Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 17
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
οὐαὶ δέ ] B D L à , min. vss. Lachm. Have πλὴν οὐαί . From Mat_18:7.
Luk_17:2. μύλος ὀνικός ] B D L à , min. vss., including Vulg. It., have λίθος μυλικός . Recommended by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; the Recepta is from Mat_18:6.
Luk_17:3. δέ ] is wanting in B D L X à , min. vss., also Vulg. It. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. A connective addition, in accordance with Mat_18:15, from which place, moreover, εἰς σέ is intruded, in Elz. Scholz, after ἁμάρτῃ .
Luk_17:4. ἁμάρτῃ ] Decisive authorities have ἁμαρτήσῃ . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; ἁμάρτῃ is a mechanical repetition from Luk_17:3.
The second τῆς ἡμέρας has such important evidence against it, that Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. have rightly deleted it. An exegetical addition to balance the previous clause.
After ἐπιστρέψῃ Elz. adds ἐπὶ σέ . In any case wrong; since A B D L X Λ à , min. Clem. have πρός σε (approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), while E F G H K M S U V Γ Δ , min. vss. Or. Dam. have nothing at all (so Griesb. Matth. Scholz). πρός σε is preponderatingly attested; it was variously supplied ( ἐπί , εἰς ) when passed over as superfluous.
Luk_17:6. Instead of εἴχετε there is stronger evidence in favour of ἔχετε (so Tisch.); the former is an emendation.
Luk_17:7. ἀνάπεσαι ] Between this form and ἀνάπεσε (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.), the authorities are very much divided. The former was corrected by the latter as in Luk_14:10.
Luk_17:9. ἐκείνῳ ] is not found in decisive witnesses; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition for the sake of more precise statement, which, moreover, is accomplished in Elz. by adding αὐτῷ after διαταχθ .
οὐ δοκῶ ] is wanting in B L X à , min. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Verc. Cypr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But how easily might the following οὕτω become an occasion for the omission! For the addition just of these superfluous and yet peculiar words there was no reason.
Luk_17:10. The second ὅτι is wanting in A B D L à , min. Slav. Vulg. It. Or. and other Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective addition.
Luk_17:11. διὰ μέσου ] D has merely μέσον , which, dependent on διήρχετο , is to be considered as an exegetic marginal note. The μέσον written on the margin occasioned the readings διὰ μέσον (B L 28, à , Lachm. [Tisch. 8]), which usus loquendi is foreign to the New Testament, and ἀνὰ μέσον (1:13. 69. al).
Luk_17:23. Before the second ἰδού Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have ἤ , but in opposition to B D K L X Π à , min. Slav. Vulg. ms. Theophylact. An addition, according to the analogy of Mat_24:23. Tisch. has the arrangement ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ , ἰδοὺ ὧδε , following B L, Copt., and in any case it occurred more naturally to the transcribers, partly on its own account, partly following Luk_17:21 and Mat_24:23, to place ὧδε first.
Luk_17:24. After ἔσται Elz. has καί ; bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A very easily occurring addition (comp. Luk_17:26), which has preponderating evidence against it. Comp. on Mat_24:27.
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ ] is, indeed, deleted by Lachm., but is wanting only in B D, 220, codd. of It., and is to be maintained. If it had been added, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ would have been written, according to Mat_24:27, and this would have had not merely a few (248, codd. of It. Ambr.), but preponderating authorities. The omission may easily have arisen by means of the homoeoteleuton ἀνθρωπΟΥ … αὐτΟΥ .
Luk_17:27. ἐξεγαμίζοντο ] Lachm. Tisch., on preponderating evidence, have ἐγαμίζοντο . Rightly; the former is a kind of gloss, following Mat_24:38.
Luk_17:30. Here also, as at Luk_6:23, τὰ αὐτά , is to be read, in accordance with B D K X Π à ** min.
Luk_17:34 f. The articles before εἷς and before μία in Elz. Tisch. (the second also in Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. 8]) have such strong evidence against them, that they appear to have been added, according to the analogy of ὁ ἕτερος and ἡ ἑτέρα .
After Luk_17:35 Elz. Scholz have (Luk_17:36): Δύο ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ · ὁ εἷς παραληφθήσεται , κ . ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθής . Against such decisive evidence, that we cannot suppose an omission occasioned by the homoeoteleuton (Scholz), but an interpolation from Mat_24:24.
συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί ] Tisch. has καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται , on very important evidence. The Recepta is from Mat_24:28.