Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 16

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 16


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 16

Luk_16:2. δυνήσῃ ] B D P à , min. have δύνῃ , which Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 121, approves, and Tisch. has now adopted. But if it were genuine, it would have been changed, not into δυνήσῃ , but into δύνασαι . The present came more readily to the transcribers, hence also δύνῃ was introduced.

Luk_16:6. καὶ εἶπεν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὁ δὲ εἶπεν , in accordance with A B L R à , min. Copt. Theophyl. (D has εἶπεν δέ ). The Recepta easily originated in the desire to vary the expression used in the preceding clause.

τὸ γράμμα ] Lachm. and Tisch. have τὰ γράμματα , in accordance with B D L à , Copt. Goth. codd. of It. So also in Luk_16:7. Rightly; the singular came more readily to the transcribers, because one writing was thought of (Vulg.: cautionem, Cod. Pal.: chirographum, X: τὰ γραμματεῖον ).

Luk_16:7. καὶ λέγει ] καί is to be struck out, as with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B L R, min. vss., as a connective addition, instead of which D has ὁ δέ .

Luk_16:9. ἐκλίπητε ] E G H K M S V Γ Δ Λ , min. have ἐκλείπητε ( Δ has ἐκλείπειτε ). B* D L R à * have ἐκλίπῃ ; A B** X, ἐκλείπῃ . Several versions also read one of these two. Hence the Recepta has decisive evidence against it. Since to understand the everlasting habitations as the word for death, and consequently to change it into the plural so readily suggested itself, I regard the singular as original, though not ἐκλίπῃ (Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), but ἐκλείπῃ , since the important authorities which read ἐκλείπητε (so Matthaei) are also in favour of this present form; just as, moreover, the aorist in itself, according to the sense (cum defecerit), presented itself most readily to the uncritical transcribers.

Luk_16:18. The second πᾶς has evidence so important against it that (condemned by Griesbach, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) it must be regarded as a mechanical repetition.

Luk_16:20. ἦν and ὅς are wanting in B D L X à , min. vss. Clem. Suspected by Griesbach, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But if ἦν had been added, καί would have been inserted instead of ὃς , after the model of Luk_16:19. On the other hand, after ΛαζαρΟΣ it was easy to pass over ὃς , which then also caused the omission of ἦν .

Luk_16:21. ψιχίων τῶν ] is wanting in B L à * min. vss. Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and Tisch. A gloss, following Mat_15:27.

Instead of ἀπέλειχον is to be written, with Lachm. and Tisch., ἐπέλειχον , in accordance with A B L X à (D has ἔλειχον ).

Luk_16:25. σύ , which Elz. Lachm. have after ἀπέλαβες , is not found in B D G H L à , min. vss. (including Vulg. It.), Fathers; and in A it does not come in till after σου . An addition for the sake of the contrast.

ὧδε is so decisively attested, that ὅδε (Elz.) can only appear as an alteration for the sake of the contrast.

Luk_16:26. Instead of ἔνθεν Elz. has ἐντεύθεν , in opposition to decisive evidence. The more frequent form forced itself in ( ἔνθεν does not elswhere occur in the N. T.). The entire omission of the word is too weakly attested by D, Cant. Colb. Dial. c. Marc.

οἱ ἐκεῖθεν ] B D à * Arm. Vulg. It. Ambr. Lachm. have merely ἐκεῖθεν . Rightly; οἱ is an addition in accordance with what has gone before.

On the parable of the dishonest steward, see Schreiber, historico-critica explicationum parabolae de improbo oecon. descriptio, Lips. 1803 (in which the earlier literature is detailed); Loeffler in the Magaz. f. Pred. III. 1, p. 80 ff. (in his Kl. Schr. II. p. 196 ff.); Keil in the Anal. II. 2, p. 152 ff.; Bertholdt in five Programmes, Erl. 1814–1819; Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. 1817, p. 203 ff.; D. Schulz, über die Parab. vom Verwalter, Bresl. 1821; Möller, neue Ansichten, p. 206 ff.; Grossmann, de procurat. parab. Christi ex re provinciali Rom. illustr., Lips. 1824; Rauch in Winer’s Krit. Journ. 1825, p. 285 ff.; Niedner, Dissert., lips. 1826, in the Commentatt. theol. ed. Rosenmüller et Maurer, II. 1, p. 74 ff.; Bahnmeyer in Klaiber’s Stud. I. 1, p. 27 ff.; Gelpke, nov. tentam. parab. etc., Lips. 1829; Jensen in the Stud. und Krit. 1829, p. 699 ff.; Hartmann, Comm. de oecon. impr., Lips. 1830; Zyro in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 776 ff.; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 53 ff.; Dettinger in the Tübingen Zeitschr. 1834, 4, p. 40 ff.; Steudel, ibid. p. 96 ff.; Fink in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 313 ff.; Steinwerder, üb. d. Gleichn. vom ungerecht. Haushalt., Stuttg. 1840; Brauns in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 1012 ff.; Francke in the Stud. d. Sächs. Geistl. 1842, p. 45 ff.; Heppe, Diss. d. loco Luc. xv. 1–9, Marb. 1844 (in opposition to Francke); H. Bauer in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1845, 3, p. 519 ff.; Eichstädt, parabolam J. Chr. de oeconomo impr. retractavit, Jen. 1847; Harnisch also, e. Erklärung des Gleichn. etc., Magdeburg, 1847; Wieseler in the Gött. Viertelj.-Schr. 1849, p. 190 ff.; Meuss, in parab. J. Chr. de oecon. injusto, Vratisl. 1857; Hölbe in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 527 ff.; Engelhardt in “Gesetz und Zeugniss,” 1859, p. 262 ff.; (Eylau) in Meklenb. Kirchenbl. 1862, Nr. 4–6; Lahmeyer, Lüneb. Schulprogr. 1863; Köster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 725 ff.