Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 27
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Ποντίῳ πιλ .] B L à , 33, 102, vss. Or. have simply Πιλάτῳ ; but the full form of the name is to be preferred all the more that the parallel passages have only Πιλάτ .
Mat_27:3. παραδιδούς ] Lachm.: παραδούς , following only B L 33, 259, vss. (?). The aorist would more readily occur to the transcribers, since the betrayal had already taken place.
Mat_27:4. ἀθῷον ] δίκαιον , although recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, has too little evidence in its favour, and should be regarded as an early exegetical correction with a view to render the expression more forcible; comp. Mat_23:35.
ὄψει ] Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.: ὄψῃ , in accordance with decisive evidence.
Mat_27:5. Instead of ἐν τῷ ναῷ , Tisch. 8 has εἰς τὸν ναόν . Exegetical emendation, against which there is a preponderance of evidence.
Mat_27:9. Ἱερεμίου ] The omission of the prophet’s name in 33, 157, Syr. Pers. and Codd. in Aug., as well as the reading Ζαχαρίου in 22, Syr.p in the margin, is due to the fact that the quotation is not found in Jeremiah.
Mat_27:11. ἔστη ] B C L à , 1, 33, Or.: ἐστάθη . So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Exegetical emendation with a view to greater precision.
Mat_27:16-17. Βαραββᾶν ] Fritzsche: Ἰησοῦν βαραββᾶν . So Origenint. several min. Aram. Syr.jer., and early scholiasts. Advocated above all by Fritzsche in the Litt. Blatt z. allgem. Kirchenzeit. 1843, p. 538 f., in opposition to Lachm. ed. maj. p. xxxvii. f., with which latter critic Tisch. agrees. For my own part, I look upon the reading Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν as the original one, for I am utterly at a loss to see how, Ἰησοῦν should have found its way into the text (in answer to Holtzmann, who supposes that it was from Act_4:36 through a blunder of the transcriber, and in answer to Tisch. 8, who with Tregelles traces it to an abbreviation of the name Ιησοῦν ( ΙΝ ), in which case it is supposed that ΥΜΙΝΙΝ came to be substituted for ΥΜΙΝ ); and because to take away the sacred name from the robber would seem very natural and all the more justifiable that it is likewise omitted in Mat_27:20 f., 26, and by the other evangelists, not to mention that, from a similar feeling of reverence, it would seem to have been suppressed in the tradition current in the apostolic age. Comp. also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 285, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weizsäcker. The view that Ἰησοῦν has been adopted from the Gospel of the Hebrews (Tisch.) is a very questionable inference from the statement of Jerome, that instead of Βαραββ . that Gospel had substituted filium magistri eorum. It would be just as warrantable to quote the same authority in favour of the originality of the reading Ἰησοῦν Βαραββ .
Mat_27:22. αὐτῷ (Elz., Scholz) after λέγουσι has been deleted in accordance with preponderating evidence.
Mat_27:24. The reading κατέναντι (Lachm.) is supported only by the insufficient evidence of B D; comp. Mat_21:2.
τοῦ δικαίου τούτου ] The words τοῦ δικσαίου are wanting in B D 102, Cant. 27 :Verc. Mm. Chrys. Or.int. They are placed after τούτου in A, while Δ reads τοῦ τούτου δικαίου . Lachm. inserts them after τούτου , but in brackets; Tisch. deletes them, and that correctly. They are to be regarded as a gloss (suggested by the reading δίκαιου , Mat_27:4), written on the margin at first, and afterwards, when incorporated in the text, conjoined in some instances with τοῦ αἵματος (as in Mat_27:4) and in others with τοῦ αἵματος ; hence so many different ways of arranging the words.
Mat_27:28. ἐκδύσαντες ] B D ** à 157, Cant. 27 :Verc. Colb. Corb. 2, Lachm.: ἐνδύσαντες . Correctly; ἐνδύς . was not understood, and was accordingly altered.[31] Comp. on 2Co_5:3. In what follows we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., restore the arrangement χλαμ . κοκκ . περίεθ . αὐτῷ , in accordance with important evidence.
Mat_27:29. ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν ] As the reading ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) has such important evidence as that of A B D L N à , min. vss. Fathers in its favour, and the one in the Received text might so easily originate in a mechanical conforming with ἐπὶ τὴν κεφ . (for which Tisch., in opposition to a preponderance of MS. evidence, substitutes ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ), we cannot but regard ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ as having the best claim to originality.
Mat_27:33. Elz. has ὅς ἐστι λεγόμενος κρανίου τόπος . So also Scholz. There is a multiplicity of readings here. Fritzsche, Rinck (comp. also Griesb.) have simply ὅ ἐστι κρανίου τόπος , while Lachm. and Tisch. read ὅ ἐστιν κρανίου τόπος λεγδμενος . The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of regarding the neuter ὅ as genuine; it was changed to the masculine to suit τόπον and τόπος . Further, λεγόμενος is wanting only in D, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It., where its omission may probably have been resorted to as a means of getting rid of a difficult construction, while the readings λεγόμενον , μεθερμηνευόμενος , μεθερμηνευόμενον (Mar_15:22), καλούμενον (Luk_23:33), are also to be regarded as exegetical variations. We ought therefore to retain the λεγόμενος , and in the order in which it is taken by Lachm. and Tisch., on the authority of B L à , min. Ath. Its earlier position in Elz. is probably due to ἐστι λεγόμ . (comp. ἔστι μεθερμ ., Mar_15:22) being sometimes taken together.
