Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 16
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
In accordance with important testimony, Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly deleted τοῦ προφήτου , Mat_16:4 (comp. Mat_12:39), as also αὐτοῦ , Mat_16:5.
Mat_16:8. ἐλάβετε ] Lachm.: ἔχετε , after B D à , Curss. Vulg. It., and other Verss. (not Or.). Correctly; ἐλάβ . was more likely to be derived mechanically from Mat_16:7 than ἔχετε to have been adopted from Mar_8:17. Had the latter been the case, we should likewise have found ἔχομεν in Mat_16:7.
Mat_16:11. ἄρτου ] Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.: ἄρτων , which Griesb. likewise approved, in accordance with a preponderance of testimony. The sing, would naturally come more readily to the transcribers, and that on account of the material rather than the numerical contrast.
For προσέχειν , B C* L à , Curss. Verss. Or. have: προσέχετε δέ (D, Curss. and Verss., however, omitting the δέ ). Correctly adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The infinitive, as well as the omission of δέ , originated in the reference of the words not having been understood.
Mat_16:12. τοῦ ἄρτου ] Tisch. 8 : τῶν Φαρισαίων κ . Σαδδουκ ., only after à * 33, Syrcur; Lachm. has τῶν ἄρτων , which, however, is not so well supported as in Mat_16:11 (B L à **), besides having the appearance of being simply conformed to this verse.
The reading of Tisch. 8 is somewhat of a gloss.
Mat_16:13. με ] is omitted after τίνα in B à and several Verss. and Fathers; in C it is found after λέγ . Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. Omitted because, from the circumstance of τ . υἱὸν τ . ἀνθρ . following (otherwise in Mark and Luke), it seemed superfluous and out of place.
Mat_16:20. διεστείλατο ] Orig. already found ἐπετίμησεν in Codd. So Lachm. after B* D, Arm. Taken from Mar_8:30, Luk_9:21, for διαστέλλω occurs nowhere else in Matthew.
ὁ Χριστός ] Elz., after numerous and important Codd. (also C à **): Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός . But Ἰησοῦς is omitted by very important authorities, and, as it is out of place in the present connection, the transcriber must have inserted it mechanically.
Mat_16:23. μου εἶ ] B C à , 13, 124: εἶ ἐμοῦ (so Lachm. Tisch. 8), or εἶ μου . D, Marcell., in Eus. Vulg. It. al.: εἶ ἐμοί (so Fritzsche). With such a want of unanimity among the authorities, the reading of the Received text cannot be said to have a preponderance of testimony, while the variations turn the scales in favour of εἶ ἐμοῦ .
Mat_16:26. ὠφελεῖται ] Lachm. Tisch.: ὠφεληθήσεται , after B L à , Curss. Verss. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Altered to be in conformity with the verbs in the future that precede and follow. Comp. also Mar_8:36-37.
Mat_16:28. τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων ] Elz.: τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων , after K M Π . Fritzsche: τῶν ὧδε ἑστῶτες , after Ev. 49. Both are to be rejected, owing to the testimony being too inadequate. Scholz and Tisch. 7 : ὧδε ἑστῶτες , after E F G H V X Γ Δ , Curss. No doubt τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων is supported by the preponderating testimony of B C D L S U à , Curss. Or. Ephr. Chrys. Epiph. Theodoret, Damasc., and adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8; still it is clearly taken from Mar_9:1, Luk_9:27. It therefore remains that ὧδε ἑστῶτες is the correct reading.