LUKE 11:2 le,gete After le,gete codex Bezae continues with an obvious interpolation, derived from Matthew 6:7: mh. battologei/te w`j oi` loipoi,( dokou/sin ga,r tinej o[ti evn th|/ polulogi,a| auvtw/n eivsakousqh,sontai( avlla. proseuco,menoi le,gete.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:4 mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j Marcion apparently read mh. avfh|/j h`ma/j eivsenecqh/nai (“_Do not allow us to be led_ into temptation”), a theological amelioration of the usual form of the petition.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:10 avnoig@h,s#etai {C} It is difficult to decide between avnoigh,setai and avnoi,getai. On the one hand, the former reading may have arisen as the result of scribal assimilation to the future tense at the end of ver. Luke 11:9; on the other hand, the latter reading may be the result of assi... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:11 ivcqu,n {B} It is difficult to decide (_a_) whether, like the Matthean account ( Matthew 7:9), Luke originally had two pairs of terms (but not the same two pairs as Matthew), and a third pair was incorporated from Matthew (bread and stone); or (_b_) whether Luke originally had three pai... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:12 evpidw,sei {C} It is easy to see why most copyists would have inserted mh,, thus alerting the reader that the following words are to be taken as a question.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:13 @o`# evx ouvranou/ {C} In view of the Matthean parallel ( Matthew 7:11) o` path.r u`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j dw,sei, it is easy to account for the rise of the variant readings u`mw/n o` evx ouvranou/ and o` ouvra,nioj. It is much more difficult to decide between evx ouvranou/ (“the F... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:14 @kai. auvto. h=n# {C} On the one hand, the expression kai. auvto. h=n kwfo,n appears to be a Semitism in the Lukan style. On the other hand, the external evidence in support of the shorter reading is exceedingly weighty. In order to reflect these conflicting considerations, the Committe... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:23 skorpi,zei {A} The addition of me after skorpi,zei, which is so difficult as to be almost meaningless, must be a scribal blunder.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:24 @to,te# le,gei {C} On the basis of external evidence, a majority of the Committee preferred to include to,te, but, in view of the possibility that it may be a scribal assimilation to the parallel in Matthew 12:44, decided to enclose the word within square brackets.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:25 sesarwme,non {B} The original Lukan form of the account is clearly that preserved in î75 a* D Q 700 most of the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, _al_. Copyists could not resist introducing from the Matthean parallel ( Matthew 12:44) the word scola,zonta before or after sesarwme,non, with or w... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:33 @ouvde. u`po. to.n mo,dion# {C} Since Luke preferred not to use mo,dion in Luke 8:16, a word that is present in the parallel in Mark (and Matthew), it may well be that the word, with its clause, was absent from the original form of the present passage also. On the other hand, since the... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:42 tau/ta de. e;dei poih/sai kavkei/na mh. parei/nai {B} Marcion, finding these words entirely unacceptable, omitted them from his edition of Luke’s Gospel; their absence from codex Bezae may be due to scribal oversight, or, more probably, to influence from the Marcionite form of text.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 11:48 oivkodomei/te {C} Since oivkodomei/n is usually transitive, most scribes added a suitable object, drawn from ver. Luke 11:47.... [ Continue Reading ]