Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 24
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
οὐ βλέπετε ] Fritzsche: βλέπετε , following D L X, min. vss. and Fathers. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction for sake of the sense, after Mar_13:2.
For πάντα ταῦτα we should read, with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, ταῦτα πάντα , in accordance with a preponderance of evidence.
ὃς οὖ ] Elz.: ὃς οὐ μή , against decisive evidence. Mechanical repetition of the preceding οὐ μή .
Mat_24:3. τῆς συντελ .] The article is wanting in B C L à , min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition.
Mat_24:6. πάντα ] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L à , min. vss., and has been deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted in conformity with Mar_13:7; while in some of the witnesses we find ταῦτα , in accordance with Luk_21:9, and in some others, again, πάντα ταῦτα (Fritzsche: ταῦτα πάντα ). The various corrections were occasioned by the unlimited character of πάντα .
Mat_24:7. καὶ λοιμοί ] is wanting in B D E* à , min. Cant. 24 :Verc. Corb. 2, Hilar. Arnob. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Other witnesses reverse the order of the words, which is strongly favoured by Luke. All the more are they to be regarded as inserted from Luk_21:11.
Mat_24:9. Elz. has ἐθνῶν . But the reading τῶν ἐθνῶν has a decided preponderance of evidence in its favour; and then how easily might τῶν be overlooked after πάντων ! The omission of τῶν ἐθνῶν in C, min. Chrys. was with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke.
Mat_24:15. ἑστώς ] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: ἑστός , following a preponderance of MS. authority (including B* à ), and correctly. The transcribers have contracted into ἑστώς what, strictly speaking, should be spelt ἑσταός , though the spelling ἑστός is also met with in classical writers.
Mat_24:16. ἐπί ] Lachm.: εἰς , following B D Δ , min. Fathers. Adopted from Mar_13:14; Luk_21:21. Mark is likewise the source of the reading καταβάτω , Mat_24:17, in B D L Z à , min. Or. Caes. Isid. Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted.
For τι ἐκ , as in Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., τὰ ἐκ , following decisive evidence.
Mat_24:18. τὰ ἱμάτια ] τὸ ἱμάτιον , no doubt, has weighty evidence in its favour, and is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it is taken from Mar_13:16.
Mat_24:20. The simple σαββάτῳ (Elz.: ἐν σαββ .) is supported by decisive evidence.
Mat_24:23. πιστεύσητε ] Lachm.: πιστεύετε , following only B* Or. Taken from Mar_13:21.
Mat_24:24. For πλανῆσαι Tisch. 8 has πλανηθῆναι , following D à , codd. of It. Or.int. and several other Fathers. The reading of the Received text is, no doubt, supported by preponderating evidence; but how readily might the active have been substituted for the passive in conformity with Mat_24:5; Mat_24:11!
Mat_24:27. καί is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted after ἔσται , in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted in conformity with the usual mode of expression; in Mat_24:37; Mat_24:39 we should likewise delete the καί , which Tisch. 8 retains in Mat_24:39.
Mat_24:28. γάρ ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L à , min. vss. and Fathers. Correctly. A common insertion of the connecting particle. This is more probable than the supposition that a fastidious logic took exception to the kind of connection.
Mat_24:30. τότε κόψ .] The omission of τότε by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among the uncials only that of à *. Had the words been inserted in accordance with Mar_13:26, Luk_21:27, they would have been placed before ὄψονται .
Mat_24:31. φωνῆς ] is not found in L Δ à , min. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers. Being awkward and superfluous, it was in some cases omitted altogether, in others (Syr.jer. Aeth., also Syr.p., though with an asterisk at φων .) placed before σαλπ ., and sometimes it was conjoined with σαλπ . by inserting καί after this latter (D, min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. Jer.).
For the second ἄκρων Lachm. has τῶν ἄκρ ., following only B, 1, 13, 69.
Mat_24:34. After λέγω ὑμῖν , Lachm., in accordance with B D F L, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts ὅτι , which, however, may readily have crept in from Mar_13:30; Luk_21:32.
Mat_24:35.[13] Griesb. and the more recent editors (with the exception, however, of Matth. and Scholz) have adopted ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ in preference to the ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ of Elz., following B D L, min. Fathers. The plural is taken from Mar_13:31; Luk_21:33.
Mat_24:36. Before ὭΡΑς Elz. has Τῆς , which, though defended by Schulz, is condemned by decisive evidence. Superfluous addition. Comp. Mat_24:3.
