Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 18
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mat_18:4. ταπεινώσῃ ] The future ταπεινώσει is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted on decisive evidence.
Mat_18:6. εἰς τὸν τρ .] for εἰς Elz. has ἐπί , while Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read περί . Only εἰς and περί have anything like important testimony in their favour. But περί is taken from Mar_9:42; Luk_17:2.
Mat_18:7. On weighty evidence we should follow Lachm. in deleting ἐστιν after γάρ , and ἐχείνῳ in the next clause, as words that might naturally have been inserted; Tisch. 8 has deleted ἐστιν only.
Mat_18:8. αὐτά ] B D L à , min. vss. and Fathers: αὐτόν . So Lachm. and Tisch. correctly; αὐτά is an emendation to include both.
Further on Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have κυλλὸν ἢ χωλόν , following B à , Vulg. It.; a transposition to suit χείρ and ποῦς .
Mat_18:10. The evidence is too weak to warrant us in substituting ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (so Lachm. in brackets) for the first ἐν οὐρανοῖς ; still weaker is the evidence in favour of omitting the words, although they are omitted at an early period (as early as the time of Clem. Or. Syr.?).
Mat_18:11. This verse does not occur in B L* à , 1*, 13, 33, Copt. Sahid. Syrjer. Aeth. (cod. 1), Eus. Or. Hil. Jer. Juv. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; condemned also by Rinck. Already suspected by Griesb. to have been an interpolation from Luk_19:10, which in fact it is, considering how much evidence there is against it, and considering, on the other hand, that, if it had been genuine, there was no obvious motive on exegetical grounds for the omission.
Mat_18:12. ἀφεὶς … πορευθείς ] Lachm.: ἀφήσει … καὶ πορευθείς , following B D L, min. Vulg. It. (of which, however, D, Vulg. have ἀφίησιν , and D, πορευόμενος ). Exegetical analysis, in order to remove ambiguity as to the connection.
Mat_18:14. εἷς ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἕν , following B D L M* à , min. Altered to εἷς in accordance with Mat_18:10; while πατρός μου , which Lachm. substitutes for πατρ . ὑμῶν (following B F H J, min. vss. Or.), is to be regarded in the same light.
Mat_18:15. εἰς σέ ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B à , I, 22, 234*, Sahid. Or. Cyr. Bas. This evidence is too weak, especially as the omission of ΕΙΣΣΕ might easily enough have happened from its following ΗΣΗ ( ἁμαρτήσῃ ), while it is further to be borne in mind that, in what goes before, it was sin in general, not merely an offence, that was in question. The εἰς σέ , which is here genuine, was inserted from our passage into Luk_17:3, Elz.
ἔλεγξον ] Elz., Scholz: καὶ ἔλ ., against B C à and many min. vss. and Fathers. The καί was inserted as a connective particle.
Mat_18:19. πάλιν ἀμήν ] Elz. (so also Griesb. Scholz, Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch. 8) has merely πάλιν , and Lachm., following min. only (B being erroneously quoted), has merely ἀμήν . But the attestation for πάλιν ἀμήν (Tisch. 7) is about equal in weight (incl. B) to that in favour of the simple πάλιν (incl. à ), and one of the words might easily enough have been omitted from the combination not occurring anywhere else.
συμφωνήσωσιν ] Seeing that the future συμφωνήσουσιν is supported by the preponderating evidence of B D E H I L V Δ à , min., and seeing, on the other hand, that it might very readily have been supplanted by the subjunctive as being the mood most in accordance with the usual construction, it is, with Tisch., to be adopted as the correct reading.
Mat_18:24. προσηνέχθη ] Lachm. and Tisch. 7 : προσήχθη , following B D Or. Correctly; this and Luk_9:41 are the only instances in which προσάγειν occurs in the Gospels, προσφέρειν being the form most familiar to the copyists.
Mat_18:25. εἶχε ] Lachm. and Tisch. 7 : ἔχει , following only B, min. Or.; but it is to be preferred, since to the mechanical transcribers the present would doubtless seem to be improper.
Mat_18:26.] κύριε before μαχρ . is to be regarded as interpolated, being omitted by B D, min. Vulg. codd. of It. Syrcur Or. Chrys. Lucif., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.
Mat_18:27. ἐκείνου ] omitted by Lachm., only after B, min., as is also ἐκεῖνος , Mat_18:28, only after B.
Mat_18:28. μοι ] not found in the more weighty witnesses; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation.
εἴ τι ] Elz.: ὅ , τι , against decisive evidence. Erroneous emendation.
Mat_18:29. αὐτοῦ ] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz, Tisch. 7, insert εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ , which, however, is omitted by B C* D G L Δ à , min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syrcur It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. Lucif. Gloss on the simple πεσών . In regard to εἰς , comp. Joh_9:32, al.
πάντα ] Deleted by Matth., Scholz, Tisch., on preponderating evidence; bracketed by Lachm. It is a mechanical interpolation from Mat_18:26.
Mat_18:31. For the first γενόμενα Fritzsche and Tisch. substitute γινόμενα , following only D L à **, min. Vulg. It. Chrys. Lucif., but correctly. The transcribers failed to notice the difference of meaning.
For αὐτῶν or αὑτῶν we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἑαυτῶν , upon decisive evidence; the reflexive reference of the pronoun was overlooked, as was often the case.
Mat_18:34. αὐτῷ ] not found in B D à **, min. vss. Lachm.; but it may easily enough have been left out in conformity with Mat_18:30.
Mat_18:35. ὑμῶν ] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz insert τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν , which is not found in B D L à , min. and several vss. and Fathers. Gloss from Mat_6:14-15; Mar_11:25-26.
But ἐπουράνιος , for which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 substitute οὐράνιος (B C** D K L Π à , min. Or. Damasc.), is to be retained, all the more that the expression ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐπουρ . occurs nowhere else, though we frequently find ὁ π . ὁ οὐράνιος .