Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 6
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After this Elz. has αὐτοῦ , against decisive testimonies.
Joh_6:5. ἀγοράσομεν ] Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., read ἀγοράσωμεν , in favour of which the great majority of the testimonies decide.
Joh_6:9. ἓν ] is wanting in B. D. L. à . Cursives, Or. Cyr. Chrys. and some Verss. Rejected by Schulz after Gersd., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But how easily might it have been overlooked, because superfluous, and coming after the syllable ON! For ὅ Lachm and Tisch. read ὅς , following decisive witnesses; transcribers were easily led to make changes according to the grammatical gender.
Joh_6:11. After διέδωκε Elz. has τοῖς μαθηταῖς , οἱ δὲ μαθηταί , words which are wanting in A. B. L. à .* Cursives, Fathers, and almost all Versions. An enlargement in imitation of Mat_14:19 and parallels.
Joh_6:15. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted αὐτόν after ποιήσ .; an addition wanting in A. B. L. à . Cursives, Or. Cyr.
Joh_6:17. οὐκ ] B. D. L. à . Cursives, Versions (not Vulgate), and Fathers read οὔπω . So Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss introduced for the sake of more minute definition.
Joh_6:22. ἰδών ] Lachm. reads εἶδον , after A. B. Chrys. Verss. (L. ιδον ); D. à . Verss. read οἶδεν . The finite tense was introduced to make the construction easier.
After ἓν Elz. Scholz have ἐκεῖνο εἰς ὃ ἐμέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ , against very important authorities. An explanatory addition, with many variations in detail.
πλοῖον ] Elz.: πλοιάριον against decisive witnesses. Mechanical and careless (Joh_6:17; Joh_6:21) repetition borrowed from what precedes.
Joh_6:24. αὐτοί ] Elz. καὶ αὐτοί , against decisive witnesses.
Joh_6:36. με is bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The authorities against it are insufficient (only A. à . among the Codices), and it might easily have been left out after TE.
Joh_6:39. After με Elz. has πατρός , the omission of which is overwhelmingly attested. An addition.
Joh_6:40. τοῦ πατρός μου ] So also Lachm. and Tisch. The Textus Receptus is τοῦ πέμψαντός με . Preponderance of testimony is in favour of the former; the latter is a repetition from Joh_6:39, whence also, instead of γάρ , the received reading δέ was inserted.
τῇ ἐσχ . ἡμ .] According to A. D. K. L., etc., ἐν τ . ἐσχ . ἡμ . is to be restored, as in Joh_6:39, where ἐν , indeed, is wanting in many witnesses; but that it was the original reading is indicated by the reading αὐτόν (instead of αὐτό ). In Joh_6:54, also, ἐν is sufficiently confirmed, and (against Tisch.) is to be in like manner restored.
Joh_6:42. The second οὗτος has against it B. C. D. L. T. Cursives, Verss. Cyr. Chrys.; bracketed by Lachm. But it might easily have been overlooked as being unnecessary, and because the similar OTI follows.
Joh_6:45. ἀκούσας ] ἀκούων , which Griesbach received and Scholz adopted, has important authority, but this is outweighed by the testimonies for the Received reading. It is nevertheless to be preferred; for, considering the following μαθών , the Aorist would easily occur to the transcribers who did not consider the difference of sense, οὖν before ὁ ἀκούων is to be struck out (with Lachm. and Tisch.) upon sufficient counter testimony, as being a connective addition. In Joh_6:51; Joh_6:54; Joh_6:57-58, the form ζήσει is, upon strong evidence, to be uniformly restored.
Concerning the omission of the words ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω in Joh_6:51, see the exegetical notes.
Joh_6:55. For ἀληθῶς Lachm. and Tisch. have both times ἀληθής , which is powerfully confirmed by B. C. K. L. T. Cursives, Versions (yet not the Vulgate), and Fathers (even Clement and Origen). The genuine ἀληθής , as seeming inappropriate, would be glossed and supplanted now by ἀληθῶς and now by ἀληθινή (already in Origen once).
Joh_6:58. After πατέρες , Elz. Scholz have ὑμῶν τὸ μάννα , Lachm. simply τὸ μάννα , both against very important testimony. An enlargement.
Joh_6:63. λελάληκα ] Elz. λαλῶ , against decisive witnesses. Altered because the reference of the Perfect was not understood. Comp. Joh_14:10.
Joh_6:69. ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τ . θεοῦ ] The reading ὁ ἅγιος τ . θεοῦ is confirmed by B. C.* D. L. à . Nonn. Cosm., and adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. The Received reading is from Mat_16:16, whence also came the addition τοῦ ζῶντος in the Elz.
Joh_6:71. Ἰσκαριώτην ] Lachm. and Tisch. read Ἰσκαριώτου , after B. C. G. L. 33, and Verss. So, after the same witnesses in part, in Joh_13:26. But as in Joh_14:22 Ἰσκαριώτης occurs critically confirmed as the name of Judas himself (not of his father), and as the genitive might easily be introduced as explanatory of the name ( ἀπὸ Καριώτου , as à . and many Cursives actually read here), the Received reading is to be retained. Had John regarded the name as designating the father of Judas, it would not be apparent why he did not use the genitive in Joh_14:22 also. See, besides, the exegetical notes.