Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 26
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Mat_26:4. The order δόλῳ κρατήσωσι (reversed in Elz.) is supported by decisive evidence.
Mat_26:7. βαρυτίμου ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : πολυτίμου , which, though in accordance with A D L M Π à , min., is, nevertheless, taken from Joh_12:3. Comp. Mar_14:3. From this latter passage is derived the order ἔχουσα ἀλάβ . μύρου (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L à , min.).
τὴν χεφαλήν ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : τῆς κεφαλῆς , following B D M à , min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the transcribers by a comparison with Mat_26:12, quite as readily as by Mar_14:3.
Mat_26:8. αὐτοῦ ] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, both here and in Mat_26:45, as being a common interpolation; similarly with Tisch. after βλασφ ., Mat_26:65.
Mat_26:9. τοῦτο ] Elz. inserts τὸ μύρον , against decisive evidence; borrowed from Mar_14:5; Joh_12:5.
The article, before πτωχοῖς , which may as readily have been omitted, in accordance with Joh_12:5, as inserted, in accordance with Mar_14:3, is, with Elz. and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There is a good deal of evidence on both sides; but the insertion might easily take place out of regard to Mat_26:11.
Mat_26:11. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχούς ] E F H M Γ , min. Chrys.: τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche. As this reading may have been taken from Joh_12:8 as readily as that of the Received text from Mar_14:7, the matter must be determined simply by the balance of evidence, and this is in favour of the Received text.
Mat_26:17. ἑτοιμάσωμεν ] The evidence of D K U, min. Or. in favour of the reading ἑτοιμάσομεν (Fritzsche) is inadequate.
Mat_26:20. Lachm. and Tisch. read μαθητῶν after δώδεκα , on the authority of A L M Δ Π à , min. vss. Chrys. Correctly; the omission is due to Mar_14:17.
For ἕκαστος αὐτῶν , Mat_26:22, it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt εἷς ἓκαστος , in accordance with weighty evidence. Had εἷς been derived from Mar_14:19, we should have had εἷς καθʼ εἷς ; κὐτῶν , again, was an interpolation of extremely common occurrence.
Mat_26:26. εὐλογήσας ] Scholz: εὐχαριστήσας , following A E F H K M S U V Γ Δ Π , min. vss. Fathers. Considering, however, the weight of evidence that still remains in favour of εὐλογ . (B C D L Z à ), and having regard to the preponderating influence of Luke and Paul (1Co_11:23 ff.) rather than Mark, upon the ecclesiastical phraseology of the Lord’s Supper, it is better to retain εὐλογ .
For this reason we should also retain τόν before ἄρτον , though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, and not found in B G D G L Z à , min. Chrys. Theophyl.
For ἐδίδου Lachm. reads δούς , omitting at the same time καί before εἶπε , in accordance with B D L Z à ** min. Cant. Copt. Due to a desire to make the construction uniform with the preceding. Had δούς been changed to a tense in accordance with Mark and Luke, we should have had ἔδωκε .
Mat_26:27. τὸ ποτήριον ] The article, which is deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in B E F G L Z Δ à , min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which Luke and Paul have given currency.
Mat_26:28. τὸ τῆς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have simply τῆς , in accordance with B D L Z à , 33. τὸ is an exegetical addition.
καινῆς before διαθ . is wanting in B L Z à , 33, 102, Sahid. Cyr., and is a liturgical addition. Had it been originally written, this is just the place of all others where it would not have been omitted.
Mat_26:31. διασκορπισθήσεται ] A B C G H* I L M à , min. Or. (once): διασκορπισθήσονται . So Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is a grammatical correction.
Mat_26:33. Instead of εἰ καί of the Received text, there is decisive evidence for the simple εἰ . καί would be written in the margin from Mar_14:29, but would not be inserted in the text as in the case of Mark.
ἐγώ ] The evidence in favour of inserting δέ (which is adopted by Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for the purpose of giving prominence to the contrast.
Mat_26:35. After ὁμοίως important witnesses read δέ , which has been adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken from Mar_14:31.
Mat_26:36. ἓως οὗ ] Lachm.: ἓως οὗ ἄν ; D K L Δ , min.: ἓως ἃν . The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the authority of A, is nevertheless to be regarded as the original one. οὗ ἄν would be omitted in conformity with Mar_14:32 (C M* à , min. have simply ἓως ), and then there would come a restoration in some instances of οὗ only, and, in others, merely of ἄν .
Mat_26:38. We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7, in adopting ὁ Ἰησοῦς ; after αὐτοῖς ; a reading which, though attested by important witnesses, is nevertheless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C* D J L à , and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be inserted more readily and more frequently (in this instance probably in conformity with Mar_14:34) than it would be omitted.
Mat_26:39. προελθών ] so B M Π , It. Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of προσελθών , which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, and Tisch. 8; but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part of the transcriber; προέρχεσθαι occurs nowhere else in Matth.
The μου after πάτερ (deleted by Tisch. 8) is suspected of being an addition from Mat_26:42; however, the evidence in favour of deleting it (A B C D à , etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being retained.
