Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 7:1 - 7:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Act_7:1-53
_____________
§ I. The first part of the discourse, embracing the age of the Patriarchs
Act_7:1-16.
Act_7:2-3. a. And he said.—It is highly probable that Stephen, whom we have every reason to regard as a Hellenist, employed the Greek language, when he delivered the present discourse (the design and genuineness of which are considered below). [See General Remarks appended to Exeg. note on Act_7:53.—Tr.]. This opinion, which is suggested by his birth and education, is confirmed by the general complexion of the discourse; the latter corresponds throughout to the Alexandrian Version. We possess, besides, conclusive historical testimony that the Greek language was, at that time, so generally understood and spoken in Palestine, that the delivery of a Greek discourse in the Sanhedrin could not be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance.—The terms of the address, ἀäåëöïὶ êáὶ ðáôÝñåò , were conciliatory; they both indicated that the speaker regarded the members of the council with reverence as fathers, and also involved an appeal to their common nationality (brethren).
b. The God of glory.—Stephen commences his discourse with this descriptive name of God for wise reasons. It was one of his objects to counteract the slanderous report which had been circulated, that he had blasphemed God (Act_6:11); and to repel any possible charge that the Christians did not properly revere Him. Hence he expresses his own devout and reverential sentiments, and gives to God the honor which belongs to him. But he has also another, and a more direct object, when he refers specially to the glory ( äüîá ) of God; even at this early stage in his discourse, as well as afterwards, his mind is engaged in the contemplation of the inconceivable grandeur, the boundless power, and the absolute sovereignty of God. In his view, God is independent of every object, animate or inanimate, and may reveal himself to any creature, in any mode, and in any place, according to his own pleasure. The present expression, especially when viewed in its connection with ὤöèç , reminds us of that exalted and wonderful celestial splendor which usually attended earlier theophanies or manifestations of God. [See Exo_24:16; Exo_33:18 ff; Exo_40:34; Lev_9:23, and comp. Herzog: Real-Encyk. art. Schechina, XIII. 476, and Theophanie, XVI. Tr.]
c. Before he dwelt in Charran.—Abraham accompanied his father Terah, when the latter journeyed to Charran (the Carræ of the Romans), a very ancient city of Mesopotamia, situated on a frequented route, and probably in a south-westerly direction from Ur of the Chaldees, in which region they had previously resided (see Winer: Realw. art. Haran [and Herzog: Real-Encyk. V. 539]). It was, according to the Mosaic narrative [Gen_11:31], the original intention of Terah, who took with him his son Abram, together with Sarai and Lot, to proceed as far as Canaan; but he advanced no further than Charran [Haran], where he remained until his death. It is only afterwards (Gen_12:1 ff.) that mention is made of the divine command which Abram received, to forsake his country and his kindred, and journey into a land which God would show; the divine blessing was promised at the same time. It undoubtedly seems to follow from this statement that Abraham did not receive the revelation which included a command to go to the land that should be shown to him, at a period anterior to his residence in Charran. Nevertheless, Stephen represents this revelation as having occurred in Mesopotamia (Act_7:2), or in the land of the Chaldeans (Act_7:4), i.e. in Ur in Chaldea; and he assigns it to a period which preceded the first migration of the family, when it was their more immediate object to reach the city of Charran. And, indeed, the very terms which God employs in Gen_12:1, are here repeated in Act_7:3, only with the difference that they appear in an abbreviated form. Hence, various interpreters (e. g. Grotius; de Wette; Meyer), have maintained that Stephen had involuntarily committed a mistake, in the excitement of the moment, and had assigned to an earlier period and to another region, (that of Ur,) the divine command which Abraham really received afterward, when he had already reached Charran. Although we do not believe that it would be perilous to concede this point, there is another circumstance, conflicting with the opinion of these interpreters, which claims consideration. It is well known from statements in Philo (De Abrahamo. § 15.) and Josephus, (Antiq. i. 7, 1.), that the Jews, in that age, and particularly those of Alexandria, held the opinion that Abraham had already received a divine command while he dwelt in Ur. It is this tradition which Stephen adopts, applying the words in Gen_12:1 to that supposed earlier call of God. And, indeed, there are traces even in the book of Genesis itself, of such a command of God which Abraham received in Ur. In Gen_15:7, God says to Abraham: “I am Jehovah, who led thee forth from Ur in Chaldea ( äåֹöֵàúִéêָ ), to give thee this land.” These words seem to imply plainly that God had distinctly