Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 18
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Joh_18:4. ἐξελθὼν εἶπεν ] B. C.* D. Curss. Verss. Or. Syr. Chrys. Aug.: ἐξῆλθεν καὶ λέγει . So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is an alteration after Joh_18:1, which was made, because what was intended by ἐξῆλθεν was not distinguished from that expressed by it in Joh_18:1.
Joh_18:6. ὅτι ] which, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., has very important witnesses for and against it; yet how readily would it come to be omitted after Joh_18:5!
Joh_18:10. ὠτίον ] Tisch.: ὠτάριον , after B. C.* L. X. à ., which (comp. also on Mar_14:47) is all the more to be preferred, that the better known ὠτίον is found in Matt.
Joh_18:11. After μάχαιρ . Elz. has σου , against decisive witnesses, from Mat_26:52.
Joh_18:13. αὐτόν ] has against it witnesses of such importance, that Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. deleted it. But, unnecessary in itself, how readily might it be passed over after the similar final sound of the preceding word!
Joh_18:14. ἀπολέσθαι ] Lachm. Tisch.: ἀποθανεῖν . The witnesses are very much divided. ἀποθ . is from Joh_11:50.
Joh_18:15. ἄλλος ] Elz. Griesb. Scholz, Tisch.: ὁ ἄλλος . The article is wanting in A. B. D. à . Curss., but retains, notwithstanding, a great weight of testimony, and might readily come to be omitted, since it appeared to have no reference here.
Joh_18:20. Instead of the first ἐλάλησα , λελάληκα (Lachm. Tisch.) is so decisively attested, that the Aor. appears to have been introduced in conformity with the following aorists.
The article before συναγ is decidedly condemned by the evidence (against Elz.).
Instead of the second πάντοτε , Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have πάντες , which is to be preferred, on account of preponderant testimony, and because πάντοτε might readily be mechanically repeated from the preceding πάντοτε ; πάντοθεν (Elz.) rests on conjecture (Beza) and Curss.
Joh_18:21. ἐπερωτ .; ἐπερώτ .] The simple forms (Lachm. Tisch.) are preponderantly attested. The compound forms were readily introduced through the concurrence of the two E’s ( μΕΕρωτ .), in recollection of Joh_18:7.
Joh_18:22. Read with Lachm. Tisch., according to B. à . It. Vulg. Cyr. εἷς παρεστ τῶν ὑπ . Various transpositions in the Codd.
Joh_18:24. After ἀπέστ ., Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have οὖν , which has important witnesses for and against it. Since, however, other Codd. read δέ , and several Verss. express καί , any particle is to he regarded as a later connective addition.
The same various connective particles are found inserted in Codd. and Verss., after ἠρνήσατο , Joh_18:25.
Joh_18:28. πρωΐ ] Elz. Scholz: πρωΐα , against decisive testimony. But how readily might the quite unnecessary ἵνα disappear!
Joh_18:29. After Πιλάτος Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔξω (B. C.* L. X. à . Curss. Verss.), which other witnesses first place after αὐτούς . This different position, and the importance of the omitting witnesses, show it to be an interpolation, with a view to greater definiteness of designation.
κατά ] is deleted by Tisch., according to B. à .* alone. Being unnecessary, it was passed over.
Joh_18:34. αὐτῷ after ἀπεκρ . in Elz. is decisively condemned by the witnesses.
Joh_18:37. ἐγώ . ʼΕγώ ] The omission of one ἐγώ (Lachm. has bracketed the second, Tisch. has deleted the first) is not sufficiently justified by B. D. L. Y. à . Curss. Verss. Fathers, since the omission was so readily suggested in copying, if the weight of the repeated ἐγώ was not observed.