Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 11
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_11:4. The form ἀφίομεν is, on decisive evidence, to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch.
Luk_11:9-10. The authorities for ἀνοιγήσεται and ἀνοιχθήσεται are about equally balanced. Tisch. has rightly adopted the latter. The Recepta is from Mat_7:7 f.
Luk_11:11. Instead of ἐξ ὑμῶν ELz. has simply ὑμῶν , in opposition to decisive evidence. On similar evidence, moreover, ἤ is subsequently adopted instead of εἰ (Elz.), and at Luk_11:13 δόματα ἀγαθά (reversed in Elz.).
Luk_11:12. Instead of ἢ καὶ ἐάν Tisch. has merely ἢ καί , following B L à , min. But ἐάν was the more easily omitted, since it does not occur in the foregoing verse. On the other hand, αἰτήσει is so decisively attested that it is, with Tisch., to be adopted instead of the Recepta ΑἸΤΉΣῌ .
Luk_11:15. Τῷ before ἌΡΧΟΝΤΙ is wanting in Elz. Scholz, but is decisively attested; the omission is explained from Mat_12:24.
Luk_11:19. ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ ΑὐΤΟΊ ] B D, Lachm. Tisch. have ΑὐΤΟῚ ὙΜῶΝ ΚΡΙΤΑΊ . A C K L M U, min. Vulg. It. have ΑὐΤΟῚ ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ . So also has à , which, however, places ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ before ὙΜ . [Tisch. 8 has adopted the reading of à ]. Accordingly, the evidence is decisive against the Recepta. The omission of αὐτοί (it is wanting still in 113) occasioned its being very variously placed when it was reintroduced. The place assigned to it by Lachm. is the rather to be preferred, as B D, the authorities in its favour, have in Mat_12:27 : αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσοντ . ὑμῶν , and have not therefore borrowed their arrangement in this passage from Matthew. The Vulgate, on the other hand, has also in Matt. l.c.: ΑὐΤΟῚ ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ; hence the reading of A C, etc., is probably due to a conformity with Matthew.
Luk_11:22. The article before ἸΣΧΥΡΌΤ . is wanting in B D L Γ à , and is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. It was introduced in accordance with Ὁ ἸΣΧΥΡΌς , Luk_11:21.
Luk_11:25. Instead of ἘΛΘΌΝ , important authorities (but not A B L à ) have ἘΛΘΏΝ . Rightly; see on Mat_12:44.
Luk_11:29. After ἸΩΝᾶ Elz. Scholz have ΤΟῦ ΠΡΟΦΉΤΟΥ , in opposition to important evidence. It is from Mat_12:39, whence, however, the Recepta ἐπιζητεῖ was also derived, instead of which ζητεῖ , with Tisch., is to be read. Moreover, in accordance with Lachm. and Tisch., γενεά is again to be inserted before πονηρά .
Luk_11:32. Νινευΐ ] A B C E** G L M U X Γ Δ à , min. Syr. Vulg. It. have Νινευῖται . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. 8 has Νινευεῖται ]. Rightly; Luke has followed Matthew (Luk_12:41) verbatim.
Luk_11:34. After the first ὈΦΘΑΛΜΌς , Griesb. and the later editors have rightly added ΣΟΥ . The omission is explained from Mat_6:22; its insertion, however, is decisively attested.
ΟὖΝ ] after ὍΤΑΝ is wanting in preponderating authorities. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is an addition from Mat_6:23.
Luk_11:42. After ΤΑῦΤΑ Griesb. has inserted ΔΈ , which Lachm. brackets, while Tisch. has deleted it; it is too weakly attested, and is from Mat_23:23.
ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ΠΑΡΕῖΝΑΙ , in accordance with B* L à ** min. The Recepta is from Matthew. A has a fusion of the two: παραφιέναι ; D, 11 :have not got the word at all.
Luk_11:44. After ὑμῖν Elz. (and Lachm. in brackets) has γραμματεῖς κ . Φαρισαῖοι , ὑποκριταί . So also Scholz, but in opposition to evidence so important, that it can only be regarded as an addition from Mat_23:27.
οἱ before περιπ . is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted. It arose from the preceding syllable. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. [retained by Tisch. 8].
Luk_11:48. μαρτυρεῖτε ] Tisch. has μάρτυρές ἐστε , in accordance with B L à , Or. The Recepta is from Mat_23:31.
ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤᾺ ΜΝΗΜΕῖΑ ] is not found in B D L à , Cant. 11 :Verc. Rd. Vind. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. deleted by Tisch. The words, both read and arranged differently by different authorities, are a supplement, in accordance with Matthew.
Luk_11:51. The article before ΑἽΜΑΤΟς in both cases is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with important evidence, to be struck out as an addition.
Luk_11:53. ΛΈΓΟΝΤΟς ΔῈ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΠΡῸς ΑὐΤΟΎς ] B C L à , 33, Copt. have ΚἈΚΕῖΘΕΝ ἘΞΕΛΘΌΝΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ . This is, with Tisch., to be adopted. The authorities in favour of the Recepta have variations and additions, which indicate that they have originated as glosses.
Luk_11:54. Many variations in the form of glosses. Lachm. follows the Recepta, only omitting ΚΑΊ before ΞΗΤ . Tisch. has simply ἘΝΕΔΡ ., ΘΗΡΕῦΣΑΊ ΤΙ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ , founding it mainly on B L à . All the rest consists of additions for the sake of more explicit statement.
[140] Thus or similarly Marcion read the first petition, and Hilgenfeld, Kritik. Unters. p. 470, and Volkmar, p. 196, regard the petition in this place about the Holy Ghost as original (because specifically Pauline), and the canonical text as an alteration in accordance with Matthew; see also Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 222 f., and in his Evangel. p. 187 f.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 14. But ver. 13 easily occasioned the alteration, welcome as it was to the one-sided Paulinism, seeing that by its means the Holy Spirit was represented as the chief of what was to be asked for from God. Comp. Tholuck, Bergpred. p. 347 f.