communicated his will to Abraham, that he should depart from Ur; and there is a special reference to these words in Neh_9:7. It is true that no mention is made in Gen_11:31 of any direct command of God, and the departure from Ur appears to be a voluntary act of Terah, rather than one of obedience to the divine will on the part of Abraham. But the peculiar construction of the book of Genesis ought not to be overlooked; it is evidently founded on several documents and accounts, which had, to some extent, been originally composed from different points of view, and this observation is specially applicable to Acts 11. and Acts 12. Accordingly, the method adopted by the later Jews, (which was followed by Stephen also,) of viewing the event in connection with its causes and its consequences, cannot, with propriety, be rejected unconditionally as erroneous and unhistorical; we perceive, on the contrary, that Stephen’s statement is not entirely unsupported by the scriptural records themselves.
Act_7:4. When his father was dead.—Here again Stephen assents to the current opinion of his age, which is recorded by Philo [“who falls into the same mistake, de Migr. Abrah., § 32” (Alf.)], and which could scarcely have been suggested simply by the consideration that filial duty would not have allowed Abraham to abandon his father in his old age. The passage, Gen_11:31-32; Gen_12:1 ff., when read as a continuous and progressive narrative, does, at first, convey the impression that Abraham did not receive the command to migrate to Canaan, before his father’s death [while, in truth, the mention of that event in Gen_11:32 is proleptical or anticipatory (Alford).—Tr.]. There can be no doubt, when the chronological data are considered, that Terah was still living when Abraham departed from Charran. For, according to Gen_11:27, he was seventy years old when he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; the statement doubtless refers to the particular year in which Abraham was born. According to Gen_11:32, Terah died at the age of two hundred and five years. But Abraham was only seventy-five years old when he departed from Charran, Gen_12:4. Therefore, Terah must have lived sixty years in Charran, after Abraham’s departure [70+75=205–60]. Besides, the expression; “from thy father’s house” ( îִáֵּéú àָáִéêָ ) seems to imply that Terah was still alive, when Abraham received that command. Hence, Stephen here follows a chronological tradition which seems, indeed, at first view, to be supported by Gen_11:32 compared with Act_12:1 ff., but which, on a closer inspection, is found to be erroneous. This fact ought to be admitted without hesitation, for all the attempts that have been made to reconcile these conflicting statements, have been failures, and are, moreover, unnecessary. Nothing could be more truly a product of the imagination, than the theory (of Bengel and others) that Abraham had indeed proceeded to Canaan during the life of his father, but still retained his home in Charran, and had, only after the decease of Terah, sundered all his early ties, and established himself “essentially” in Canaan. [This interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning and construction of ìåôῴê . áὐô . åἰò in Act_7:4. (de Wette, and Alford.)—Tr.]. There is as little foundation for the interpretation of others (Luger: Zweck d. Rede d. St., 1838; Ols.; Stier) that Stephen intended to say that Abraham had left Charran after the spiritual death of Terah, i.e., after the latter had become an idolater. For how can ἀðïèáíåῖí admit of such an interpretation, when unattended by a single term that would indicate it, and when, besides, nothing whatever is found in the context, which suggests such a meaning of the verb? Nor can it be proved that this was the usual interpretation in the age of the apostles; it is, at least, an error that Philo countenances it. It was, first of all, proposed in the Talmud, and even there occurs merely as an expedient for evading the chronological difficulty.—Baumgarten thinks (I. 131 ff.) that the language used in Act_7:4, simply means that now, when Jehovah is entering into new relations with mankind, Abraham should be viewed, at such an important epoch, not as in any manner related to Terah, but as one who was connected with him by no ties whatever. But if Stephen had intended to convey such a thought, he would have necessarily employed an entirely different form of expression. [Other solutions of this exegetical problem are not noticed by the author, probably because they carry their own refutation with them, e. g., that Abraham was Terah’s youngest son, sixty years younger than Haran, or, that the chronology of the Samaritan text should be adopted, etc.—Tr.].—Is it necessary to have recourse to so many devices? Why should we not concede that Stephen, like his contemporaries, adopted an opinion which the text of the sacred narrative seems, at first view, to suggest, but which a closer investigation has shown to be erroneous? Even if he made an inaccurate statement with regard to a question in chronology, such an incident derogates neither from the wisdom nor from the fulness of the Spirit by which he spake (Act_6:10).
