Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mat_2:9. ἔστη ] B C D à , 33, 209, Or. Eus. read ἐστάθη . So Lachm. and Tisch., of the nature of a gloss; for the more precise definition of the conception in the passive, as in Mat_27:11, in almost the same manuscripts.
Mat_2:11. εἶδον ] Elz.: εὗρον , against decisive testimony.
Mat_2:13. φαίνεται κατʼ ὄναρ ] C K Π , Curss. Theophyl.: κατʼ ὄναρ φαίνεται , Β : κατʼ ὄναρ ἐφάνη . So Lachm. Latter reading is derived from Mat_1:20, which passage also led to the κατʼ ὄναρ being placed first. The Received reading is therefore here to be retained, and Mat_2:19, after B D Z à , Curss. Verss., to be changed into φαίνεται κατʼ ὄναρ (with Lachm. and Tisch.).
Mat_2:17. ὑπό ] B C D Z à , Curss. Verss. Chrys. Jer. read διά . Corresponds to the standing style of quotation in Matth., therefore rightly approved (comp. on Mat_3:3) by Griesbach and Schultz, after Gersdorf; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.
Mat_2:18. θρῆνος κ . κλαυθμός ] B Z à , 1, 22, Verss. and Latin Fathers have merely κλαυθμός . So Lachm. and Tisch. The Received reading is an extension from that of the LXX.
Mat_2:21. ἦλθεν ] B C à : εἰσῆλθεν . So Lachm. and Tisch. 8, correctly: the compound was easily neglected.
Mat_2:22. ἐπί ] is wanting in B à , Curss. Eus. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But it was all the more easily omitted as unnecessary, because the syllable El preceded it.
The genuineness of the whole of the first and second chapters has been controverted, or at least suspected, by Williams (A Free Inquiry into the Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Lond. 1771, enlarged, 1790), by Stroth (Eichhorn’s Repert. IX. p. 99 ff.), Hess (Biblioth. d. heil. Gesch. I. p. 208 ff.), Ammon (Diss. de Luca emendatore Matthaei, Erl. 1805), J. Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., Lond. 1813). In answer to Williams, Flemming wrote a work (Free Thoughts upon a Free Inquiry, etc., Lond. 1771) and Velthusen (The Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters, etc., Lond. 1771); in answer to Stroth, Henke (de ev. Matth. integritate, etc., Helmst. 1782); to Hess, Rau (Symbola ad quaestionem de authentia, etc., 1793). Amongst the defenders are Griesbach (Epimetron ad Comment. crit. in Matth. II. p. 47 ff.), Schubert (de infantiae J. C. historiae authentia atque indole, Gripeswald 1815), Kuinoel (Proleg. § 6), Fritzsche (Commentar. Excurs. III.), Müller (üb. d. Aechth. der ersten Kapitel des Evang. nach Matth., Trier 1830). Amongst the writers of Introduction, Eichhorn and Bertholdt have gone over to the side of the opponents.
Both chapters are genuine—that is, they were integral portions of the Hebrew Gospel writing, of which our Matthew is the translation, and consequently belonged to the latter from the very beginning. For (1) all the Codices and Versions contain them, the Fathers of the second and third centuries (Irenaeus, iii. 9. 2 f., Clement of Alexandria, and others) also quote passages from them, and Celsus has made reference to them (Orig. c. Cels. i. 28, ii. 32); (2) their contents are highly appropriate to the beginning of a gospel writing composed for Jewish Christians; (3) the beginning of ch. 3 is connected with Mat_2:23, where the residence of Jesus at Nazareth is mentioned; Mat_4:13 also manifestly refers to Mat_2:23. The construction and style of expression are in keeping with the character of the whole Gospel. See Griesbach, Epimetr. p. 57; Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 38 ff.; Credner, I. p. 62 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 850 ff.
The main argument of those who oppose the genuineness is, that our chapters were wanting in the Gospel of the Ebionites (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). But on a correct estimate of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos in its relation to the Gospel of Matthew, that counter argument can be of no weight (see Introduction, § 2); and, in accordance with Ebionitic views, it is very conceivable that they did not admit the miraculous preliminary history, and made their Gospel (according to Epiphanius), in keeping with the original gospel type, begin at once with the appearance of the Baptist. It is also related of Tatian (Theodoret, Haeret. fab. i. 20): τάς τε γενεαλογίας περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα , ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν . But Tatian was a disciple of Docetism, and his treatment was determined by dogmatic considerations. As, moreover, the genealogy contained in ch. 1 implies the use of a piece of writing already in existence, so also the legendary character of both chapters in general,—and the certainly peculiar manner in which the third chapter is connected with them, which, amid all its literal connection with what has preceded it, passes over the whole history of the youth of Jesus,—appear to point to this, that the portions composing both chapters were originally special gospel documents. Ch. Mat_1:1-16 appears to have been one such document by itself, then Mat_2:18-23 a second, and ch. 2 a third, in which are now found for the first time the locality and time of the birth of Jesus. The unity of the Greek style of expression with that in the other parts of the Gospel is not opposed to this (Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann), but is to be explained from the unity of the translator. How much, however, considering the free style of quoting Old Testament passages, is to be set down to the account of the first author of these documents, or to that of the Hebrew editor of the Gospel, or to the translator, cannot be determined.