Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 19
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_19:4. συκομορέαν ] see the exegetical remarks.
Instead of ἐκείνης Elz. has διʼ ἐκείνης , in opposition to decisive evidence, on the strength of which, also at Luk_19:7, πάντες is to be read instead of ἅπαντες .
Luk_19:5. εἶδεν αὐτὸν καί ] is wanting in B L à , min. vss. Tisch. The transcriber passed at once from ΕΙδεν to ΕΙπεν .
Luk_19:13. ἔως ] A B D K L R à , min. Or. Lucif. have ἐν ᾧ . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; ἔως is an interpretation.
Luk_19:15. ἔδωκε ] Lachm. Tisch. have δεδώκει , in accordance with B D L à , min. Cant. Verc. (Or.: ἐδεδώκει ). An emendation.
Luk_19:17. εὖ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have εὖγε , following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. Lucif. The Recepta is from Mat_25:23.
Luk_19:20. ἔτερος ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὁ ἕτερος , in accordance with B D L R à ** min. A mechanical repetition of the article, in accordance with Luk_19:16; Luk_19:18.
Luk_19:23. τήν ] is wanting in authorities so decisive, that, with Matth. Lachm. Tisch., it must be deleted.
The position of αὐτό immediately after ἄν has, it is true, A B L à in its favour (Lachm. Tisch.), yet the old reading ἀνέπραξα in A is against it, as it manifestly originated from the collocation of ἄν and ἔπραξα . So in Δ , ΑΝΕΠΡΑΞΑ is written as one word, although translated as two words. The separation might easily be marked by αὐτό placed between them.
Luk_19:26. Since γάρ is wanting in important authorities, while Vulg. It. have autem, it is to be regarded, with Tisch., as a connective addition, in accordance with Mat_25:29.
ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ ] is bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is wanting in B L à , min. Lucif., and has slipped in mechanically from Mat_13:12, although there the construction is different. Comp. Mar_4:25.
Luk_19:27. ἐκείνους ] B K L M à , min. Didym. have τούτους . To be preferred, with Bornem. and Tisch.; ἐκ . is an amendment by way of designating the absent.
Luk_19:31. αὐτῷ ] is wanting in B D F L R à , min. vss. Or. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The omission is occasioned by its absence in the parallels.
Luk_19:34. Before ὁ κύριος Lachm. Tisch. have ὅτι , certainly on preponderating evidence, but it is repeated from Luk_19:31.
Luk_19:37. πασῶν ] Lachm. has πάντων , following B D. But πάντων came in through the reading γινομένων (instead of δυνάμ .), which is still found in D.
Luk_19:40. Lachm. and Tisch. have σιωπήσουσιν , in accordance with A B L R Δ à , min., to which also D adds confirmation by σιγήσουσιν . The Recepta is by way of an improvement.
Instead of κεκράξονται B L à have κράξουσιν , which rare form Tisch. has rightly adopted.
Luk_19:41. Elz. Griesb. Scholz have ἐπʼ αὐτῇ . But ἐπʼ αὐτήν is decisively attested. So Schulz, Lachm. Tisch.
Luk_19:42. καὶ σὺ καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμ . σου ταύτῃ ] Lachm. has bracketed καί γε , and deleted σου ; the former is wanting in B D L à , 157, vss. Or.; the latter in A B D L à , min. vss. Or. Eus. Bas. Both are to be retained; καὶ γε dropped out in consequence of the preceding καὶ σύ , and then this drew after it the omission of σου , which after the simple καὶ σύ (without καὶ γε ) did not seem in place.
The second σου is, indeed, wanting in B L à , 259, Or. Ir. (bracketed by Lachm.); but how easily might the word, which, moreover, might be dispensed with, drop out between the syllables ΝΗΝ and ΝΥΝ !
Luk_19:45. ἐν αὐτῷ ] is wanting in B C L à , min. Copt. Arm. Goth. Rd. Or. In most of these authorities καὶ ἀγοράζοντας is also wanting. Tisch. deletes both, and both are from the parallels, from which D Λ , vss. have added still more.
Luk_19:46. Tisch. has καὶ ἔσται ὁ οἶκ . μου οἶκ . προσευχ ., following B L R à (in which, however, κ . ἔσται is wanting by the first hand), min. Copt. Arm. Or. Rightly; the Recepta is from the parallels, from which, moreover, appears in C** κληθήσεται instead of ἐστίν .