Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Luke 9
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Luk_9:2. τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ] A D L Ξ à , min. have τ . ἀσθενεῖς . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since in B, Syr.cur Dial, the words are altogether wanting, and, moreover, in the variants occur τοὺς νοσοῦντας , πάντας τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας , and omnes infirmitates (Brix.), the simple ἰᾶσθαι (as Tisch. also now has) is to be regarded as original.
Luk_9:3. ῥάβδους in Elz., instead of ῥάβδον in Lachm. and Tisch., has evidence of importance both for and against it. In accordance with A B [B has ῥάβδον ] Δ , it is to be maintained, since the singular might be introduced from Mat_10:10 (see on the passage), and mechanically also from Mar_6:8, just as easily as it could be retained by reason of the singulars alongside of it.
Luk_9:5. δέξωνται ] in Elz., instead of δέχωνται (the latter is approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), has against it authorities so important, that it must be referred to the parallels.
καὶ τ . κον .] This καί (bracketed by Lachm.) is wanting in B C* D L X Ξ à , 1, 124, Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Omitted, in accordance with the parallels.
Luk_9:7. ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ] is wanting in B C* D L à , min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition for the purpose of more precise specification.
Luk_9:10. τόπον ἔρημ . πόλ . καλ . Βηθσ .] Many variants; the reading which is best attested is πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσ ., which Tisch., following B L X, 33, Copt. Sahid. Erp., has adopted. Rightly; εἰς πόλιν κ . τ . λ . would of necessity arouse objection, as what follows did not take place in a city, but in a desert (comp. Luk_9:12, and also Mar_6:31).
Luk_9:11. δεξάμ .] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀποδεξάμ ., in accordance with B D L X [also Ξ ] à , min. Rightly; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound form, which form in the New Testament occurs only in Luke.
Luk_9:12. Instead of πορευθέντες , Elz. Scholz have ἀπελθόντες , in opposition to decisive evidence; it is from the parallels.
Luk_9:14. Before ἀνά , B C D L R Ξ à , 33, 157, Sahid. Cant. Or. have ὡσεί , which Tisch. synops. has adopted [ ὡσεί is wanting in Tisch. 8]. Rightly; it was omitted, because even Mark has no indefinite qualifying word.
Luk_9:22. ἐγερθ ] Lachm. has ἀναστῆναι . The authorities are greatly divided, but ἐγερθ . is from Matthew ( τ . τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθ .).
Luk_9:23. Instead of ἔρχεσθαι , ἀρνησάσθω Elz. Scholz have ἐλθεῖν , ἀπαρνησάσθω , in opposition to preponderating MSS. and Or. From the parallels.
καθʼ ἡμέραν ] condemned by Griesb., deleted by Scholz, Lachm. It has preponderating evidence in its favour; the omission is due to the words being omitted in the parallels.
Luk_9:27. ὧδε ] B L Ξ à , 1, Cyr. have αὐτοῦ . Commended by Griesb., approved by Rinck, adopted by Tisch. Rightly; ὧδε is from the parallels.
The readings ἑστώτων and γεύσωνται (Elz.: ἑστηκότων and γεύσονται ) have (the latter strongly) preponderating evidence in their favour.
Luk_9:35. ἀγαπητός ] B L Ξ à , vss. have ἐκλελεγμένος . Commended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels.
Luk_9:37. ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς ] ἐν , in accordance with B L S à , 1, 69, is to be deleted. See on Luk_7:11.
Luk_9:38. ἀνεβ .] Lachm. has ἐβόησεν , in accordance with B C D L à , min. A neglect of the compound form, which form occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mat_27:46, and even there is disregarded by several authorities.
Instead of ἐπιβλέψαι (to be accented thus) Elz. Lachm. have ἐπίβλεψον . Authorities of importance on both sides. The latter is an interpretation. The infinitive ΕΠΙΒΛΕΨΑΙ was taken for an imperative middle.
Luk_9:43. ἐποίησεν ] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐποίει ; decisively attested.
Luk_9:48. Instead of ἐστί , which is approved by Griesb., and, moreover, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., Elz. Scholz have ἔσται . But ἐστί is attested by B C L X Ξ à , min. vss. (also Vulg. It.) Or. (thrice); the future was introduced in reference to the future kingdom of heaven.
Luk_9:50. Instead of ὑμῶν Elz. has ἡμῶν both times, in opposition to preponderating evidence. See on Mar_9:40.
Luk_9:54. ὡς κ . Ἠλ . ἐπ .] is wanting in B L Ξ à , 71, 157, vss. (Vulg. also and codd. of It.) Jer. (?). Suspected by Griesb. (following Mill), deleted by Tisch. But how easily the indirect rebuke of Elias, contained in what follows, would make these words objectionable!
Luk_9:55. καὶ εἶπεν … ὑμεῖς ] is wanting in A B C E, etc., also à , min. Copt. Aeth. Sax. Germ. 1, Gat. Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The words have such a weight of evidence against them that they would have to be rejected, if it could be explained how they got into the text. How easily, on the other hand, might an intentional omission, out of consideration for Elias, occur! Moreover, the simple, short, and pregnant word of rebuke is so unlike a transcriber’s addition, and so worthy of Jesus Himself, as, on the other hand, it is hardly to be conceived that Luke would have limited himself on an occasion of so unprecedented a kind only to the bare ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς . But the additional clause which follows in Elz. is decidedly spurious: ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι , ἀλλὰ σῶσαι .
Luk_9:57. ἐγένετο δέ ] Lachm. Tisch. have καί , in accordance with B C L X Ξ à , min. Syr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Rightly; a new section was here begun (a lection also), and attention was called to this by adding ἐγένετο to καί (so D, 346, Cant. Verc. Colb.), or by writing ἐγένετο δέ , in accordance with Luk_9:51.
κύριε ] is wanting in B D L Ξ à , min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. codd. of It. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. But since it stood at the end of the sentence, and since the parallel passage, Mat_8:19, had no corresponding word at the end, κύριε would the more easily drop out.
Luk_9:62. εἰς τὴν βασιλ .] B L Ξ à , 1, 33, Vulg. It. Clem. Or. have τῇ βασιλείᾳ . So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is explanatory.