Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 22
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_22:6. καὶ ἐξωμόλ .] is wanting in Lachm., in opposition to decisive evidence. The omission occurred the more readily that ΚΑΙ ΕΣ follows, and Matthew and Mark have nothing similar.
Luk_22:10. οὗ ] A K M P R, min. have οὗ ἐάν . B C L à , Vulg. It. have εἰς ἥν . So Lachm. and Tisch. As the Recepta, according to this, has preponderating evidence against it, while οὗ ἐάν is grammatically erroneous ( ἐάν is from Mar_14:14), we must read εἰς ἥν , instead of which was placed, in inexact recollection of Mar_14:14, οὗ (Luke 157: ὅπου ).
Luk_22:12. ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον ) is decisively attested. Comp. on Mar_14:15.
Luk_22:14. δώδεκα ] is wanting in B D à , 157, vss., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was written in the margin in agreement with the parallels, and came into the text in some authorities alongside of ἀπόστ ., in others instead of it (L X). Comp. also on Luk_9:1.
Luk_22:16. οὐκέτι ] is wanting in A B C*? H L à , min. Copt. Sahid. Verc. Epiph. Marcion. Rejected by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. But how easily, being in itself superfluous, it came to be overlooked between ὅτι and οὐ ! If it had crept in from Mar_14:25, it would rather have found its place at Luk_22:18.
ἐξ αὐτοῦ ] αὐτό is read by Lachm. [and Tisch. 8], in accordance with [ à ] B C? L, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. It. Vulg. Epiph. The Recepta is to be maintained. The accusative was introduced in accordance with Luk_22:15. Opposed to it, moreover, is the evidence of D, min. Cant., which have ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ , wherein the preposition was altered in conformity with Luk_22:18.
Luk_22:17. A D K M U, min. Lachm. have τὸ ποτήρ . The article forced itself in here from the form used in the Lord’s Supper (Luk_22:20).
Luk_22:20. ὡσαυτ . κ . τ . ποτήρ .] Tisch. has κ . τ . ποτήρ . ὡσαυτ ., following B L à , Copt. Sahid.; the Recepta is from 1Co_11:25.
Luk_22:22. καί ] Tisch. has ὅτι , following B D L à , 157, Copt. Sahid. Rightly; ὅτι dropped out before ΟΥΙ (see subsequently on μέν ), as it is still wanting in Verc. Cant. Or.; and then καί was interpolated as a connecting particle.
μέν ] is, with Tischendorf, to be placed after υἱός , following B L T à ** (D has it before ὁ ). The usual position before υἱός is from Matthew and Mark.
In what follows read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον πορ . The arrangement in the Recepta is in accordance with the parallels.
Luk_22:30. Elz. Scholz have καθίσησθε . But Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, καθίσεσθε [Tisch. 8 has καθήσεσθε ]. This was changed, on account of the construction, into the subjunctive, as though dependent on ἵνα .
Luk_22:32. ἐκλείπῃ ] Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκλίπῃ , in accordance with B D K L M U X à , min.; it is accordingly to be preferred. The present offered itself more readily to the transcribers. But στήρισον instead of στήριξον is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch.).
Luk_22:34. πρὶν ἤ ] B L T à , min.: ἕως . So Lachm. and Tisch. D has ἕως ὅτου ; K M X, min. have ἕως οὗ . Moreover, vss. (Syr. Vulg. It. al.) have donec. πρίν (Q) and πρὶν ἤ (A E G H S U V Γ Δ Λ ) were written in the margin from Matthew and Mark.
I regard ἕως ὅτου or ὥς οὗ as genuine. See on Luk_21:24.
ἀπαρν . μὴ εἰδέναι με ] Lachm. Tisch. have με ἀπαρν . εἰδέναι , in accordance with B D L M Q T X à [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἀπαρν . μὴ εἰδέναι με ]. The μή was omitted as superfluous, but μέ was pushed forwards in accordance with Mar_14:30 (see thereupon the critical remarks).
