Verss., Phot. Deleted by Matth. and Lachm. D. M. Curss. Syr. Cant. Theophyl. Euth.: ἑτοιμάσαι . This mechanical repetition from what precedes was the cause of the omission of the καί , which, however, is still very strongly attested by B. C. L. N. U. X. Λ . à . Vulg. It. and important witnesses.
Joh_14:4. οἴδατε , καὶ τ . ὁδὸν οἴδατε ] B. C.* L. Q. X. à . 157, Copt. Aeth. Pers. p. Verc. have merely οἴδατε τ . ὁδόν . So Tisch., whilst Lachm. only brackets the καί and the second οἴδατε . The Recepta is an explanatory expansion; against it Joh_14:5 also witnesses.
Joh_14:5. δυνάμεθα τ . ὁδὸν εἰδέναι ] Lachm. and Tisch.: οἴδαμεν τὴν ὁδόν , according to B. C.* D. Codd. It. Cyr. Tert., among which, however, a few (including D.) have τ . ὁδ . οἴδ . The Recepta is an explanatory expansion. Joh_14:7. ἐγνώκειτε ἄν ] B. C.* L. Q. X. Curss. Cyr. Ath.: ἂν ᾔδειτε , or (X.) ᾔδ . ἄν . From Joh_8:19.
Joh_14:9. τοσοῦτον χρόνον ] Lachm. Tisch.: τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ , according to D. L. Q. à . Cyr. The accusative is an unnecessary gloss.
Joh_14:10. αὐτὸς ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα ] Tisch.: ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ , according to B. D. à . Rightly. The αὐτός , added in explanation, dislodged the αὐτοῦ , and that in such a way that it took its place (L. X.) in some instances, in others was placed before the verb.
Joh_14:11. After ἐμοί Elz. has ἐστίν . A supplementary addition against decisive testimony.
μοι at the end is rejected by Schulz, deleted by Tisch. It suggests the suspicion of being a mechanical repetition; besides, the omitting witnesses (amongst them Codd. D. L. à . 33) are sufficiently strong.
Joh_14:12. μου ] is, according to preponderating evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted.
Joh_14:14 is entirely wanting in X. Λ . Curss., some Verss. Chrys. Nonnus; witnesses, however, which are too weak to permit us, with Rinck, to condemn it, especially since, on account of the similar beginning in Joh_14:14; Joh_14:16, and considering its superfluous character, it might very easily be passed over.
Joh_14:15. τηρήσατε ] Tisch.: τηρήσετε , according to B. L. à . (?) Curss. Euseb. But the future readily arose from the entire surrounding.
Joh_14:16. μένῃ ] B. L. Q. X. à . Codd. It. Goth. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers have ᾖ . So Lachm. (but, with B., after αἰῶνα ) and Tisch. Rightly; μενῃ is a more closely-defining gloss from Joh_14:17.
Joh_14:17. ἔσται ] Lachm.: ἐστίν , according to B. D.* Curss. Verss. Lucif. According as MENEI was taken as present (E. G. K. M. U. X. Λ .) or as future (Vulg.), ἐστίν or ἔσται may be written after it; hence it is only the preponderance of witnesses which decides, and this is in favour of the future.
Joh_14:20. Since the first ὑμεῖς stands in some of the witnesses after, in some before, γνώσ . (so, only bracketed in Lachm.), while in some it is entirely wanting (A. Verss. Fathers), it must be regarded as an addition.
Joh_14:22. Instead of καὶ τί , Elz. and Lachm. have merely τί , in accordance with preponderating evidence. But καί (which à . also has) might be readily passed over by clumsy copyists, especially, too, as the preceding κύριε might occasion its being overlooked.
Joh_14:23. ποιήσομεν ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ποιησόμεθα , in accordance with important witnesses (D. also with ἐλεύσομαι κ . ποιήσομαι declares for the middle voice). Rightly; the middle, which John uses nowhere else, was unfamiliar to the copyists.
Joh_14:28. ἠγαπᾶτε ] D.* H. L. and a few Curss.: ἀγαπᾶτε , to which Buttmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 481 f., gives the preference. Too weakly attested; and how easily would a stumbling-block be found in the imperf., as denying love to the disciples!
Between ὅτι and πορεύομαι Elz. has εἶπον , against decisive witnesses. An interpolation in conformity with the preceding.