Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 15
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_15:9. Instead of συγκαλεῖται Tisch. has συγκαλεῖ , on important yet not preponderating evidence [Tisch. 8 has συνκαλεῖ ]. It is from Luk_15:6, where συγκαλεῖ is decisively attested.
Luk_15:14. ἱσχυρός ] A B D L R à , min. have ἱσχυρά . Recommended by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Those MSS. preponderate, and the masculine is an amendment, in accordance with customary usage, and according to Luk_4:25. Comp. on Act_11:28.
Luk_15:16. γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ ἀπό ] B D L R à , min. vss. have χορτασθῆναι ἐκ . An interpretation.
Luk_15:17. περισσεύουσιν ] A B P and a few min. Tit. have περισσεύονται -g0-. Rightly; the active was introduced, in accordance with the wonted usage.
The ὧδε added by Griesb. is not found, indeed, in important authorities, and it stands in B L à , Lachm. after λιμῷ , but it has plainly been absorbed by ἐγὼ δέ ; hence also the placing of it before λιμῷ , in accordance with D R U, min. vss. Chrys., is, with Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., to be preferred [Tisch. 8 has λιμῷ ὧδε ].
Luk_15:19. Before οὐκέτι Elz. has καί , but in opposition to decisive evidence. Moreover, at Luk_15:21 this καί is to be deleted, on preponderating evidence.
Luk_15:22. Lachm. and Tisch. [not Tisch. 8] have ταχύ before ἐξενέγκατε , in accordance with B L X à , vss., also Vulg. It. Jer. D also adds weight to the evidence with ταχέως . ταχύ is to be regarded as genuine. Copyists would have added a more familiar word as εὐθέως , or at least as, with D, ταχέως (Luk_14:21). ταχύ does not occur at all elsewhere in Luke; still the omission is not to be explained by this fact, but simply as an old clerical error.
τὴν στολήν ] τήν has decisive MSS. against it, and is, according to Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as an addition.
Luk_15:23. ἐνέγκαντες ] B L R X à , Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. have φέρετε . So Tisch. The participle is an attempt to improve the style. D also testifies in favour of the imperative by ἐνέγκατε (Luk_15:22).
Luk_15:24 καὶ ἀπολ .] καί is rightly condemned by Griesb., on decisive evidence, and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The second ἦν , however, has against it, in D Q, min., evidence too feeble for it to be deleted. Yet, according to A B L à *, it must be placed before ἀπολ . (Lachm. Tisch.). The position after ἀπολ . is a harmonizing of it with νεκρ . ἦν .
Luk_15:32. Instead of ἀνέζησεν , read with Tisch., following B L R Δ à , min., ἔζησεν . The former is from Luk_15:24.
In the same manner is to be explained the omission of καί before ἀπολ . in Tisch. (following D X à ). But ἦν is here to be deleted, on decisive MSS. (Lachm. Tisch.; condemned also by Griesb.).