Luk_22:35. On decisive evidence βαλλαντίου is to be written, and in Luk_22:36 : βαλλάντιον .
Luk_22:37. ἔτι ] is not found, indeed, in A B D H L Q X à , min. vss. (except Vulg.), but after ὅτι its omission occurred too easily to be rightly suspected, according to Griesbach; rejected, according to Schulz; deleted, according to Lachm. Tisch.
Luk_22:42. παρενεγκεῖν ] Lachm. has παρένεγκε , in accordance with B D, min. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Syr.p. Syr.cu. Or. Dam. Tert. Ambr.; Tisch. has παρενέγκαι , in accordance with K L M R Π à , min. Both readings were meant to help out the construction in accordance with Mar_14:36. Subsequently is to be written, with Rinck and Tisch., τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ . The order in the Recepta, τὸ ποτ . τοῦτο , is from the parallels.
Luk_22:43-44 are bracketed by Lachm. They are wanting in A B R T, Sahid. and some cursives; are marked with asterisks in E S V Δ Π , min.; in others with obelisks; in the lectionaries adopted into the section Mat_26:2 to Mat_27:2; and as early as Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome their omission in MSS. is observed. But they are already acknowledged by Justin. Iren. Hippol. Epiphan., etc. See Tisch. The verses are genuine. Their omission is the work of the orthodox, to whom their contents appeared objectionable in respect of the divinity of Christ. See already Epiph. Ancor. 31. According to Ewald, Luke wrote Luk_22:44 from the “Book of the higher history” only in the margin, but Luk_22:43 was excluded by the comparison with Matthew and Mark.
Luk_22:47. δέ ] has so important evidence against it (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) that it seems to be a connective addition.
Instead of αὐτούς Elz. has αὐτῶν , in opposition to decisive evidence. A correction.
Luk_22:55. ἁψάντων ] B L T à , Eus. Tisch. have περιαψάντων ; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound verb, which is elsewhere foreign to the New Testament.
αὐτῶν after συγκαθ . is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a frequent addition.
ἐν μέσῳ ] Tisch. has μέσος , following B L T, min. The former is an interpretation.
Luk_22:61. After φωνῆσαι Tisch. has σήμερον , following B K L M T X Π à , min. vss. The omission came from the parallels.
Luk_22:62. After ἔξω , ὁ Πέτρος is to be maintained, against Griesb. and Tisch., although it is wanting in important authorities. Being troublesome, and not occurring in the parallels, it was passed over.
Luk_22:63. Instead of αὐτόν , Elz. Matth. Scholz have τὸν Ἰησοῦν . The subject was written in the margin because another subject precedes.
Luk_22:64. ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον καί ] is wanting in B K L M Π à , Copt. Vind. Corb. 22 :Colb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and Tisch. It is an expansion by way of a gloss, which in D, vss. is not the same, and which the omission of δέροντες , Luk_22:63, drew after it. The glossing process began with the writing on the margin at the first αὐτόν : αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον , as 1, 209, vss. still read instead of αὐτόν ; then ἔτυπτον was added in some authorities before, in others after, because δέροντες was attracted to what preceded.
Luk_22:66. Elz. Lachm. have ἑαυτῶν ; Matth. Scholz, Tisch.: αὐτῶν . The Recepta is to be retained in accordance with A Δ , min.: it was not understood.
Luk_22:68. Read, with Tisch., simply ἐὰν δὲ (even Lachm. has deleted καί ) ἐρωτήσω , οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε , in accordance with B L T à , min. vss. Cyr. The addition μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε is an unsuitable expansion.
Luk_22:69. After νῦν is to be added, with Lachm. and Tisch., δέ , on decisive evidence.
Luk_22:71. The order of the words, τί ἔτι ἔχ . μαρτ . χρείαν , is to be preferred, with Tisch., following B L T. The order in the Textus receptus, τ . ἐ . χ . ἐ . μ ., is from the parallels.