Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 9

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 9


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 9

Rev_9:2. καὶ ἤνοιξεν τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου . So, correctly, Elz., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to the best witnesses. The words lacking in à , 6, 8, 9, al., Copt., al., are rejected by Mill (Prolegg., 1434) and Matth. But the omission in the codd. is easily explained by the similar conclusion of Rev_9:1; just as in Rev_9:2, because of καπνὸς occurring twice, the words καπν . ἐκ τ . φρ . ὡς are omitted by some witnesses. Cf. Wetst. In an exegetical respect, the words κ . ἤνοιξεν τ . φρ . τ . ἀβ . are scarcely needed.

Rev_9:4. αὑτῶν . Elz.: αὑτῶν (Tisch.). Apparently interpolated; deleted by Lach. [W. and H.] (A, à , 12, 28).

Rev_9:5. βασανισθήσονται . So Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to A, à , 12. The reading βασανισθῶσι (Elz.) arose, like the other variations, from the desire for conformity; cf. the preceding ἀποκτείνωσιν .

Rev_9:6. Instead of εὑρήσουσιν ( à , Elz.), [W. and H.] read εὑρωσιν (A, 12, 17, 28, Beng., Lach., Tisch.), to which also the var. εὑρήσωσιν (2, 9, 11, al., Wetst.) points.

The fut. φεύξεται (Elz.) is an emendation, instead of the well-attested pres. φεύγει (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). à : φύγη .

Rev_9:10. καὶ κέντρα ήν ἑν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὑτῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὑτῶν ἀδικῆσαι . Thus Elz., but without attestation. In the beginning, it is undoubtedly to be read only καὶ κέντρα (A, à , 17, al., Matth., Lach., Tisch.). In favor of the succeeding words, the reading of A, à , 17, manifestly the mater lectionis, is decisive: καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι , κ . τ . λ . (Lach., Tisch.). In the other text-recensions, the emendizing hand is unmistakable, especially so in that received by Matth., and represented by a respectably large number of witnesses: κ . ἐν τ . οὐρ . αὐτ . ἔχουσιν ἐξουσ . τοῦ ἀδικ . Upon the foundations of inner criticism, next to the correct reading, that of the edition of Beng. commends itself: καὶ κέντρα ἐν τ . ουρ . αὐτῶν ἡ ἐξουσ . αὐτῶν ἀδικ ., κ . τ . λ .

Rev_9:12. Instead of ἔρχονται (Elz.), Matth. has written, in accord with preponderant testimony ( à ): ἒρχεται (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).

Rev_9:13. τεσσάρων is lacking in A, 28, Syr., Aeth., Ar., Vulg., Beda, is deleted by Lach. [W. and H.], and rejected also by Ebrard; Tisch. has again adopted it. Possibly it fell out because of its similarity with κεράτων (Beng.); but it was more probably interpolated in order to make an antithesis to the φ . μίαν , and a parallelism with the τ . τέσσαρας ἀγγ . (Rev_9:14).

Rev_9:14. ὁ ἔχων . So, already, Beng. The emendation ὄς εἱχε (Elz.) is destitute of all critical value.

Rev_9:16. τοῦ ἵππου . So Matth., Tisch., 1854. according to 2, 4, 8, al. The reading τοῦ ἱππικοῦ ( à , Elz., Beng., Tisch., 1859, IX. [W. and H.]), like the var. τῶν ἵππων , appears to be a correction.

δισμυριάδες . A, 11, 12, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Also the var. δισμυρίων (18, Wetst.) points to the true reading. The δύο μυριάδες ( à , Elz., Beng.) is, like the mere μυριάδες in Matth., a correction.

The καὶ before ἤκουσα (Elz.) is certainly to be deleted (Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).

Rev_9:20. οὐ μετενόησαν . This only intelligible reading is sufficiently attested by C, 4, 6, 16, al., Copt., Andr., Areth., and is properly preferred by Griesb., Matth., Tisch. [W. and H.], to the οὔτε (Vulg., Primas, Cypr., Elz., Beng., Lach.). à : οὐδὲ .