Act_7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it; êëçñïíïìßá is property obtained by inheritance, and capable of being transmitted to heirs.—This statement is by no means contradicted by the fact that Abraham purchased of Ephron a field with a cave (Gen. Acts 23); it is precisely the circumstance that he was compelled to purchase the field, which establishes the fact that he owned no land as yet bestowed on him by God. (Bengel). The explanation that Stephen refers to the earliest period of Abraham’s residence in Palestine, and that the purchase occurred at a later time, namely, after the institution of circumcision, Act_7:8 (Meyer), is not satisfactory; these two periods, an early and a later, are obtruded on the text, which not only lays no stress on such a distinction, but does not even allude to it.—Stephen speaks emphatically of the fact that the divine promise in reference to the land, was given to Abraham before a child was born unto him, for the purpose of reminding his hearers that both the possession of the inheritance, and also the birth of an heir, depended entirely on God,—the inheritance and the son were both the free gifts of his grace.
Act_7:6-7. And God spake on this wise.—Stephen quotes the prophecy in Gen_15:13, in the language of the Alexandrian version in general, although certain variations from it are discoverable. He repeats, for instance, the original words in the indirect form of speech, and it is only in Act_7:7, that he passes from the narrative to the direct form, which he indicates by the words: åἶðåí ὁ Èåüò . And, at the close of Act_7:7, he combines Exo_3:12 with Gen_15:13; the former passage contains a promise given to Moses in Horeb, and refers to the worship which would soon be offered in the vicinity of that mountain. This promise is interwoven with the one given to Abraham, which referred to the worship of Israel at a future period in Canaan, the land of their inheritance. We may undoubtedly find an “inaccurate” (de Wette) reference here, if we adhere very scrupulously to the literal meaning. But can we take it amiss, if Stephen, instead of anxiously dwelling on the mere letter, or on minute details, rather surveys with profound judgment the whole wide extent of the divine economy—and if he then combines a promise given to Abraham with one addressed to Moses, and, in the case of the latter, even looks beyond to a still later day? He does not intend to quote the identical words to which he refers, but, rather, to connect and apply them.—We may form the same judgment respecting the period of four hundred years which Stephen assigns (Act_7:6) to the bondage in Egypt. The whole duration of that bondage, four hundred and thirty years, is, without doubt, stated with chronological exactness in Exo_12:40, while Stephen avails himself of a privilege which cannot be reasonably denied to him, and merely mentions a round number. [For an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between this passage and Gal_3:17, see O. Schmoller, ad loc., in a succeeding volume of this commentary.—Tr.].—The connection shows that êñéíῶ in Act_7:7 refers to the well-deserved penal judgment which God would subsequently execute in the case of the tyrants who oppressed his people.
Act_7:8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision.—The covenant which God made with Abraham is termed a äéáèÞêç ô ̀ ῆò ðåñéôïìῆò , as circumcision was not only the “token” [sign] of this covenant ( àåֹú áְּøִéú , Gen_17:11), but was also itself an essential constituent part of this covenant: ( äִîּåֹì ìָëֶíé ëָּìÎæָëָø æàֹú áְּøéúִé Î Î Î , Gen_17:10).—The phraseology in this verse: ἔäùêåí áὐôῷ äéáè . ðåñéô ., gave instead of made the covenant with Abraham, seems to be designedly chosen, in order to indicate that the establishment of the covenant was a voluntary act of God, and, indeed, a gracious gift, and that, when He reveals himself, he is by no means subject to limitations or conditions imposed by men:—[ êáὶ ïὕôùò , and thus, i. e., in accordance with the terms of the covenant, God gave a son to Abraham, and Abraham, on his part, circumcised that son.—Tr.]
