Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 7
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_7:4. παρέξῃ ] So also Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is παρέξει , in opposition to decisive evidence.
Luk_7:10. ἀσθενοῦντα ] is not found, indeed, in B L à , min. Copt. codd. of It. (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.); but it is to be maintained, as the evidence in its favour is preponderating; the omission is very easily to be explained from the possibility of dispensing with the word, but there was no reason to suggest its addition.
Luk_7:11. Instead of ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς , which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. has in the margin, the edd. have ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς . The evidence for the two readings is about equally balanced. We must come to a conclusion according to the usage of Luke, who expresses “on the following day” by τῇ ἑξῆς , always without ἐν (Act_21:1; Act_25:17; Act_27:18; moreover, in Luk_9:37, where ἐν is to be deleted); we must therefore read in this place ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς . Comp. Luk_8:1. Otherwise Schulz.
ἱκανοί ] is wanting in B D F L à , min. and most of the vss. Bracketed by Lachm. It is to be retained (even against Rinck, Lucubr. Crit. p. 321), the more so on account of the frequency of the simple οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ , and the facility, therefore, wherewith ΙΚΑΝΟΙ might be passed over by occasion of the following letters ΚΑΙΟ .
Luk_7:12. After ἱκανός Elz. Scholz. Tisch. have ἦν , which is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm.; it is wanting in authorities so important that it appears as supplementary, as also does the ἦν , which Lachm. Tisch. read before χήρα , although this latter has still stronger attestation.
Luk_7:16. ἐγήγερται ] A B C L Ξ à , min. have ἠγέρθη , in favour of which, moreover, D bears witness by ἐξηγέρθη . On this evidence it is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred.
Luk_7:21. Instead of αὐτῇ δέ , Tisch. has ἐκείνῃ on evidence too feeble, and without sufficient internal reason.
Elz. Scholz have τὸ βλέπειν . This τό might, in consequence of the preceding ἐχαρίσα ΤΟ , have just as easily dropt out as slipped in. But on the ground of the decidedly preponderating counter evidence, it is by Lachm. and Tisch. rightly deleted.
Luk_7:22. ὅτι ] is wanting, it is true, in important authorities (although they are not preponderating), and is deleted by Lachm.; but the omission is explained from Mat_11:5.
Luk_7:24-26. Instead of ἐξεληλύθατε , A B D L Ξ à (yet in Luk_7:26 not A also) have ἐξήλθατε ; so Lachm. It is from Mat_11:7-9.
Luk_7:27. ἐγώ ] is wanting in B D L Ξ à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. codd. of It. Marcion, and is left out by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from Matth.
Luk_7:28. προφήτης ] is deleted, indeed, by Lachm. (in accordance with B K L M X Ξ à , min. vss. and Fathers), but was omitted in accordance with Mat_11:11, from which place, on the other hand, was added τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ (rightly deleted by Tisch.).
Luk_7:31. Before τίνι Elz. has εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος , in opposition to decisive evidence. An exegetical addition, in respect of which the preceding passage was taken as historical narration.
Luk_7:32. Instead of καὶ λέγουσιν , Tisch. has, on too feeble evidence, λέγοντες .
Luk_7:34. The arrangement φίλος τελων . is decisively attested. The reverse order (Elz.) is from Matth.
Luk_7:35. πάντων ] Lachm. and Tisch. Synops. [not Tisch. 8] have this immediately after ἀπό , but in opposition to preponderating evidence. It was omitted in accordance with Mat_11:19 (so still in D F L M X, min. Arm. Syr.), and then restored to the position suggested by the most ordinary use.
Luk_7:36. The readings τὸν οἶκον and κατεκλίθη (Lachm. Tisch.) are, on important evidence, to be adopted; ἀνακλ . was more familiar to the transcribers; Luke alone has κατακλ .
Luk_7:37. ἥτις ἦν ] is found in different positions. B L Ξ à , vss. Lachm. Tisch. rightly have it after γυνή . In D it is wanting, and from this omission, which is to be explained from the possibility of dispensing with the words, arose their restoration before ἁμαρτ ., to which they appeared to belong.
Instead of ἀνάκειται is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατάκειται . Comp. on Luk_7:36.
Luk_7:42. δέ , both here and at Luk_7:43, has authorities so important against it that it appears to have been inserted as a connective particle; it is deleted by Tisch.
εἰπέ is wanting in B D L Ξ à , min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Aug. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But why should it have been added? The entire superfluousness of it was the evident cause of its omission.
Luk_7:44. After θριξί Elz. has τῆς κεφαλῆς , in opposition to decisive evidence. An addition from Luk_7:38.