Mat_26:42. τὸ ποτήριον ] is wanting in A B C I L à , min. vss. and Fathers; in D it comes before τοῦτο (as in Mat_26:39); in 157, Arm., it comes before ἐάν , in which position it also occurs in Δ , though with a mark of erasure. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. A supplement from Mat_26:39. Further, the ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ following, though the evidence against it is not quite so strong (B D L à , however), and though it is defended by Fritzsche, and only bracketed by Lachm., is to be condemned (with Griesb., Rinck, Tisch.) as an interpolation from Mat_26:39.
Mat_26:43. εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς πάλιν ] Lachm. and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also: πάλιν εὗρεν αὐτούς , following B C D I L à , min. and the majority of vss.; while other important witnesses (such as A K Δ ) also read εὗρεν , but adhere to the order in the Received text. Accordingly, εὗρεν is decidedly to be adopted, while εὑρίσκει is to be regarded as derived from Mat_26:40; as for πάλιν , however, there is so much diversity among the authorities with reference to its connection, and consequently with reference to its position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, and that is favourable to Lachm. and Tisch.
In Mat_26:44, again, πάλιν is variously placed; but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should be put before ἀπελθών , in accordance with B C D I L à , min. vss. ἐκ τρίτου , which Lachm. brackets, is, with Tisch., to be maintained on the strength of preponderating evidence. Had it been inserted in conformity with Mat_26:42, it would have been placed after πάλιν ; had it been from Mar_14:41, again, we should have had τὸ τρίτον . The omission may have been readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be supposed that Jesus prayed τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον but once before.
After εἰπών Tisch. 8 repeats the πάλιν (B L à , min. Copt.), which may easily have been omitted as superfluous. However, the preponderance of evidence (especially that of the vss. also) is against adopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a mechanical repetition.
Mat_26:50. The reading ἐφʼ ὅ (instead of ἐφʼ ᾧ , as in Elz.) is attested by decisive evidence.
Mat_26:52. ἀπολοῦνται ] F H K M S U V Γ Δ , min. vss. and Fathers: ἀποθανοῦνται . Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the principal mss.; a gloss, for which Sahid. must have read πεσοῦνται .
Mat_26:53. The placing of ἄρτι after παραστ . μοι , by Tisch. 8, is in opposition to a preponderance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emendation; ὧδε is likewise inserted by some.
πλείους ] Lachm. and Tisch.: πλείω , after B D à *. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is an unskilled emendation. For the same reason the following ἤ , which Lachm. brackets, should, with Tisch., be deleted, in accordance with B D L à ; though we should not follow Tisch. 8 in reading λεγιώνων (A C K L Δ Π * à *) for λεγεῶνας , because the genitive is connected with the reading πλείους .
Mat_26:55. πρὸς ὑμᾶς ] is, with Tisch., following B L à , 33, 102, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpolation from Mar_14:49.
Mat_26:58. ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ] ἀπό should be deleted, with Tisch., in accordance with important evidence. Taken from Mar_14:54.
Mat_26:59. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L à , min. vss. and Fathers, but it was omitted in conformity with Mar_14:55. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A desire to conform with Mark also serves to explain the fact that, in a few of the witnesses, ὅλον is placed before τὸ συνέδρ .
θανατώσωσιν ] θανατώσουσιν , as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evidence, and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive. αὐτόν should likewise be put before θανατ . (B C D L N à , min. Vulg. It.).
Mat_26:60. The reading of the Received text, which is attested by the important evidence of A C** E F G, etc., and likewise maintained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον . Καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύπων προσελθόντων οὐχ εὗρον . Griesb.: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλῶν ψευδ . προσελθ . Lachm. and Tisch.: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλ . προσελθ . ψευδ ., after which Lachm. gives the second οὐχ εὗρον in brackets. This second οὐχ εὗρον is wanting in A C* L N* à , min. vss. and Fathers (Or. twice); while in A B L Θ .f à , min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the words is: πολλ . προσελθ . ψευδ . Further, Syr. Arr. Pers.p Syr.jer Slav., though omitting the second οὐχ εὗρον , have retained καὶ before πολλῶν ; and this reading (accordingly: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον καί πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων ) I agree with Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 282 f., regarding as the original one. This καὶ , the force of which was missed from its not being followed by a verb, occasioned considerable embarrassment to the transcribers, who disposed of the difficulty by adding a second οὐχ εὗρον , while others got rid of the troublesome καί by simply omitting it.
δύο -g0- ψευδομάρτ -g0-.] Tisch., following B L à , min. vss. (also Syr.) and Or. (once), reads merely δύο . Correctly; ψευδομάρτ . is an addition, which might seem all the more necessary since a saying of Christ’s actually underlay the words.
Mat_26:65. ὅτι ] is wanting before ἐβλασφήμ . in such important witnesses, that Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in deleting it as a common interpolation.
Mat_26:70. For αὐτῶν πάντων read, with Tisch. 8, following preponderating evidence, merely πάντων , to which αὐτῶν was added for sake of greater precision.
Mat_26:71. For τοῖς ἐκεῖ , which Tisch. 8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. 7 read αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ . Both readings are strongly attested; but the latter is to be preferred, because the current τοῖς ἐκεῖ would involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less definite expression αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ .
Mat_26:74. καταθεματίζειν ] Elz., Fritzsche: καταναθεματίζειν , against decisive evidence. A correction.