Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 10
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_10:2. Instead of the first οὖν , Lachm. Tisch. have δέ ; see on Luk_6:9.
Luk_10:3. ἐγώ ] is wanting in A B à , min. Arm. Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Lachm. Tisch. It is from Mat_10:16.
Luk_10:5. εἰσέρχησθε ] Here and at Luk_10:10 εἰσέλθητε must be read, on preponderating evidence. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. If it were not original, but an alteration, εἰσέρχησθε at Luk_10:8 would not have been acquiesced in.
Luk_10:6 f. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted μέν after ἐάν , the article before υἱός , and ἐστί , Luk_10:7.
Luk_10:8. δʼ ἄν ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἄν , according to evidence not preponderating; and how easily the δʼ , that might be dispensed with, would drop away, since already the connecting particle was found in καί !
Luk_10:11. After ὑμῶν Griesb. has added εἰς τοὺς πόδας ἡμῶν , in accordance with decisive authorities, among which, however, B D R à , min. Sax. It want ἡμῶν , which therefore Lachm. and Tisch. have not adopted with the rest. But it was just this word ἡμῶν that occasioned the omission of the words in question, because the transcriber passed on immediately from ὑμῶν to ἡμῶν . Hence the reading of Griesbach is to be maintained in its integrity.
After ἤγγικεν , Elz. Scholz have ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς , in opposition to authorities so important that it can only appear as a repetition from Luk_10:9.
Luk_10:12. After λέγω Elz. [Tisch. 8 also] has δέ (Lachm. in brackets), opposed to very important evidence. A connective addition.
Luk_10:13. ἐγένοντο ] B D L à , min. have ἐγενήθησαν . So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Mat_11:21.
καθήμεναι ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καθήμενοι , in accordance with decisive evidence. The Recepta is a grammatical alteration.
Luk_10:15. ἡ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθεῖσα ] Lachm. Tisch. have μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ , in accordance with B D L Ξ à , Syr.cur. Aeth. Copt. It. To be rejected as at Mat_11:24.
Luk_10:19. δίδωμι ] Tisch. Has δέδωκα , following B C* L X à , vss. Or. Caes. Bas. Cyr. Epiph. Chrys. Rightly; the present tense more readily occurred to the transcribers.
ἀδικήσῃ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀδικήσει , on authority so important that ἀδικήσῃ must be regarded as a grammatical alteration.
Luk_10:20. After χαίρ . δέ Elz. has μᾶλλον , in opposition to largely preponderating evidence. An addition for toning down the expression.
Instead of ἐγράφη Tisch. has ἐγγέγραπται , following B L X à , 1, 33, Eus. Bas. Cyr. [Tisch. 8 has ἐνγέγραπται , following à B], But the compound, as well as the perfect tense, looks like a more precise definition of the original ἐγράφη .
Luk_10:21. After πνεύματι B C D K L X Ξ Π à , min. vss. (even Vulg. It.) have τῷ ἁγίῳ . Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. A pious addition; the transcribers would hardly have omitted the adjective, especially as in Luk_10:20 τὰ πνεύματα had just gone before in an entirely different sense.
Luk_10:22 is introduced in Elz. Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. 8] by καὶ στραφείς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε . The words are to be retained, in opposition to Griesb. and Tisch. [Tisch. 8 has the words]; they are wanting in B D L M Ξ à , min. vss. (even Vulg. codd. of It.) Ir., but they were omitted partly in accordance with Matthew, partly because, on account of Luk_10:23, they seemed inappropriate in this place. If they had been adopted out of Luk_10:23, κατʼ ἰδίαν also, which in Luk_10:23 is omitted only by D, vss., would have been taken up with them, and the words would be wanting in Luk_10:23 in one set of the authorities.
Luk_10:27. Lachm. and Tisch. have, indeed, ἐξ ὅλης τ . καρδίας σ ., but then ἐν ὅλῃ τ . ψυχῇ σ . κ . ἐν ὅλῃ τ . ἰσχύϊ σ . κ . ἐν ὅλῃ τ . διανοίᾳ σ ., on evidence so important that the Recepta, which throughout reads ἐκ , must be traced to the LXX. D, min. It. have throughout ἐν , from Mat_22:37.
Luk_10:29. δικαιοῦν ] Lachm. Tisch. have δικαιῶσαι , on decisive evidence.
Luk_10:30. τυγχάνοντα ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D L Ξ à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. It was altogether superfluous, and was therefore passed over; there was no motive for adding it.
For a similar reason γενόμενος , Luk_10:32, is to be maintained, in opposito Tisch. [Tisch.synops. indeed omits it, but Tisch. 8 has restored it].
Luk_10:33. αὐτόν ] is wanting in B C L Ξ à , 1, 33, 254, Verc. Vind. Colb. Rd. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. Rightly. It is from Luk_10:31.
Luk_10:35. ἐξελθών ] is wanting in B D L X Ξ à , min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Aeth. Copt. Vulg. It. Chrys. Condemned by Griesb. and Schulz (by the latter as “vox molestissima”), deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. To be maintained. The similar ἐκβαλών which follows occasioned the omission of the word, which, besides, appeared cumbrous.
Luk_10:36. οὖν ] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., in accordance with B L Ξ à , min. vss. A connective addition. The arrangement πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι (Elz. Lachm. have δοκ . σ . πλησ .) is decisively attested.
Instead of παρακαθίσασα , read, with Tisch. in Luk_10:39, παρακαθεσθεῖσα , in accordance with A B C* L Ξ à . The Recepta is the easier reading.
Luk_10:41. τυρβάζῃ ] Lachm. [Tisch. 8 also] has θορυβάζῃ , in accordance with B C D L à 1, 33, Bas. Evagr. An interpretation in accordance with the frequently occurring θόρυβος .
The reading ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός (B C** L à , 1, 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Fathers) and similar readings have originated from the explanation which takes the passage as meaning one dish.