Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 10
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mat_10:3. Λεββ . ὁ ἐπικλ . Θαδδ .] Fritzsche: Θαδδ . ὁ ἐπικλ . Λεββ ., only according to 13, 346. Changed because Θαδδ . is really the proper noun.[439]
Mat_10:4. ΚΑΝΑΝΊΤΗς ] the form ΚΑΝΑΝΑῖΟς (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.
Mat_10:8. ΚΑΘΑΡΊΖΕΤΕ ] Elz. inserts ΝΕΚΡΟῪς ἘΓΕΊΡΕΤΕ , which words Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 (so B C* D à ) place after ΘΕΡΑΠΕΎΕΤΕ , while Fritzsche puts them after ἘΚΒΆΛΛΕΤΕ . Correctly struck out by Scholz and Tisch. 7. For besides being suspicious, owing to their omission in C*** E F G K L M S U V X Γ Π and very many Curss., also several versions and Fathers,—a suspicion that is heightened by their diversity of position in the unquestionably important authorities which witness in their favour,—they have the appearance of being an interpolation, which, in accordance with the apostolic narrative (Act_9:20 ff.), seemed necessary by way of completing the list of miraculous powers that had been conferred. Had the words been original, their contents would in any case have contributed much more to preserve them than to cause their omission.
Mat_10:10. ῬΆΒΔΟΝ ] C E F G K L M P S U V X Δ Π Curss. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. Theoph. have ῬΆΒΔΟΥς . Adopted by Scholz and Tisch. Altered because of the preceding plurals, and because what is spoken applies at the same time to a plurality of persons.
ἘΣΤΙ ] should be deleted, see on Luk_10:7.
Mat_10:19. The reading fluctuates between ΠΑΡΑΔΊΔΩΣΙΝ (Elz. Tisch. 7), ΠΑΡΑΔΏΣΟΥΣΙΝ , and ΠΑΡΑΔῶΣΙΝ (Tisch. 8, after B E* à and Lachm.). The future is adopted from Mat_10:17; while the present, which is best authenticated, and most in accordance with the sense, would be easily transformed into the aorist by the omission, on the part of the transcribers, of the middle syllable.
ΔΟΘΉΣΕΤΑΙ to ΛΑΛΉΣΕΤΕ ] is not found in D L, Curss. Arm. Codd. of It. Or. Cypr. and a few Verss. Bracketed by Lachm. Ancient omission occasioned by the homoioteleuton.
Mat_10:23. ΦΕΎΓΕΤΕ ΕἸς ΤῊΝ ἌΛΛΗΝ ] Griesb.: ( ΦΕΎΓΕΤΕ ΕἸς ΤῊΝ ἙΤΈΡΑΝ , ΚἊΝ ἘΚ ΤΑΎΤΗς ΔΙΏΚΩΣΙΝ ὙΜᾶς , ΦΕΎΓΕΤΕ ΕἸς ΤῊΝ ἌΛΛΗΝ ,[440] after D L, Curss. and some Fathers and Verss., however, with differences in detail. A continuous extension of the sentence.
Mat_10:25. ἘΠΕΚΆΛΕΣΑΝ ] Elz.: ἘΚΆΛΕΣΑΝ , against decisive testimony. Lachm. again (defended by Rettig in Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 477 ff.; Buttmann, ibid. 1860, p. 342 f.) has, instead of the accusative, the dative Τῷ ΟἸΚΟΔΕΣΠΌΤῌ ) and ΟἸΚΙΑΚΟῖς , only after B*, which is to be ascribed to a grammarian who took ἘΠΙΚΑΛΕῖΝ as meaning to reproach.
Mat_10:28. φοβεῖσθε ] Elz., Fritzsche: φοβηθῆτε , against decisive testimony. Adopted from Mat_10:26. Likewise in Mat_10:31 we ought, with Lachm. and Tisch., to restore φοβεῖσθε in accordance with B D L à , Curss. Or. Cyr.
ἀποκτενόντων ] so also Scholz. The ἀποκτεινόντων (B, Or.) of the Received text is condemned by counter testimony as a grammatical correction. But although the form ἀποκτενόντων is supported by important testimony, yet we ought, with Lachm. and Tisch., to follow C D U Γ Δ Π à and Curss. and adopt the Aeolic-Alexandrine form ἀποκτεννόντον (see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 128), because ἈΠΟΚΤΕΝΌΝΤΩΝ as a present is nowhere found, while an aorist, if the verb had had that form, would have been in this instance without meaning.
Mat_10:33. The position ΚἈΓῺ ΑὐΤΌΝ (Beng. Lachm. Tisch. 8) is a mechanical alteration on account of Mat_10:32.
[439] D, 122, Codd. quoted in Augustine, Hesychius, Rufinus, have merely Λεββαῖος . B à , 17, 124, and several versions have only Θαδδαῖος . So Lachm. I regard the simple Λεββαῑος (with Tisch. and also Ewald) as the original reading. The other readings are derived from Mar_3:18, because of the identity of Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus. Comp. Bengel, Appar. crit. Had the simple Θαδδαῖος been the true one, it would have been impossible to see how Λεββαῖος should have been inserted, seeing it does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament. No doubt D and Codd. of It., also Mar_3:18, have Λεββαῖον , but against testimony so decisive that it appears to have come there from our present passage.
[440] Instead of the ἄλλην of the Received text, Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B à 33, 265, Or. Petr. Ath. have ἑτέραν , which, however, is undoubtedly connected with the above interpolation.