Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 20
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
ἑστῶτας ] Elz., Fritzsche, Scholz insert ἀργούς , which is not found in B C** D L à , vss. and Fathers. Interpolation taken from Mat_20:3; Mat_20:7.
Mat_20:7. κ . ὅ ἐὰν ᾖ δίκαιον , λήψεσθε ] is wanting in important codd. (B D L Z à ), vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. For λήψεσθε , several vss. have dabo vobis. The words are a very ancient interpolation, in conformity with Mat_20:4.
Mat_20:8. Delete αὐτοῖς , with Tisch. 8, following C L Z à , Or. A supplement.
Mat_20:10. πλείονα ] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7 : πλεῖον , following B C* N Z Δ , min. vss. Or. The reading of the Received text is of the nature of an explanation (a greater number of denarii).
For ἀνά read τὸ ἀνά , with Tisch., following C L N Z à , 33. The article was omitted in conformity with Mat_20:9.
Mat_20:12. ὅτι ] does not occur, it is true, in B C** D à , 1, Vulg. It. Syr., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may it have been overlooked before οὗτοι !
Mat_20:15. The first ἤ is deleted by Lachm., following B D L Z, Syrcur Arm. (in accordance with which evidence, as well as that of à , the arrangement ὃ θέλω ποιῆσαι should be restored). Correctly; an old interpolation for the purpose of marking the question. There would be no motive whatever for omitting the ἤ . For the second ἤ (in Elz.) we should, with Tisch. 7, read εἰ , following B** H S r, Chrys. Did. and many min. From not being understood, εἰ was all the more readily replaced by ἤ , owing to the pronunciation being much the same.
Mat_20:16. πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοὶ , ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί ] omitted in B L Z à , 36, Copt. Sahid., and deleted by Tisch. 8, with whom Keim concurs. But it is not at all likely that the words would be interpolated from Mat_22:14; for, so far from there having been any occasion for so doing, they have here more the appearance of being out of place than otherwise. This apparent irrelevancy may have led to the omission of the saying, which is supported by testimony so old as that of C D, It. Syr., unless we suppose it to have been due rather to the simple homoeoteleuton ἐσχαΤΟΙ … ἐκλεκΤΟΙ .
Mat_20:17. ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καί ] read with Lachm. and Tisch.: καὶ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ , following B L Z à , min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Persp. Or. (twice). At a very early period (Vulg. It. Hil.), ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ was omitted either accidentally, or because it is likewise awanting in the parallel passages in the other Synoptists. But, in restoring it, it would most naturally occur to those who did so to insert it after κατʼ ἰδίαν .
Mat_20:19. ἀναστήσεται ] Tisch.: ἐγερθήσεται , following C* L N Z à , Or. Chrys. The reading of the Received text is taken from the parallel passages.
Mat_20:22. πίνειν ;] Elz., Scholz insert: καὶ (Scholz: ἢ ) τὸ βάπτισμα , ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι , βαπτισθῆναι , against B D L Z à , 1, 22, the majority of vss. and Or. Epiph. Hilar. Jer. Ambr. Juv. Taken from Mar_10:38.
Mat_20:23. πίεσθε ] Elz., Scholz, in opposition to the same witnesses, insert: καὶ (Scholz: ἢ ) τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι , βαπτισθήσεσθε .
Mat_20:26. ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν ] for ἔσται , Lachm. has ἐστίν , following B D Z, Cant. Sahid. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is an alteration to suit what follows in this and the 27th verse, where, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8, we ought to read ἔσται instead of ἔστω , in accordance with preponderating evidence; ἔστω (likewise derived from Mar_10:43) is a gloss. But Fritzsche was scarcely warranted in restoring δέ after οὕτως , Mat_20:26, for it is condemned by decisive evidence, and is a connecting particle borrowed from Mark.
Mat_20:31. ἔκραζον ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἔκραξαν , following B D L Z à , min. Copt. Sahid. A repetition from Mat_20:30.
Mat_20:33. ἀνοιχθῶσιν ἡμ . οἱ ὀφθ .] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἀνοιγῶσιν οἱ ὀφθ . ἡμ ., following B D L Z à , min. Or. Chrys. To be adopted, inasmuch as the first aorist was the more common tense, comp. Mat_9:30, Joh_9:10.
Mat_20:34. ὀφθαλμῶν ] B D L Z, min. Or. have ὀμμάτων . So Lachm., Rinck, Tisch. 8. Correctly; the more usual term has been adopted from the context.
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 delete αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί after ἀνέβλεψαν . The words are not found in B D L Z à , min. vss. (also Vulg. It.) and a few Fathers, but they were left out as being superfluous and cumbersome. There was no motive whatever for inserting them.
REMARK.
After Mat_20:28 there occurs in D (and in codd. of It. with many variations in detail) the following interpolation, apocryphal, no doubt, but akin to Luk_14:8 ff.: ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μιχροῦ αὐξῆσαι κ . ἐκ μείζονος ἔλαττον εἶναι . Εἰσερχόμενοι δὲ καὶ παρακληθέντες δειπνῆσαι μὴ ἀνακλίνεσθε εἰς τοὺς ἐξέχοντας τόπους , μή ποτε ἐνδοξότερός σου ἐπέλθῃ , καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ δειπνοκλήτωρ εἴπῃ σοι · ἔτι κάτω χώρει , καὶ καταισχυνθήσῃ . Ἐὰν δὲ ἀναπέσῃς εἰς τὸν ἥττονα τόπον καὶ ἐπέλθῃ σου ἣττων , ἐρεῖ σοι ὁ δειπνοκλήωρ · σύναγε ἔτι ἄνω , καὶ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο χρήσιμον . Comp. Hilar., also Syrcur.