Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 6
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_6:2. αὐτοῖς ] bracketed by Lachm., is, with Tisch., to be struck out, as it is wanting in B C* L X à , min. Copt. Verc. Colb., while D, Cant. read αὐτῷ · ἴδε . An addition in accordance with the parallels. Of ποιεῖν ἐν , the ἐν alone is to be deleted, with Tisch., on decisive evidence, but not, with Lachm., the ποιεῖν also.
Luk_6:3. ὁπότε ] Lachm. has ὅτε , in accordance, indeed, with B C D L X Δ à , min.; but taken from the parallels, from which, moreover, the omission of ὄντες (Lachm.) is to be explained, as well as in Luk_6:4 the reading πῶς (Lachm., following L R X à **, min.).
Luk_6:4. The omission of ὡς (B D, Cant. Marcion) is to be regarded as a transcriber’s error (occasioned by the subsequent ΕΙΣ ). If nothing had originally been found there, only πῶς , not ὡς would have been added.
ἔλαβε καί ] Lachm. has λαβών , following B C* L X 33, Syr. Copt. Theophyl. The Recepta is to be maintained. The words were left out,—an omission occasioned the more easily by the similar ἔφαγε καί which follows, as the parallels have not ἔλαβε καί . The omission occurs, moreover, in D K à , min. vss. Ir. Then λαβών was introduced as a restoration in better syntactical form.
καὶ τοῖς ] B L 1, 112, Syr. Arr. Pers. Arm. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. Ir. Ambr. have merely τοῖς . In view of these important authorities καί must be traced to Mar_2:26 (where the evidence against it is weaker), and should be deleted.
Luk_6:6. δὲ καί ] Lachm. has δέ , in accordance with B L X à , min. vss. Cyr. But why should καί have been added? Rather the possibility of dispensing with it alongside of ἑτέρῳ gave rise to its omission.
Luk_6:7. With Lachm. and Tisch. read παρετηροῦντο (approved also by Griesb.), in accordance with preponderating evidence. See on Mar_3:2.
After δέ Elz. has αὐτόν on weighty evidence, indeed, but it is an addition. Comp. Luk_14:1; Mar_3:2.
θεραπεύσει ] Lachm. and Tisch. have θεραπεύει ; the future is taken from Mark.
κατηγορίαν ] B S X à , min. and vss. Have κατηγορεῖν . So Tisch. D also vouches for the infinitive by reading κατηγορῆσαι , the infinitive being explained in the later reading by the use of the substantive.
Luk_6:8. ἀνθρώπῳ ] B L à , min. Cyr. have ἀνδρί . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly; τῷ ἀνδρί was omitted by reason of the following τῷ (so still D, Cant.), and then τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ was inserted, in accordance with Luk_6:6 and Mar_3:3, instead of τῷ ἀνδρί .
ὁ δέ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καί , following B D L X à , 1, 33, Vulg. It. Copt. Cyr. The former suggested itself more readily to the transcribers. Comp. Luk_6:10.
Luk_6:9. οὖν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have δέ , following B D L à , min. Vulg. It. Goth. Not to be decided; οὖν , it is true, is not frequently employed in the Gospel of Luke for continuing the narrative, and the reading wavers mostly between οὖν and δέ ; yet it is established in Luk_3:7, Luk_19:12, Luk_22:36.
ἐπερωτήσω ] Tisch. has ἐπερωτῶ , following B L à , 157, Copt. Vulg. Brix. For. Rd. The Recepta has resulted from a reminiscence of Luk_20:3; Mar_11:29. The present is extremely appropriate to the vivacity of the whole action.
τι or τί ] Lachm. and Tisch. have εἰ , following B D L à 157, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Aug. In view of these important authorities, and because εἰ fits in with the reading ἐπερωτῶ , which, according to the evidence, is to be approved (see above), εἰ is to be preferred.
ἀπολέσαι ] also retained by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L X à , vss. even Vulg. It. Griesb. and Scholz have ἀποκτεῖναι , which is introduced from Mar_3:4, whence also comes τοῖς σάββασιν , instead of which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted τῷ σαββάτῳ , following B D L à , Cant. Rd. Colb. Corb. For. Aug.
Luk_6:10. Instead of αὐτῷ Elz. has τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ , in opposition to preponderating evidence.
After ἐποίησεν (instead of which D X à , min. and most of the vss. read ἐξέτεινεν , which is from Mat_12:13; Mar_3:5) Elz. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have οὕτως , which is wanting in important but still not preponderating authorities, and is deleted by Griesb., but defended by. Schulz, in accordance with Luk_9:15, Luk_12:43. It is to be adopted. The possibility of dispensing with it and the ancient gloss ἐξέτεινεν occasioned the dropping out of the word.
