Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 5
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_5:6. πλῆθος ἰχθύων ] So Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch., following the greater number of the Uncials, but not B D, which have ἰχθύων πλῆθος , which Lachm. has again restored. Comp. Vulg. and codd. of It. The reading of Griesb. is to be preferred on account of its preponderating evidence, and still more because the words πλῆθος πολύ would more readily be brought together by the transcribers than separated.
Luk_5:15. As ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ is wanting in important authorities, in others stands after ἀκούειν , and A has ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ , it is rightly condemned by Griesb., struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss.
Luk_5:17. ἐληλυθότες ] Lachm. has συνεληλ ., following only A* D, min. Goth. Verc.
αὐτούς ] Tisch. has αὐτόν , following B L Ξ à . Rightly; αὐτούς arose from a misunderstanding, because an accusative of the object appeared necessary.
Luk_5:19. ποίας ] Elz. has διὰ ποίας , in opposition to decisive evidence. An interpretation.
Luk_5:21. With Lachm. and Tisch. read ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι , according to B D L Ξ , Cyr. Ambr. The Recepta is from Mar_2:7. But in Luk_5:24 the form ἀφεῖναι (Tisch.) is too weakly attested [Tisch. 8 has ἀφιέναι ].
Luk_5:22. The omission of ἀποκριθ . (Lachm.) is too feebly accredited.
Luk_5:24. παραλελυμένῳ ] Lachm. has παραλυτικῷ , following important authorities, but it is taken from the parallels.
Luk_5:25. Instead of ἐφʼ ὅ , Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have ἐφʼ ᾧ . But the former has a preponderance of evidence in its favour, and ᾧ more naturally occurred to the transcribers.
Luk_5:28. ἠκολούθησεν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠκολούθει , following B D L Ξ 69. The Recepta is taken from the parallels.
Luk_5:29. Before Λευΐς (Tisch. has on very good authority Λευείς ) the article (Elz.) is on decisive evidence deleted.
Luk_5:30. αὐτῶν ] is wanting in D F X à , min. vss., and is regarded with suspicion by Griesb., but it was omitted as being superfluous and apparently irrelevant. The arrangement οἱ Φαρισ . κ . οἱ γρ . αὐτ . is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted in accordance with B C D L à , min. Vulg. It. and others. The Recepta is taken from Mar_2:16. The article before τελωεῶν , which is not found in Elz., is adopted on decisive evidence by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. καὶ ἁμαρτ ., also, is so decisively attested that it is now rightly defended even by Tisch.
Luk_5:33. διὰ τί ] is wanting in B L Ξ , 33, 157, Copt.; deleted by Tisch. An addition from the parallels.
Luk_5:36. ἱματίου καινοῦ ] B D L X Ξ à , min. vss. have ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας (yet σχίσας is not found in X, and also otherwise too weakly attested). Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. But it is manifestly a gloss inserted for explaining the genitive, for which there appeared a reason in this place although not in the parallels.
σχίσει is well attested by B C D L X à , min., and συμφωνήσει still better (by the additional evidence of A). Approved by Schulz, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; σχίζει occurred at once in consequence of the preceding ἐπιβάλλει and of αἴρει in the parallels, and then drew after it συμφωνεῖ .
Elz. has ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀ . τ . κ . So also Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. But with Griesb. and Rinck ἐπίβλημα is to be condemned, as it is wanting in A E F K M R S U V Γ Δ , min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl.; in D it stands after καινοῦ , and betrays itself as a gloss added to the absolute τό .
Luk_5:38. καὶ ἀμφ . συντηρ .] is wanting in B L à , min. Copt. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Mat_9:17, from which passage also Mar_2:22 has been expanded.
Luk_5:39. εὐθέως ] is wanting in B C* L à , min. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Deleted by Tisch. An addition for more precise specification.