Mat_27:34. ὍΞΟς ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ΟἿΝΟΝ , which is supported by evidence so important, viz. B D K L Π * à , min. vss. and Fathers, that we must regard ὌΞΟς as derived from Psa_68:22. The word ΟἿΝΟΝ was allowed to remain in Mar_15:23 because the gall did not happen to be mentioned there; and this being the case, the alteration, in conformity with Psalms 68. as above, would not so readily suggest itself.
Mat_27:35. After κλῆρον Elz. inserts: ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου · Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς , καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔλαβον κλῆρον . Against decisive evidence; supplement from Joh_19:24.
Mat_27:40. κατάβηθι ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : καὶ κατάβ ., following A D à , min. Syr.jer. Cant. 27 :Verc. Colp. Clar. Cyr. The καί has been added for the purpose of connecting the two clauses together.
Mat_27:41. After πρεσβυτέρων , Matth., Fritzsche insert καὶ Φαρισαίων , for which there is important though not preponderant evidence. Those chief adversaries of Jesus were by way of gloss mentioned on the margin, but subsequently the words crept into the text, being sometimes found along with, and sometimes substituted for, πρεσβυτέρων (as in D, min. Cant. 27 :Verc. Colb. Clar. Corb. 2, Gat. Cassiod.).
Mat_27:42. εἰ βασιλ .] Fritzsche and Tisch. read simply βασιλ ., following B D L à , 33, 102, Sahid. Correctly; εἰ is a supplementary addition from Mat_27:40, its insertion in D, min. vss. Eus. before πέποιθεν below being likewise traceable to the same source.
πιστεύσομεν ] Lachm.: πιστεύομεν , only in accordance with A, Vulg. 27 :Verc. Colb. Or.int., but correctly notwithstanding. By way of gloss the present was replaced sometimes by the future (Elz.) and sometimes by the subjunctive πιστεύσωμεν . Tisch. 8 adopts the latter.
ἐπʼ αὐτῷ ] The witnesses are divided between αὐτῷ (Elz., Lachm.), ἐπʼ αὐτῷ (Griesb., Tisch. 7), and ἐπʼ αὐτόν (Fritzsche, Tisch, 8). The reading ἐπʼ αὐτῷ (E F G H K M S U V Δ Π , min.) should te preferred, inasmuch as this expression not only occurs nowhere else in Matthew, but is a somewhat rare one generally.
Mat_27:44. For αὐτόν , Elz. has αὐτῷ , against decisive MS. authority. Emendation in conformity with the construction ὀνειδίζειν τινί τι .
Mat_27:46. The MSS. present very considerable variety as regards the spelling of the Hebrew words. Lachm.: Ἠλί ἠλί λημὰ σαβακθανί . Tisch. 8 : Ἡλεὶ Ἡλεὶ λιμὰ σαβαχθανί . The latter is the best attested.
Mat_27:49. ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν , καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα , supported though it be by B C L U Γ à , min. vss. Chrys., is clearly an irrelevant interpolation (after αὐτόν ) borrowed from Joh_19:34. Yet this interpolation occasioned the error condemned by Clem. 5:1311, that Christ’s side was pierced before He expired.
Mat_27:52. ἠγέρθη ] B D G L à , min. Or. Eus.: ἠγέρθησαν . So Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. But how readily would the whole surroundings of the passage suggest the plural to the mechanical transcribers!
Mat_27:54. γενόμενα ] Lachm. and Tisch.: γίνομενα , following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, has γενόμενα as well). The aorist might have originated as readily in a failure to appreciate the difference of meaning as in a comparison of the present passage with Luk_23:47 f.
Mat_27:56. For Ἰωσῆ , Tisch. 8 has Ἰωσήφ , following D* L à , vss. Or. Eus. Emendation suggested by the assumption that the mother of Jesus must have been intended (comp. on Mat_13:55); hence * à enumerates the three Marys thus: Μαρ . ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ ἡ Μαρ . ἡ Ἰωσήφ καὶ ἠ Μαρ . ἡ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβ .
Mat_27:57. ἐμαθήτενσε ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ἐμαθητεύθη , following C D à and two min. Altered in accordance with Mat_13:52.
Mat_27:64. Elz. inserts νύκτος after αὐτοῦ , against decisive evidence; borrowed from Mat_28:13. The δέ again, which Elz. has after ἔφη , Mat_27:65, is an interpolation for sake of connection, and is wanting in very important witnesses (not, however, in A C D à ).
[31] Lachm. adopts the reading ἐνδύσαντες in accordance with his fundamental principles of criticism, still he looks upon it as an error of early date. See his Praef. ed. maj. II. p. 6.