Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 23
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
τηρεῖτε κ . ποιεῖτε ] Lachm.: ποιήσατε κ . τηρεῖτε . So also Tisch. This is the original reading (B L Z à ** 124, Hilar.); for the sake of uniformity, ποιήσατε was changed into ποιεῖτε (D, 1, 209, Eus. Dam.); but the transposed order τηρ . κ . π . is an ancient logical correction (as old as Syr. Vulg. It.).
Mat_23:4. For γάρ Lachm. and Tisch. read δέ , following weighty attestation. Correctly; γάρ was meant to be more precise.
χαὶ δυσβαστ .] deleted by Tisch. 8, following L à , vss. Ir. But the evidence in favour of the words is too strong, and their omission on account of the two êáß ’s might so readily occur that they must not be regarded as an interpolation from Luk_11:46.
τῷ δέ ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ , following B D L à , and two min. vss. and Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luk_11:46.
Mat_23:5. For δέ after πλατύν Lachm. Tisch. 8 have γάρ , in accordance with B D L à , min. vss. Chrys. Damasc. See on Mat_23:4.
τῶν ἱματ . αὐτ .] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D à , 1, 22, vss. Correctly; an explanatory addition.
Mat_23:6. For φιλ . τε we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read φιλ . δέ , in accordance with decisive evidence.
Mat_23:7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ῥαββί only once, following B L Δ à , min. vss. and Fathers. But how easily may the reduplication have been overlooked, both on its own account and in consequence of its not occurring in the instance immediately following! Comp. on Mar_14:45.
Mat_23:8. καθηγητής ] Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read διδάσκαλος , which Rinck also approves. No doubt καθηγητ . has a very decided preponderance of evidence in its favour (of the uncials only B U à **? read διδάσκ .); but, owing to Mat_23:10, it is so utterly inappropriate in the present instance, that it must be regarded as an old and clumsy gloss inserted from Mat_23:10 (namely, καθηγητὴς ὁ Χριστός , according to the reading of Elz. Scholz). By this it was merely intended to intimate that it is Christ that is referred to here as well as in Mat_23:10 below.
Mat_23:10. εἷς γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ καθηγ .] Lachm. and Tisch.: ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστὶν εἷς . The latter is the best attested reading; that of the Received text is to conform with Mat_23:8 f.
In the Textus receptus the two verses, 13 and 14, stand in the following order: (1) οὐαὶ … εἰσελθεῖν ; (2) οὐαὶ … κρῖμα , in opposition to E F G H K M S U V Γ Δ Π , vss. and Fathers. On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche have adopted the transposed order. But οὐαὶ … κρῖμα (in Elz. Mat_23:14) is wanting in B D L Z à , min. vss. and Fathers (Origen as well), and is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., although defended by Rinck and Keim. An interpolation from Mar_12:40; Luk_20:47.
Ver: 17. τίς γὰρ μείζων ] Lachm.: τί γὰρ μεῖζον , but, undoubtedly, on the evidence of Z only. The vss. (Vulg. It.) can have no weight here.
ἁγιάζων ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἁγιάσας , following B D Z à , Cant.; Vulg. has sanctificat. The present participle is from Mat_23:19, where there is no difference in the reading.
Mat_23:19. μωροὶ καί ] is wanting in D L Z à , 1, 209, and several vss., also Vulg. It. Bracketed by Lachm., condemned by Rinck, deleted by Tisch.; and justly so, because there was no motive for omitting the words, while their insertion would be readily suggested by Mat_23:17.
Mat_23:21. For κατοικήσαντι Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have κατοικοῦντι , following B H S à , min., the force of the aorist not being apprehended.
Mat_23:23. Elz.: ταῦτα ἔδει ; but Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. 7 have adopted ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει . In both cases the evidence is considerable; but how readily might δέ be omitted before ἔδει through oversight on the part of the transcriber!
Mat_23:25. ἐξ ] is wanting in C D, min. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. It had been omitted as unnecessary.
Elz. Lachm. Tisch. read ἀκρασίας , instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have ἀδικίας . The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides; ἀκρασίας is to be preferred. This word, the only other instance of which in the N. T. is at 1Co_7:5, appeared to be inappropriate, and came to be represented by a variety of glosses ( ἀκαθαρσίας , πλεονεξίας , ἀδικίας , πονηρίας ).
Mat_23:26. αὐτῶν ] Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.: αὐτοῦ , following B* D E* min. Aeth. Verc. This αὐτοῦ is bound up with the omission of καὶ τῆς παροψ . in D, min. Cant. Verc. Clem. Chrys. Ir. (deleted by Tisch.). Those words, however, are evidently an insertion from Mat_23:25, an insertion, moreover, which is inconsistent with αὐτοῦ , so that the words ought to be deleted and αὐτοῦ preferred to αὐτῶν .
Mat_23:27. παρομοιάζετε ] Lachm.: ὁμοιάζετε , only on the evidence of B, 1. The preposition has been left out, probably because the compound form is not found elsewhere in the N. T.
Mat_23:30. ἤμεθα , instead of ἦμεν of the Received text, is supported by decisive evidence.
Mat_23:34. καὶ ἐξ αὐτ .] in the first case καί is wanting in B M Δ Π à , min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. Or. (once). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may this καί have been omitted since the next clause opens with καί !
Mat_23:36. Before ἥξει , Griesb., followed by Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, inserted ὅτι , which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted again, ὅτι has important evidence both for and against. A common interpolation.
ταῦτα πάντα ] The order πάντα ταῦτα (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is well attested, though there is a preponderance of evidence (C D à , etc., Vulg. It.) for the reading of the Received text.
Mat_23:37. νοσσία ἑαυτῆς ] Lachm. has deleted ἐαυτ ., but only on the evidence of B, vss. Clem.(once) Or.(once) Cypr. Hil., and notwithstanding the probable omission of the pronoun as apparently superfluous. Had it been inserted from Luk_13:34, it would have been placed between τά and νοσσία . For ἑαυτῆς Tisch. reads αὐτῆς , following B** D, marg. M Δ à * 33, Clem. (once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be easily overlooked, as was often the case.
Mat_23:38. ἔρημος is wanting in B L Copt.* Corb. 2, Or. Deleted by Lachm.; to be maintained on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, though in the case of Luk_13:35 it is inserted as a gloss from Matthew.