Act_7:9-13. And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph.—This is the first occasion on which, in this general view of sacred history, sin is mentioned, the reference being to the envy with which Jacob’s sons regarded their brother Joseph. Jealousy and envy influenced them to give him away ( ἀðÝäïíôï ), i.e., they did all that lay in their power, to remove him for ever from themselves and the whole family, and to degrade him. But although they cast him off, God was with him. He delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharoah. The sense here is: he was very favorably received by Pharoah, whose confidence he acquired by his wise interpretation of certain dreams, and by the counsels which he imparted to that king. It accords better with the context to refer ÷Üñéí to the favor of the king than to the grace of God; the latter is already indicated in the words: ἦí ὁ Èåὸò ìåô ʼ áὐôïῦ , and is illustrated in all the facts that are stated, including the royal favor which Joseph enjoyed. [Pharaoh was the common title of the ancient kings of Egypt, as Ptolemy (Greek, warrior) was applied to those of the Græco-Macedonian period. The latest authorities confirm the statement of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 6, 2), that the word is not a proper name but an appellative, signifying, in the ancient Egyptian, the king. (Herzog: Real-Encyk. Vol. XI. p. 490).—Tr.]
Act_7:14-15. Threescore and fifteen souls.—Stephen here follows the Septuagint version, in which seventy-five souls are reckoned, whereas the original Hebrew text mentions only the round number seventy; see Gen_46:27, and Exo_1:5; the latter includes Joseph and his two sons. The Sept. counts, in the former passage, not less than nine sons of Joseph. [Commentators generally admit that the Septuagint text has been interpolated and is somewhat confused, but no one has furnished a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the principles adopted in the modes of computation, which would clearly furnish, as results, the respective numbers of seventy and seventy-five. “Stephen, who adheres to the Septuagint, quoted the most current and familiar version, without alteration” (J. A. Alexander). Whether the number was seventy or seventy-five, “it was a mere handful compared with the (subsequent) increase.” (Hackett).—Tr.]
Act_7:16. And were carried over into Sychem.—The words áὐôὸò êáὶ ïἱ ðáôÝñåò ἡìῶí , in Act_7:15, constitute the nominative to the verb ìåôåôÝèçóáí . Stephen says that the remains of Jacob, and also of his sons, were carried to Sychem; his language has occasioned here, too, perplexity with respect to several particulars. 1. We are told in Gen_50:13, that Joseph and his brethren buried the body of Jacob in the cave of the field near Hebron [“Mamre; the same is Hebron,” Gen_23:19], whereas Stephen says that Jacob was buried in Sychem. 2. According to Jos_24:32, the Israelites, when they took possession of Canaan, buried the bones of Joseph, which they brought from Egypt, in Shechem [Sychem]; but it is not stated either in this passage or elsewhere in the Old Testament, that the bones of Joseph’s brethren, whom the terms employed by Stephen include, were buried at the same place. 3. Stephen says that Abraham bought the piece of ground in Sychem, of the sons of Emmor [Greek form of the Hebrew Hamor]; ðáôñüò , and not õἱïῦ , [as in the Vulg. filii] is to be supplied before ôïῦ Óõ÷Ýì . [So J. A. Alexander also holds, appealing to Gen_33:19; Gen_34:2; Gen_34:4; Gen_34:6; Gen_34:8; Gen_34:13; Gen_34:18; Gen_34:20; Gen_34:24; Gen_34:26.—Tr.]. Yet it was not Abraham, but Jacob, who bought this piece of ground of the former owners. Gen_33:18-19. Consequently, Stephen confounded the latter with the spot near Hebron, which Abraham had bought. Every possible attempt has been made to explain these variations, from the period in which the oldest manuscripts were written (one of which [E.] substitutes ὁ ðáôὴñ ἡìῶí for ἈâñáÜì , in order to evade the third variation mentioned above), down to the age of the Reformers, and thence, to the present day. [Kuinoel, in an extended note ad loc. discusses several of the solutions that have been attempted, without being attended with entire success. Hackett, who appears to adopt Calvin’s very positive opinion (Com. Tholuck’s ed. IV. 118) that, in the third discrepancy, the error lies in the name Abraham, proposes to omit it, or substitute Jacob; “ ὠíÞóáôï without a subject,” he adds, “could be taken as impersonal: one purchased=was purchased”; he refers to Winer: Gram. N. T. § 58, 9, where the grammatical principle is illustrated.