Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 19
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
ἐδίδουν ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐδίδοσαν . But see on Joh_15:22.
Joh_19:4. Elz. Scholz: ἐξῆλθεν οὖν . Lachm.: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν . The witnesses are very much divided, but there is preponderant testimony in favour of καὶ ἐξῆλθ . (A. B. K. L. X. Π . Curss. Syr. Aeth. Cyr.). Nevertheless, considering the frequency of such insertions, the omission of the particle (Griesb. Tisch.) is sufficiently justified by D. Γ . à . Curss. Verss.
ἐν αὐτ . οὐδ . αἰτ . εὑρ .] Very many variations, amongst which the simple αἰτ . οὐχ εὐρ . would, with Tisch., be preferable, if it were not that it has only à .* in its favour.
Joh_19:6. αὐτόν ] is omitted after the second σταύρ . in Elz. Tisch., but has the preponderance of testimony in its favour, for amongst the Uncials only B. L. omit it. Nevertheless, the addition was so easily suggested of itself, and through Luk_23:21, Mar_15:13, Joh_19:15, that it is to be regarded as a supplement.
Joh_19:7. ἡμῶν ] is wanting in B. D. L. Δ . à . Vulg. It. Or. Hil. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But how easily might its omission have been caused, partly by the preceding syllable MON, partly by its being apparently superfluous!
Joh_19:10. After λέγει , Elz. Lachm. have οὖν , which, indeed, is wanting only in A. à . Curss. Syr. Perss. Copt. Arm. Slav. Cyr. (deleted by Tisch.); considering, however, the appropriateness of the connection which it expresses, it would hardly have been omitted had it been genuine. The copyists can scarcely have felt that there was anything cumbrous (in answer to Lücke, De Wette) in the expression.
Joh_19:11. εἶχες ] A. D. L. X. Y. Λ . Π . à . Curss.: ἔχες . Defended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 485 ff., adopted by Tisch. An old copyist’s mistake, which is supported by none of the Verss. except Copt., and by none of the Fathers, which, however, crept in readily enough after the shortly preceding ἔχω .
Joh_19:12. ἔχραζον ] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐχραύγαζον , according to important witnesses, indeed, but derived from Joh_19:6; Joh_19:18; Joh_19:40, whence B. D. Curss. have directly repeated ἐκραύγασαν .
Joh_19:13. τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ] The genit. plur., and that either τούτων τῶν λόγων , or, more strongly still, τῶν λόγων τούτων , is so decisively attested, that the latter, with Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted. The Recepta is derived from Joh_19:8.
Joh_19:14. Instead of δέ after ὥρα , Lachm. and Tisch. have ἦν , on decisive testimony; δέ is a stylistic correction.
ἕκτη ] D. L. X. Ä à .** Curss. Chronic, alex. (the latter appealing to the ἀκριβῆ ἀντίγραφα , nay, even to the ἰδιόχειρον of John!) Nonn. Sev. ant. (appealing to Euseb.) Ammon. Theophyl.: τρίτη . An old harmonistic alteration in conformity with Mar_15:25 (comp. Mat_27:45; Mar_15:33; Luk_23:44).
Joh_19:16-17. Instead of ἤγαγον , Elz. has ἀπήγαγον , against decisive testimony. But B. L. X. Curss. Codd. N. Copt. Cyr. entirely omit καὶ ἤγαγον . So Lachm. and Tisch. But if the continuation had here been supplied from the parallel passages, not ἤγαγον , but ἀπήγαγον (comp. Mat_27:31; Luk_23:26), would have the preponderance of testimony. καὶ ἤγαγον , however, might easily have disappeared in the course of transcription, owing to a transition having been at once made from the first καί to the second.
τὸν σταυρ . αὑτοῦ ] Lachm.: αὐτῷ τ . στ . (B. X.); ἑαυτῷ τ . στ . (L. à . Or.). The latter, in favour of which D. also testifies with ἐαυτοῦ , is to be preferred. The reflexive pronoun was frequently neglected. The Recepta is an alteration in conformity with the most current mode of expression.
Joh_19:20. The order of the words Ἐβρ ., Ῥωμ ., Ἐλλ . (so Tisch., according to B. L. X. à . Curss. Copt. Sah. Aeth. Cyr.) has probability, considering the standpoint of Pilate, in its favour.
Joh_19:26-27. Instead of ἰδού , we should, in conformity with important testimony, read both times with Lachm. and Tisch. ἴδε , frequent in John (he has ἰδού only in Joh_4:35, Joh_16:32, and from the LXX. Joh_12:15), though we are not to assume any difference of meaning between the two forms.
Joh_19:29. οὖν ] is wanting in A. B. L. X. Codd. It., whilst a few other witnesses (including à .) have δέ . Rightly deleted by Lachm. Tisch.
οἱ δὲ πλήσ . σπόγγ . ὀξ . καί ] Lachm.: σπόγγ . οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὅξους , according to B. L. X. à . Curss. Verss. Cyr. Hilar. So also Tisch., but without τοῦ , which X. à . do not contain. The Recepta is shaped in conformity with Mat_27:48, Mar_15:36, where οἱ δέ was readily suggested as an insertion on account of the change of persons.
Joh_19:31. Instead of ἐκείνου , Elz. has ἐκείνη , against decisive testimony.
Joh_19:35. καὶ ὑμεῖς ] Elz. has merely ὑμεῖς . But καί is so strongly attested, and might be so readily omitted as being without reference, that it must be preserved.
Joh_19:40. ἐν ὀθον .] The mere ὀθον . (Elz. Lachm.) is very strongly attested (B. K. L. X. Y. Π . à .), but the superfluous ἐν might readily be passed over, comp. Joh_12:44, especially as the preponderance of parallel passages present the mere dative.