After ΟὐΡΑΝῶΝ Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ΟὐΔῈ Ὁ ΥἹΌς , in accordance with B D à , min. codd. of It. Syr.jer. Aeth. Arm. Chrys. Or.int. Hil. Ambr., etc. For a detailed examination of the evidence, see Tisch. The words are an ancient interpolation from Mar_13:32. Had it been the case that they originally formed part of our passage, but were deleted for dogmatic reasons, it is certain that, having regard to the christological importance sometimes ascribed to them (“gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri,” Jerome), they would have been expunged from Mark as well. The interpolation was all the more likely to take place in the case of Matthew, from its serving to explain ΜΌΝΟς (which latter does not occur in, Mark).
Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have ΜΟΥ after ΠΑΤΉΡ . Defended by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. It is likewise adopted by Fritzsche, who, however, deletes the following ΜΌΝΟς , which is wanting only in Sahid. In deference to the ordinary usage in Matthew (Mat_7:21, Mat_10:32 f., etc.), ΜΟΥ should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt, in B D L Δ Π à , min. vss. and Fathers, but it may readily enough have been omitted in consequence of the M O immediately following it, all the more that it is not found in Mark.
Mat_24:37. ΔΈ ] Lachm.: ΓΆΡ , following B D I, vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.
Mat_24:38. ΤΑῖς ΠΡΌ ] is deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7, in accordance with some few, and these, too, inadequate witnesses (Origen, however). Coming as it does after Mat_24:37, it had been mechanically omitted; it can scarcely have been inserted as the result of reflection. Before ΤΑῖς Lachm. has ἘΚΕΊΝΑΙς , following B D (which latter omits ΤΑῖς ), codd. of It.,—a reading which ought to be adopted, all the more because in itself it is not indispensable, and because it was very apt to be omitted, in consequence of the similarity in the termination of the words.
For ἘΚΓΑΜΊΖΟΝΤΕς read ΓΑΜΊΖΟΝΤΕς with Tisch. 8, following D à , 33, Chrys.; comp. on Mat_22:30.
Mat_24:40. For Ὁ ΕἿς Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have simply ΕἿς in both instances, following B D I L à , min. ( Δ and Chrys. leave out the article only in the first case). For sake of uniformity with Mat_24:41.
Mat_24:41. ΜΥΛῶΝΙ ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ΜΎΛῼ , following preponderating evidence; the reading of the Received text is intended to be more precise.
Mat_24:42. ὭΡᾼ ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἩΜΈΡᾼ . So B D I Δ à , min. Ir. Cyr. Ath. Hilar. and vss. The reading of the Received text is by way of being more definite. Comp. Mat_24:44.
Mat_24:45. ΑὐΤΟῦ after ΚΎΡΙΟς is wanting in important witnesses (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), but it must have been left out to conform with Luk_12:42.
ΘΕΡΑΠΕΊΑς ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ΟἸΚΕΤΕΊΑς , following B I L Δ , min. Correctly; from the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, it would be explained by the gloss ΟἸΚΊΑς ( à , min. Ephr. Bas. Chrys.), or at other times by ΘΕΡΑΠ .
For the following ΔΙΔΌΝΑΙ read ΔΟῦΝΑΙ , with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with preponderating evidence.
Mat_24:46. ΠΟΙΟῦΝΤΑ ΟὝΤΩς ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ΟὝΤΩς ΠΟΙΟῦΝΤΑ , following B C D I L à , min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Ir. Hil. The reading of the Received text is from Luk_12:43.
Mat_24:48. The order ΜΟΥ Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς is favoured by a preponderance of evidence, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., ought to be preferred. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit ἘΛΘΕῖΝ , though on somewhat weaker evidence; ἘΛΘΕῖΝ is further confirmed by the reading ἔρκεσθι in min. Or. Bas., which is taken from Luk_12:45. The infinitive not being indispensable (comp. Mat_25:5), was passed over.
Mat_24:49. ΑὙΤΟῦ , which is wanting in Elz. (and Tisch. 7), has been restored by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8, in accordance with preponderating evidence. Similarly with regard to ἘΣΘΊῌ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΠΊΝῌ (for ἘΣΘΊΕΙΝ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΠΊΝΕΙΝ in Elz.), which has decisive evidence in its favour, and is an altered form of Luk_12:45.
[13] The omission of this whole verse by à *, an omission sanctioned neither by earlier nor by later evidence, is simply an error of the transcriber.