Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 21
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_21:3. πλεῖον ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ̔ πλείω , which would have to be adopted if it were not too feebly attested by D Q X, min.
Luk_21:4. τοῦ Θεοῦ ] is wanting in B L X à , min. Copt. Syr.cu. Syr.jer. Deleted by Tisch. An exegetical addition.
Luk_21:6. After λίθῳ Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. synopa., but not Tisch. 8] have ὧδε , in accordance with B L à , min. Copt. Other authorities have it before λίθος . D, codd. of It. have ἐν τοίχῳ ὧδε . An addition from Matthew.
Luk_21:8. οὖν ] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D L X à , min. vss. A connective addition.
Luk_21:14. The reading ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of εἱς τὰς κ ., is decisively attested.
Luk_21:15. Elz. Matth. Scholz have ἀντειπεῖν οὐδὲ ἁντιστῆναι . But instead of οὐδέ , A K M R, min. Slav. Brix. Or. Cyr. Didym. Griesb. have ἤ . Sometimes with ἤ , sometimes with οὐδέ , D L à , min. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. Slav. Vulg. Or. have the two verbs in the reverse order. Hence Lachm. has ἀντιστῆναι οὐδὲ ἀντειπεῖν , and Tisch. has ἀντιστῆναι ἤ ἀντειπεῖν . These variations are to be explained from the fact that ἀντειπεῖν , with ἤ or οὐδέ , on account of the similar beginning of the following verb, was passed over. So according to D, Syr. Pers.P. Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Cypr. Aug. Rinck. When the passage was restored, the verbs were placed in different order; and instead of ἤ after the previous οὐ , οὐδέ was inserted. Accordingly, read with Griesbach: ἀντειπεῖν ἢ ἀντιστ .
Luk_21:19. Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have κτήσασθε . But A B, min. Syr.omn. Arr. Aeth. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Or. Macar. Marcion, according to Tertullian, have κτήσεσθε . Recommended by Griesb., approved by Rinck, adopted by Lachm. The Recepta is an interpretation of the future taken imperatively.
Luk_21:22. Elz. has πληρωθῆναι . But πλησθῆναι is decisively attested.
Luk_21:23. δέ ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L, Arr. It. Theophyl. An addition from the parallels.
After ὀργή Elz. has ἐν , in opposition to decisive evidence.
Luk_21:24. ἄχρι ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἄχρις (Tisch. ἄχρι ) οὗ , on decisive evidence. Luke always joins ἄχρι to a genitive.
Luk_21:25. ἐν ἀπορίᾳ , ἠχούσης ] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἤχους , on decisive evidence. The Recepta is an interpretation.
Luk_21:33. παρέλθωσι ] Lachm. and Tisch. have παρελεύσονται , in accordance with B D L à , min. Rightly. See on Mar_13:31.
Luk_21:35. Lachm. and Tisch. place γάρ after ἐπελεύσεται , so that ὡς παγίς belongs to Luk_21:34. Thus B D L à , 157, Copt. It. Meth. Marcion, according to Tertull. I regard the Recepta as being right, as the preceding clause contains a qualifying word ( αἰφνίδιος ), but what follows in Luk_21:35 needed a similar qualification ( ὡς παγίς ). Through mistaking this, and attracting ὡς παγίς a correlative of αἰφνίδ . to the preceding clause, γάρ has been put out of its right place. Instead of ἐπελεύσεται , however, read with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D à , ἐπεισελεύσεται . The doubly compounded form disappeared through error on the part of the transcribers, as frequently happened.
Luk_21:36. καταξ .] Tisch. has κατισχύσητε , following B L X à , min. Copt. Aeth. Ar. p. Rightly; the Recepta is a very old gloss in accordance with Luk_20:35, comp. 2Th_1:5.
ταῦτα is deleted by Matth. and Tisch. [Tisch.synops., not Tisch. 8]. But most of the principal MSS. [including à c] (not à ) and vss. have it. Nevertheless, it remains doubtful whether it is to be read before (B D L X, [ à c] Elz. Lachm. [Tisch. 8]) or after πάντα (A C* M). If πάντα ταῦτα τά is original, the omission of the superfluous ταῦτα is the more easily explained.
After Luk_21:38 four cursives have the section concerning the woman taken in adultery, Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:11.