Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_2:5. μεμνηστ . See on Luk_1:27.
γυναικί ] is wanting in B C* (F) D L Ξ à , min. vss. Fathers. Deleted by Lachm., and now also again by Tisch. An addition; ἐμνηστευμένῃ was objectionable, hence γυναικί was added, and in part ἐμνηστευμ . was even deleted (Luke 2 :Verc. Colb.). There was less probability that offence might be taken after Mat_1:24 at γυναικί . Cyril of Jerusalem expresses himself too obscurely in this respect.
Luk_2:7. τῇ φάτνῃ ] τῇ is wanting in preponderating witnesses. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. The article was added here and at Luk_2:12, in order to designate the definite manger, i.e. the well-known manger of the Saviour.
Luk_2:12. κείμενον ] B L P S Ξ à ** min. Syr. utr. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Arnob. and Tisch. have καὶ κείμ .; καί was easily inserted to connect the two participles.
Luk_2:14. εὐδοκία ] A B* D à , Goth. Sax. Vulg. It., Fathers, have εὐδοκίας . So Lachm. and Tisch. Recommended by Beza, Mill, Bengel, and others. There is considerable evidence on both sides, but it preponderates in favour of the genitive. Now, as the unfamiliar expression ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας is not to be put down to the account of the transcribers, but, on the contrary, these, not apprehending the symmetry of the passage, had after the analogy of δόξα and εἰρήνη sufficient inducement to put instead of εὐδοκίας the nominative likewise, εὐδοκίας is to be preferred.
Luk_2:15. καί οἱ ἄνθρωποι ] is wanting in B L Ξ à , min. Syr. Perss. Ar. p. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It. Eus. Aug. Bracketed by Lachm. Deleted by Tisch. But the homoeoteleuton ( ἄγγελοι … ἄνθρωποι ) the more easily gave occasion to the omission, as the words are superfluous and there was no motive for their addition.
Luk_2:17. διεγνώρισαν ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἑγνώρισαν , following B D L Ξ à , min. Eus. But the syllable ΔΙ after δέ was more easily passed over than added, especially as the simple form was present in Luk_2:15.
Luk_2:20. Instead of ὑπέστρεψαν , Elz. has ἐπέστρεψαν ; and at Luk_2:21, instead of αὐτόν : τὸ παιδίον , in opposition to preponderant evidence.
Luk_2:33. Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ] B D L à , min. vss. (also Vulg.) Or. and several Fathers have ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ κ . ἡ μήτηρ . So Griesbach and Tisch. (who after μήτηρ retains αὐτοῦ ). The mention of the father gave offence, and in this place the name might be introduced instead of it, but not appropriately also at Luk_2:48.
Luk_2:37. ὡς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἕως , in accordance with A B L Ξ à * min. Copt. Sahid. Ar. p. Vulg. codd. It. Aug. Rightly; the ὠς , frequently used in the case of numbers, intruded itself.
Luk_2:38. αὕτη ] on preponderant evidence, and because καὶ αὕτη presented itself mechanically from Luk_2:37, is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.
ἐν Ἱερουσ .] ἐν is wanting in B Ξ Π à , min. vss. (including Vulg. ms. and codd. It.) and Fathers, and is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from misunderstanding.
Luk_2:39. τὴν πόλιν αὑτῶν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have πόλιν ἑαυτῶν . In accordance with decisive evidence ἑαυτῶν is to be adopted; but the omission of τήν is only attested by B D * à 1.
Luk_2:40. πνεὑματι ] has testimonies against it of such weight, and it can so little conceal its origin from Luk_1:80, that with reason it is condemned by Mill and Griesb., excluded by Lachm. and Tisch.
Luk_2:42. ἀναβάντων ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναβαινότων , in accordance with A B K L X Π à , min. Vulg. codd. It. A copyist’s error; the aorist is necessary.
εἰς Ἱεροσ .] is wanting in B D L à , min. vss. Tisch. It betrays itself by the form Ἱεροσόλυμα as an addition of another hand.
Luk_2:43. ἔγνω Ἰωσὴφ κ . ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ] B D L à , min. vss. (including Vulg. and codd. It.) Jerome have ἔγνωσαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. also Rinck on Mat_24:36. I regard οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ as written in the margin from Luk_2:41. Comp. on Luk_2:33. Were it original, and had Ἰωσ . κ . ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ been subsequently put for it, why should not this alteration have been already undertaken before at Luk_2:41 (where only codd. It. have: Joseph et Maria)? and why should ἔγνωσαν (which would have stood originally) not have been left? This plural so naturally suggested itself, even with the words of the Recepta, that some witnesses for the Recepta ( Δ , for instance) actually read it.
Luk_2:45. After εὑρόντες Elz. Scholz have αὐτόν (Lachm. in brackets), in opposition to B C* D L à , min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. codd. It. A current addition.
ζητοῦντες ] nearly the same witnesses have ἀναζητοῦντες . So Lachm. and Tisch. From Luk_2:44.
The genuineness of the portion from ch. Luk_1:5 to the end of ch. 2 has been contested by Evanson (The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, etc., Ipswich 1792), J. E. Chr. Schmidt (in Henke’s Magaz. vol. III. p. 473 ff.), Horst (Henke’s Museum, I. 3, p. 446 ff.), C. C. L. Schmidt (in the Repert. f. d. Literat. d. Bibel, I. p. 58 ff.), Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., London 1803), Eichhorn, Einl. I. p. 630 f. Baur reckons the section among the portions which have been introduced into our Gospel by the agency of a reviser (the author of the Acts of the Apostles). See his Markusevang. p. 218 ff. But the genuineness was defended by Ammon (Nova Opusc. p. 32 ff.), Süskind (Symbolae, II. p. 1 ff.), von Schubert (de infantiae J. Ch. historiae a Matth. et Luc. exhibitae authentia atque indole, Gripeswald. 1815), Reuterdahl (Obss. crit. in priora duo ev. Luc. capita, Lond. 1823), Bertholdt, Paulus, Schott, Feilmoser, Credner, Neudecker, Kuinoel, Volkmar, Guericke, and almost all the more recent writers. In opposition to Baur, see also Köstlin, p. 306 ff.
The genuineness is rendered certain by the external testimonies without exception. It is true that the section was wanting in the Gospel of Marcion (see Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 7); but Marcion mutilated and falsified the Gospel of Luke in accordance with his dogmatic aims, and thus formed his Gospel, which, according to Tertullian, Epiphanius, Origen, and others, began: Ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ὁ Θεὸς κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοῦμ , πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας , καὶ ἦν διδάσκων ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν (Luk_3:1, Luk_4:31). And the internal character of the section, much as it differs from the preface by its Hebraic colouring in accordance with the sources made use of, contains the same peculiarities of Luke as are apparent in the other portions of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (see Gersdorff, p. 160 ff.; Credner, I. p. 132 ff.), and betrays in the whole peculiar character of the representation documental sources, whose characteristic and in part highly poetic stamp Luke with correct tact has known how to preserve in working them up. We may add, that a reason against the genuineness can as little be derived from Act_1:1 as a conclusion in its favour can be gathered from Luk_1:3. For there mention of the Gospel is made only as regards its main contents; and the ἄνωθεν at Luk_1:3 would, even if Luk_1:5 to Luk_2:52 were not genuine, find warrant enough in the beginning of the history from the emergence of John and in the genealogy contained in the third chapter.