—Tr.]. Interpreters have, without success, availed themselves of every resource which the laws of Criticism, or of Grammar, or the principles of Lexicology or of Hermeneutics seemed to offer. The theory has been proposed that two burials are described in terms which were intentionally abbreviated, or that the passage before us speaks of two purchases. It is, however, the most judicious course to admit frankly, that, with reference to the purchase of the ground and the burial of Jacob, it might easily occur that Stephen, whose discourse treated an entirely different and a loftier theme, should, in his rapid course, confound two analogous transactions. [Olsh. and Alford concur.] As to the burial of Joseph’s brethren in Canaan, the Old Testament presents no conflicting statements, but merely observes silence; it is very probable that such a tradition, the existence of which at a later period can be proved, was already current in Stephen’s age, and adopted by him. [J. A. Alexander, who briefly refers to several modes of explaining the apparent contradictions, without deciding whether “unusual constructions or textual corruptions” should be admitted, closes with the following remark: “It is easy to cut the knot by assuming a mistake on Stephen’s part, but not so easy to account for its being made by such a man, addressing such an audience, and then perpetuated in such a history, without correction or exposure, for a course of ages.”—The reading in Cod. Sin., Act_7:16, does not differ from that found in text. rec.—Tr.]
2. Great prominence is given to Joseph’s life in that view of Sacred History which Stephen presents. The thought had doubtless occurred to him, with more or less distinctness, that Joseph was a type of Jesus himself. And, indeed, the number of the points of resemblance between Joseph and Jesus Christ, will be found to be surprisingly great, when we closely examine their personal history, their experience, and their works. Stephen directs attention specially to the fact, that, although Joseph’s brethren were hostile to him, and exposed him to ignominy, God was, nevertheless, with him, and exalted him.
Act_7:3. Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred.—Self-denial is one of the primary constituents of faith in God. (Starke).—Every Christian must go forth with Abraham, renounce the friendship of the world, and all comfort derived from creatures, put all his trust in God, and love him alone. (id.)
Act_7:4. Then came he out … and from thence, etc.—The life of the believer is a continued pilgrimage; each short sojourn is succeeded by another departure, until he enters the true Canaan.
Act_7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it.—This world is not the inheritance of the children of God; they have not their portion in it, but are mere sojourners. (Quesn.).—He, to whom God is all in all, is rich, even if he does not own so much as a foot-breadth. (Starke).—Yet he promised that he would give, etc.—The inheritance of faith is in the unseen world; yea, the believer is already put in possession of it by the promise of God; Heb_11:1.
Act_7:6. That his seed should sojourn, etc.—The divine promise was so expressed, as to prove a severe trial of Abraham’s faith; we must suffer with Christ, as well as be glorified together with him; Rom_8:17. (Starke).
Act_7:7. And the nation … I judge.—God chooses his own time for humbling his people, but also his own time for judging the agents by whom they are humbled. When his rods are no longer serviceable, he casts them into the fire. In each case the decree proceeds from his justice; the whole history, alike of the world in general, and of the church in particular, furnishes illustrations.—And serve me in this place.—The redeeming work of Christ imposes solemn obligations on the redeemed to serve him; Luk_1:74-75. (Starke).
