Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 15
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Joh_15:6. τὸ πῦρ ] Elz. Lachm. have merely πῦρ , against preponderating testimony. In the passages of similar meaning, Mat_3:10; Mat_7:19, Luk_3:9, there is likewise no article found, which, consequently, was more readily omitted than added.
Joh_15:7. αἰτήσεσθε ] A. B. D. L. M. X. Curss. Verss. Chrys.: αἰτήσεσθε . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. This preponderant attestation, the reference of the word to the fut., and the immediate proximity of the future tense, decide in favour of the genuineness of the aorist.
Joh_15:8. γενήσεσθε ] Rinck and Lachm.: γένησθε . The witnesses are greatly divided. But the conjunctive is a correction after φέρητε .
Joh_15:11. μείνῃ ] A. B. D. Curss. Vulg. It. et al.: ᾖ . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rightly; after the previous frequent recurrence of the verb μένω , μείνῃ very readily and involuntarily arose here out of the last syllable of ΥΜΙΝ and the following ᾖ .
Joh_15:13. The deletion of τις (Tisch.) is too weakly supported. It came to be passed over as being superfluous.
Joh_15:14. ὅσα ] D. L. X. à .: ἅ . So Lachm. Tisch. The singular ὅ is found in B. Codd. of It. Goth. Aeth. Cypr. Lucif. The witnesses alone are decisive, and that for the plural, more precisely for ἅ .
Joh_15:15. The order λέγω ὑμᾶς (Lachm. Tisch.) is accredited by preponderating evidence.
Joh_15:21. ὑμῖν ] Lachm. and Tisch.: εἰς ὑμᾶς , after B. D.* L. à .** 1, 33, Verss. Chrys. Rightly; the more current and customary dative flowed of itself from the copyists’ pens, as it was also added in Joh_16:3.
Joh_15:22. εἶχον ] Here and in Joh_15:24 Lachm. and Tisch. have the Alexandrine form εἴχοσαν , according to B. L. Π .** à . 1, 33, Or. Cyr. Not to be adopted, since this form is certainly found only in Rom_3:13, in a citation from the O. T. ( ἐδολιοῦσαν ), while here the evidence is not sufficiently strong (not found even in A.). Buttmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 491 f., supposes that εἴχοσαν arose from the original εἶχον ἄν . Yet of ἄν no further trace is found in the critical witnesses, and its (rhetorical) omission (see Buttmann, l.c. p. 489) is quite free from doubt.
Joh_15:24. πεποίηκεν ] A. B. D. J. K L. X. Π . à . Curss. Chrys.: ἐποίησεν . So Lachm. Tisch. The testimony in favour of this rendering is decisive.