After αὐτοῦ Elz. has ὑγιής , in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Mat_12:13. Moreover, ὡς ἡ ἄλλη (condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.), which is wanting in B L à , min. Copt. Vulg. Sax. Verc. For. Corb. Rd., is from Matthew.
Luk_6:12. ἐξῆλθεν ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐξελθεῖν αὐτόν ; which, in accordance with the preponderance of the MSS., is to be preferred.
Luk_6:14-16. Before Ἰάκωβ ., before Φίλιππ ., before Ματθ ., before Ἰάκωβ ., and before Ἰούδ . Ἰακ ., is to be inserted καί , on external evidence (Tisch.).
Luk_6:16. ὅς καί ] Lachm. and Tisch. have only ὅς , following B L à , min. vss. even Vulg. It. Marcion. Rightly; καί is from the parallels.
Luk_6:18. ὀχλούμ .] Tisch. has ἐνοχλ ., following very important MSS. The compound form was overlooked.
Instead of ἀπό Elz. has ὑπό , in opposition to decisive evidence. An alteration arising from misunderstanding, because ἀπὸ πν . ἀκαθ . was believed to be dependent upon the participle (comp. Act_5:16), which error, moreover, gave rise to the καί before ἐθεραπ . Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted this καί , in accordance with preponderating evidence.
Luk_6:23. Instead of χάρτηε Elz. has χαίρετε , in opposition to decisive evidence.
ταῦτα or ταὐτά ] Lachm. and Tisch. have τὰ αὐτά , following B D Q X Ξ , min. Marcion. The Recepta is a transcriber’s error. The same reading is to be adopted in Luk_6:26 on nearly the same evidence; so also in Luk_17:30.
Luk_6:25. ὑμῖν before οἱ γελ . (suspected also by Griesb.) is, in accordance with B K L S X Ξ à , min. Or. Ir., with Tisch., to be struck out. An addition to conform with what precedes. Elz. has ὑμῖν also before ὅταν , Luk_6:26, in opposition to decisive evidence. But νῦν is, with Tisch., following very important evidence, to be inserted after ἐμπεπλ .
Luk_6:26. οἱ ἄνθρ .] Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have πάντες οἱ ἄνθρ . The preponderance of evidence is in favour of πάντες , and it is to be maintained in opposition to Griesb. The omission was occasioned by the apparently inappropriate relation to οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν .
Luk_6:28. ὑμῖν ] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have ὑμᾶς . There are weighty authorities on both sides, although the evidence is stronger for ὑμᾶς ; but ὑμῖν is the more unusual, and is attested even so early as by Justin (?) and Origen; ὑμᾶς is from Mat_5:44.
Before προσεύχ . Elz. has καί , in opposition to decisive evidence.
Luk_6:34. The reading δανείζετε , although approved by Griesb., is a transcriber’s error. Comp. on Rom_14:8. Lachm. has δανείσητε (Tisch.: δανίσητε ), following only B Ξ à , 157.
Before ἀμαρτωλοί Elz. has οἱ , in opposition to decisive evidence.
On evidence as decisive τοῦ (in Elz.) before ὑψ ., Luk_6:35, is condemned. But μηδένα (Tisch.) instead of μηδέν is too weakly attested by Ξ à , Syr.utr, especially as it might easily result from a transcriber’s error.
Luk_6:36. οὖν ] is wanting in B D L Ξ à , min. vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective particle, although not directly taken from Mat_5:48.
Luk_6:39. δέ ] Lachm. and Tisch. have δὲ καί , following preponderating evidence; the καί , which might be dispensed with, was passed over.
πεσοῦνται ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐμπεσοῦνται . The Recepta is from Mat_15:14.
Luk_6:43. οὐδέ ] B L Ξ à , min. Copt. Arm. Verc. Germ. add πάλιν , which Lachm. has in brackets. With Tisch. to be adopted; the omission of the word that might be dispensed with resulted from Mat_7:18.
Luk_6:45. Read the second half of the verse: κ . ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν (Tisch.). In view of B D L à , min. vss. the ἄνθρωπος and θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ of the Recepta (both condemned by Griesb., and bracketed by Lachm.) are to be regarded as supplementary additions, as also in the next clause τοῦ and τῆς (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.).
Luk_6:48. τεθεμελ . γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν ] Tisch. has διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι [ οἰκοδομῆσθαι in Tisch. 8] αὐτήν , following B L Ξ à , 33, 157, Syr.p (in the margin), Copt. The Recepta is a gloss from Mat_7:25.
Luk_6:49. ἔπεσε ] συνέπεσε , which Griesb. has recommended and Tisch. has adopted, is so strongly attested by B D L R Ξ à , that ἔπεσε is to be referred to Matthew.