Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 23
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_23:2. After ἔθνος we find ἡμῶν in the more important authorities. So Lachm. and Tisch. As no reason occurred for adding it in the way of gloss, it has more probably been passed over as superfluous.
Luk_23:6. Γαλιλαίαν ] is wanting in B L T à , Copt. Tisch. Passed over as superfluous and troublesome.
Luk_23:8. ἐξ ἱκανοῦ ] ἐξ ἱκανῶν χρόνων (B D L T à , Lachm. Tisch.) and ἐξ ἱκανοῦ χρόνου (H M X, min. Vulg. It.) are expansions in the way of gloss.
πολλά is wanting in B D K L M [T Π ] à , min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition to make the statement more precise, which some cursives have after αὐτοῦ .
Luk_23:11. περιβ . αὐτόν ] αὐτόν is wanting in B L T à , 52, Vulg. codd. of It. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A superfluous exegetical addition, instead of which R S U Γ , min. have αὐτῷ .
Luk_23:15. ἀνέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς πρ . αὐτόν ] B K L M Π à , min. vss. have ἀνέπεμψεν γὰρ αὐτὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς (B: ὑμᾶς ). An alteration in accordance with Luk_23:11. There are yet other attempts at improvement in the authorities.
After Luk_23:16 Elz. Scholz have (Luk_23:17) ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν ἀπολύειν αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἕνα . This is wanting in A B K L T Π , Copt. Sahid. Verc., and does not occur in D, Aeth. Syr.cu. till after Luk_23:19. There are many variations also in the details. An old gloss. Condemned also by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. and [omitted by] Tisch. [8].
Luk_23:19. Instead of βεβλημ . εἰς τ . φ . Tisch. has βληθεὶς ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ , in opposition to preponderating evidence; and the aorist participle is not appropriate grammatically (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 265 [E. T. 309 f.]).
Luk_23:20. οὖν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have δέ , on decisive evidence.
Luk_23:21. Elz. Scholz have σταύρωσον , σταύρωσον . But B D à , Or. Eus. Cyr. have σταυρου , σταυρου , which Griesbach approved (as perispomenon), Lachm. and Tisch. adopted (as paroxytone). The Recepta is from Mar_15:13 f.; Joh_19:6; Joh_19:15.
Luk_23:23. καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερ .] bracketed by Lachm., condemned also by Rinck, deleted by Tisch. It is wanting in B L à , 130, al. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd of It. But for what purpose should it have been added? It would be far easier to overlook it as superfluously straggling after αὐτΩΝ .
Luk_23:24. ὁ δέ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καί , in accordance with B L à , 157, It. The Recepta is from Mar_15:15, whence also, and from Mat_27:26, αὐτοῖς (Luk_23:25) came in, which Elz. reads after ἀπέλ . δέ .
Luk_23:26. Σίμωνος κ . τ . λ .] Lachm. and Tisch. have Σίμωνά τινα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον , on important evidence indeed; but the parallels suggested the accusative. Elz. has τοῦ before ἐρχ ., in opposition to decisive evidence.
Luk_23:27. αἵ καί ] Lachm. has merely αἵ Since the authorities against καί are decisive (A B C* D L X, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It. Theophyl.), it is to be deleted, and to be explained from αἵ having been written twice, or as an arbitrary addition, from the well-known usage in Luke. In à αἳ καί is wanting.
Luk_23:29. ἐθήλασαν ] B C* L à , min. It. have ἔθρεψαν , to which, moreover, C** D approach with ἐξέθρεψαν . ἔθρεψ . is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is an interpretation.
Luk_23:34. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς … ποιοῦσιν ] bracketed by Lachm. The words are wanting in B D* à ** 38, 435, Sahid. Cant. 23 :Verc. Variations in details. An ancient omission, according to the parallels, which have not this prayer. It bears, moreover, the stamp of originality in itself; it is also attested by Clem. Hom. xi. 20, and belongs to the peculiar features of the history of the passion which Luke has retained.
κλῆρον ] Tisch. has κλήρους , following A X, min. Syr.cu. [according to Tisch. 8, Syr.cu. favours either reading, but κλήρους is vouched for by Syr. jer. and by the text (not the margin) of Syr.p.] Slav. Vulg. It. Aug.; the singular is from the parallel and Psa_22:19.
Luk_23:35. The καί after δέ is wanting in D à , min. Vulg. It. Eus. Lachm. Tisch. The subsequent σὺν αὐτοῖς is wanting in B C D L Q X à , min. Syr. Pers.p. Ar.p. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Cant. 23 :Colb. Corb. Rd. Bracketed by Lachm.; σὺν αὐτοῖς is to be deleted; it was added in order, according to the parallels, to allow the mocking by the people also to take place; καί , however, is to be maintained, partly on account of its preponderating attestation, partly because it suggested the addition of σὺν αὐτοῖς , but appeared inappropriate without this addition.
Luk_23:36. καί ] after προσερχ . is, on preponderating evidence, with Tisch. (Lachm. has only bracketed it), to be deleted. A connective addition.
