Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 12
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_12:7. οὖν ] is wanting in B L R 157, Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Ambr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Mat_10:31.
Luk_12:11. προσφέρωσιν ] B L X à , min. Vulg. codd. of It. have εἰσφέρωσιν . So Tisch. D, Clem. Or. Cyr. of Jerus. 12 :have φέρωσιν . The latter is to be preferred; the compound forms are attempts at more accurate definition; had either of them been original there was no occasion for substituting the simple form.
Luk_12:14. δικαστήν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have κριτήν , in accordance with B L à , min. Sahid., as also D, 28, 33, Cant. Colb. Marcion, which have not ἢ μεριστ .
δικαστ . was introduced by way of gloss, through a comparison of Act_7:27; Act_7:35.
Luk_12:15. πάσης πλεονεξ . is to be adopted on decisive evidence (Elz. Scholz have τῆς πλ .).
Instead of the second αὐτοῦ , Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτῷ , in favour of which is the evidence of B D F L R à ** min. Bas. Titus of Bostra, Cyr. Rightly; αὐτοῦ is a mechanical repetition of what has gone before.
Luk_12:22. After ψυχῇ Elz. Scholz have ὑμῶν . Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence. It is from Mat_6:25; whence also in B, min. vss. ὑμῶν has also been interpolated after σώματι .
Luk_12:23. ἡ γὰρ ψυχή is indeed attested by authorities of importance (B D L M S V X à , min. vss. Clement); yet γάρ (bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) betrays itself as a connective addition, in opposition to which is the evidence also of οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχή in min. (following Matthew).
Luk_12:25. The omission of μεριμνῶν (Tisch.) is too weakly attested by D and two cursives for us to be able to regard the word as an addition from Matthew [Tisch. 8 has restored it]. The Homoioteleuton after ὑμῶν might easily cause its being dropped out.
Luk_12:26. οὔτε ] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐδέ . Necessary, and sufficiently attested by B L à , etc.
Luk_12:27. πῶς αὐξάνει · οὐ κοπ . οὐδὲ νήθει ] D, Verc. Syr.cur. Marcion? Clem. have πῶς οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει . So Tisch., and rightly; the Recepta is from Mat_6:28.
Luk_12:28. τὸν χόρτον ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ σήμ . ὄντα ] many variations. Both the word τῷ and the order of the Recepta are due to Mat_6:30. Following B L à , etc., we must read with Tisch. ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον σήμερον ὄντα [Tisch. 8, following à , B L Λ , 262, Sah. Copt., has ὄντα σήμερον ] (Lachm. has τ . χόρτον σήμ . ἐν ἀγρ . ὄντα ).
Luk_12:31. Elz. Scholz have τοῦ Θεοῦ . But the well-attested αὐτοῦ was supplanted by τοῦ Θεοῦ , following Mat_6:33, whence also was imported πάντα after ταῦτα (Elz. Scholz).
Luk_12:36. ἀναλύσει ] ἀναλύσῃ is decisively attested, and is hence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred.
Luk_12:38. οἱ δοῦλοι ] is wanting in B D L à , vss. Ir. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with Luk_12:37 [Tisch. 8 has also deleted ἐκεῖνοι , which is wanting in à *].
Luk_12:40. οὖν ] is to be struck out with Lachm. and Tisch., as also is αὐτῷ [not omitted by Tisch. 8], Luk_12:41.
Luk_12:42. Instead of ὁ φρόν ., Elz. Scholz have καὶ φρόν ., in opposition to preponderating evidence. καί is from Mat_24:45.
Luk_12:47. ἑαυτοῦ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτοῦ on very weighty evidence. The Recepta is to be maintained. The significance of the reciprocal pronoun was very often not observed by the transcribers.
Luk_12:49. Instead of εἰς , Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπί . The authorities are much divided, but ἐπί bears the suspicion of having come in through a reminiscence of Mat_10:34.
Luk_12:53. διαμερισθήσεται ] Lachm. and Tisch. (both of them joining it to what has gone before) have διαμερισθήσονται , in accordance with important uncials (including B D à ) and a few cursives, Sahid. Vulg. codd. of It. Fathers. Rightly; it was attracted to what follows (so also most of the editions), which appeared to need a verb, and therefore was put in the singular. According to almost equally strong attestation we must read τὴν θυγατέρα and τὴν μητέρα instead of θυγατρί and μητρι (Lachm. and Tisch. omitting the unequally attested article). The Recepta resulted from involuntary conformity to what precedes.
Luk_12:54. τὴν νεφέλ .] The article is wanting in A B L X Δ à , min. Lachm. Tisch. But how easily was τήν , which in itself is superfluous, passed over between ἴδηΤΕ and Νεφέλ .!
Luk_12:58. παραδῷ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have παραδώσει . Rightly; the transcribers carried on the construction, as in Mat_5:25. So also subsequently, instead of βάλλῃ (Elz.) or βάλῃ (Griesb. Scholz) is to be read, with Lachm. and. Tisch., βαλεῖ .