Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 24
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς ] is wanting in B C* L à 33, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. (not Brix.) Dionys. Alex. Eus. Aug. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition, in accordance with Luk_24:10, for which occasion seemed the rather to be given that Luke neither mentions Salome (Mar_16:1) in this place nor at Luk_24:10. D has further expanded the addition.
Luk_24:3. Instead of καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence, εἰσελθοῦσαι δέ . The former is from Mark.
Luk_24:4. ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστρ .] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ , in accordance with B D à , Syr. al. Vulg. It. Eus. But the accustomed singular expression easily forced itself in.
Luk_24:5. τὸ πρόσωπον ] τὰ πρόσωπα is attested by a preponderance of authorities. So Tisch. It is the more to be preferred in proportion as the singular suggested itself the more readily to the transcribers.
Luk_24:10. Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have ἦσαν δέ ; Griesb.: ἦν δέ , on too feeble evidence. The words are wanting altogether in A D Γ and a few vss. The connection has not been apprehended, and for the restoration thereof, sometimes ἦσαν δέ has been omitted (in order to connect it closely with what has preceded), sometimes al has been intercalated afterwards (before ἔλεγον ), sometimes both have been done. This αἵ is, with Lachm. Tisch., on decisive evidence, to be deleted.
After the second Μαρία is to be inserted ἡ , with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence.
Luk_24:12 is wanting in D, Syr.jer. Cant. 24 :Verc. Rd. Rejected by Schulz and Rinck. Bracketed by Lachm. and [deleted by] Tisch. [8]. But even if the great attestation is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision in favour of its genuineness (comp. on Luk_24:36; Luk_24:39; Luk_24:51 f.), still an interpolator from Joh_20:5 ff. would have mentioned not only Peter, but also the ἄλλος μαθητής (comp. Luk_24:24); and the words ὀθόνια , παρακύπτειν , and ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτ . (John, loc. cit.) might, indeed, have been suggested to Luke from a source emanating from a Johannine tradition; on the other hand, it is just the incompleteness of the notice, as well as the want of agreement in the contents with Luk_24:24, that would furnish a very obvious occasion for objection and for deletion. Κείμενα is suspicious, as it is wanting in B à , min. Copt. Sahid. Syr.cu. Eus.; in other authorities it is placed after μόνα .
Luk_24:18. Elz. Lachm. have ἐν Ἱερουσ . But decisive authorities are in favour of Ἱερουσ . simply (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch.); ἐν is an exegetic insertion. The exceedingly weakly attested εἰς , which nevertheless Griesb. has commended, proceeds from the last syllable of παροικεῖς .
Luk_24:21. After ἀλλά γε read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καί (B D L à ), which disappeared because it could be dispensed with.
Luk_24:28. προσεποιεῖτο ] A B D L à , min. have προσεποιήσατο . Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. A correction, in accordance with the preceding and following aorists.
Luk_24:29. After κέκλικεν is to be adopted ἤδη . It is found in B L à , min. Arr. Copt. Syr. Slav. ms. Vulg. It., was easily passed over by occasion of the following Η Ημερα , and perhaps if it had been added, would rather have been annexed to the foregoing ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπ . ἐστί .
Luk_24:32. καὶ ὡς ] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ὡς , in accordance with B D L à 33, also codd. of It. Ambr. Aug. Or. (which, however, omit ὡς ἐλ . ἡμ .). Rightly; καί was inserted for the connection, and in several versions even supplanted the ὡς .
Luk_24:36. After εἰρήνη ὑμῖν Lachm. has in brackets ἐγώ εἰμι , μὴ φοβεῖσθε , following G Ρ , min. vss. Ambr. Aug. An addition from Joh_6:20. But, moreover, the preceding κ . λέγ . αὐτοῖς · εἰρ . ὑμῖν , although it is wanting only in D and codd. of It. (deleted by Tisch.), is extremely open to the suspicion of being added from Joh_20:19. See also Lachm. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 843. A reason for its omission, if it had been original, would be hard to perceive.
Luk_24:38. Instead of ἐν ταῖς καρδ . B D, codd. of It. al. Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular; the plural is an amendment.
Luk_24:39. αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι ] Several different arrangements of the words occur in the MSS. and vss. Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός , in accordance with B L à 33.
Luk_24:40 is wanting only in D, codd. of It. Syr.cu., but is deleted by Tisch., and comes under the same suspicion of being added from John (Luk_20:20) as the words κ . λέγ . αὐτ . εἰρ . ὑμ ., Luk_24:36.
Luk_24:42. καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσ . κηρ .] suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with A B D L Π à , Cant. Clem. Or. Eus. Epiph. Ath. Cyr. An ancient omission on the part of a transcriber, probably only occasioned by καὶ … καὶ The peculiarity of the food betrays no interpolation; καὶ ἄρτου or καὶ ἄρτον (comp. Joh_21:9) would rather have been added.
Luk_24:46. καὶ οὕτως ἔδει ] is wanting in B C* D L à , Copt. Aeth. Arr. codd. of It. Fathers. Suspected by Griesbach and Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition in the way of gloss.
Luk_24:47. ἀρξάμενον ] The reading ἀρξάμενον in B C* L N X à 33, Copt. Aeth. Tisch. is to help out the construction, in connection with the omission of δέ , Luk_24:48 (which Tisch., following B C* L à , has deleted).
Luk_24:51 f. The omission of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ . οὐρανόν , and at the same time of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in the same set of authorities (D, Cant. 24 :Verc. Corb. Rd. Aug.), throws on both (the former is wanting also in à *) the grave suspicion (comp. on Luk_24:36; Luk_24:39) of being added for the sake of completeness.
Luk_24:53. In a few authorities αἰνοῦντες καί is wanting (which Griesb., in accordance with B C* L à , Ar. p., regards as suspicious); in others καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (which Tisch., in accordance with D, codd. of It. Copt. Aug., has kept out). The Recepta is to be maintained, since αἰνεῖν τ . Θεόν is especially frequent in Luke, but neither αἰνοῦτες nor εὐλογοῦντες offered occasion for an addition by way of gloss. But κ . εὐλ . might easily drop out in consequence of the homoeoteleuton in αἰνοῦντες and εὐλογοῦντες .