Luk_23:38. γεγραμμένη ] Since B L à , Copt. Sahid. have not this at all, while A D Q have ἐπιγεγρ . (so Lachm.), and C* X, min. have γεγρ . after αὐτῷ , the word is, with Tisch., to be deleted as an exegetical addition.
γράμμασιν … Ἐβρ .] is wanting in B C* L, Copt. Sahid. Syr.cu. Verc. Deleted by Tisch., by Lachm. only bracketed. It is a very ancient addition from Joh_19:20.
οὖτός ἐστιν ] is wanting in C, Colb., and is found in others, sometimes with (D, 124, Cant. Corb.), sometimes without ἐστίν (B L à , Verc.), not until after Ἰουδαίων ; hence there is a strong suspicion of its being a supplement. Lachm. and Tisch. have ὁ βασιλεὺς τ . Ἰουδ . ουτος , although Lachm. brackets οὗτος .
Luk_23:39. εἰ σὺ εἶ ] Tisch. has οὐχὶ σὺ εἶ , according to B C* L à , vss.; the Recepta is from Luk_23:37, whence also the λέγων , which precedes these words, and which is wanting in B L, has intruded.
Luk_23:42. κύριε ] is wanting in B C* D L M* à , min. Copt. Sahid. Syr.jer. Cant. Verc. Or. (once). Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition, which Q, Corb. Brix. Syr.cu. Hil. have before μνήσθ .[259]
Luk_23:44. ἦν δέ ] Lachm. Tisch. have καὶ ἦν ἤδη , in accordance with sufficient evidence. Both the insertion of δέ and the omission of ἤδη were occasioned by the parallels.
Luk_23:45. καὶ ἐσκοτ . ὁ ἤλιος ] appeared unsuitable after Luk_23:44, and was therefore in C**? 33 (not by Marcion, according to Epiphanius) omitted (which omission Griesb. commended), while others put in its place, as a gloss on what precedes, τοῦ ἡλίου ἑκλείποντος (B) or ἐκλιπ . (C* L à , min. vss. Or.; so Tisch.).
Luk_23:46. παραθήσομαι ] παρατίθεμαι (commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.) is decisively attested. The Recepta is from LXX. Psa_31:5.
Luk_23:48. ΘΕΩΡΟῦΝΤΕς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ΘΕΩΡΉΣΑΝΤΕς , which is founded on B C D L R X à , min. Colb.
A has omitted ΘΕΩΡ . Τ . Γ . The aorist is logically necessary.
After ΤΎΠΤ . Elz. Scholz have ἙΑΥΤῶΝ , in opposition to A B C* D L à , in spite of which authorities Lachm. has nevertheless retained it. A superfluous addition, instead of which U X Γ have ΑὐΤῶΝ .
Luk_23:49. ΑὐΤΟῦ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ΑὐΤῷ , which is sufficiently attested by A B L P, 33, 64, for ΑὐΤΟῦ to be traced to the inaccuracy of the transcribers. Before ΜΑΚΡ . Lachm. Tisch. have ἈΠΌ , in accordance with B D L à . From the parallels.
Luk_23:51. Elz. Scholz have Ὅς ΚΑῚ ΠΡΟΣΕΔΈΧΕΤΟ ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΌς . But B C D L à , 69, Copt. codd. of It. have merely Ὃς ΠΡΟΣΕΔΈΧΕΤΟ . So Lachm. Tisch. From Matthew and Mark was written on the margin sometimes only ΚΑΊ , sometimes ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΌς , both of which readings are combined in the Recepta. There are many other variations, which together make the Recepta so much the more suspicious.
Luk_23:53. Lachm. Tisch. have deleted the first ΑὐΤΌ , in accordance, indeed, with B C D L à , min. Vulg. It. (not Ver.); but being superfluous, and being regarded as awkwardly in the way, it was easily passed over.
ἜΘΗΚ . ΑὐΤΌ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἜΘΗΚ . ΑὐΤΌΝ , in accordance with B C D à , Vulg. It. Copt. Rightly; ΑὐΤΌ is a repetition from what precedes.
Luk_23:54. ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΉ -G0-] Lachm. Tisch. have ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥῆς , in accordance with B C* L à , min. Vulg. codd. of It. Copt. Sahid. Since even the evidence of D is not in favour of the Recepta (it has πρὸ σαββάτου ), the authorities in favour of the genitive are all the stronger, especially as παρασκευή was easily regarded by the transcribers as a name. Hence the genitive is to be preferred.
The καί before σάββ . is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B C* L à , min. vss., to be retained. It slipt out in consequence of the omission of the entire clause κ . σάββ . ἐπεφ . (so still D, Colb.), and then was restored without the superfluous καί .
Luk_23:55. Elz. Scholz have δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες . Certainly erroneous, since the decisive authorities have sometimes left out καί altogether (so Tisch.), sometimes have instead of it αἱ (so Lachm.). The latter is right. From δὲ αἱ arose the δὲ καί so frequent in Luke. But the article is necessary, in accordance with Luk_23:49.
[259] Still in connection with this deletion of the κύρις is to be read previously with Tisch., following B C* L à * Copt. Sahid.: καὶ ἔλεγεν · Ἰησοῦ .