On Act_7:2-8. Abraham, the father of all them that believe, a bright example for all believing pilgrims of God. His history illustrates, I. The sacrifices and trials of faith; II. The patience and obedience of faith; III. The reward and blessing of faith.—Abraham’s pilgrimage: I. The difficulties encountered by that pilgrim in his path; II. The good staff which supported him; III. The happy close of his pilgrimage.
Act_7:9. And the patriarchs, moved with envy.—Godliness is always followed by the hatred and envy of the world, 2Ti_3:12. “A man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Mat_10:32. Brothers are of one blood, but seldom of one mind. (Starke).
Act_7:10. Gave him favor and wisdom.—It is only after grace, [ ÷Üñéí , see the Exeget. note on Act_7:9-13, above], and through grace, that true wisdom is given. (Apost. Past.).
Act_7:11. Now there came a dearth.—Where Jesus, the true Joseph, does not dwell, a famine of the true bread [Amo_8:11] must necessarily prevail, since he alone is the bread of life, Joh_6:48-51. (Quesn.).—And our fathers found no sustenance.—The famine was also felt by Abraham’s family. Godliness does not exempt men from feeling the effects of national afflictions and other temporal calamities; but the issue of the trials of the godly is different from that of the plagues of the ungodly; Rom_8:28. (Apost. Past.).
Act_7:13. And at the second time Joseph was made known.—Joseph did not at once make himself known to his brethren, at the very first visit. We must learn to wait, if we desire to experience the grace of God, Psa_130:5-6. God often permits our distress to reach the highest point, in order that he may reveal himself the more gloriously, when he grants relief. (Starke). O that the Jews, of whom so many did not know Jesus, their brother after the flesh, when he first appeared, would now, in these last times, learn to know him! (ib.).
Act_7:16. Laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought.—It is not a slight exhibition of divine grace, when the remains of an individual are deposited near those of the fathers, and at a place where the name of God is honored, and the visible church exists. (Starke).
On Act_7:9-16. Joseph, a type of Jesus: I. In his state of humiliation; each, beloved of his father, but mocked and hated by his brethren; each, conscious, in the earliest years, of his future eminence, but conducted through sufferings to honor; each, hated by his kindred, sold into the hands of sinners, falsely accused, unjustly condemned. II. In his state of exaltation; Jesus, like Joseph, crowned with honor, after shame and sufferings; appointed as the ruler and deliverer of a famishing people; recognized with terror by those who had formerly rejected and persecuted him; showing grace and mercy to those who had done evil unto him.
Footnotes:
Act_7:1. ἄñá [of text. rec.] after åἰ is wanting in A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and some minuscule mss., and has on this account been cancelled by Lach.; but it is found in D. E. H., and the fathers; it could more easily have been dropped as superfluous, than have been inserted as a correction. [Retained by Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
Act_7:3. The article ôÞí before ãῆí , which is wanting in the text. rec., is so well attested, that its genuineness cannot be doubted. [Found in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin.; omitted in H., but retained by later editors generally.—Tr.]
Act_7:5. äïῦíáé áὐôῷ is better attested [by A. B. C. D. E. H.] than áὐôῷ äïῦíáé [of the text. rec. which reading is supported only by a few minuscule manuscripts. Lach., Tisch., and Alf. read äïῦíáé áὐ .—Cod. Sin. exhibits the following: åðçã . äïõíáé áõôçí åéò êáôáó÷ . áõôù .—Tr.]
Act_7:11. Griesbach and Lachmann, following the authority of A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and some ancient versions [Syr. Vulg. etc.] read ôὴí Áἴãõðôïí ; other MSS. [E. H.], and some versions, have ôὴí ãῆí Áἰãýðôïõ ; ãῆí could have more easily been dropped by copyists, than have been inserted. [ ãῆí retained by Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
Act_7:12. The reading åἰò Áἴãõðôïí is far better attested than ἐí Áἰãýðôῳ , which is a correction to suit ὄíôá . [ ἐí A. of text. rec. in D. H.; åßò A. in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. and adopted by Lach. Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
Act_7:15. êáὶ êáôÝâç is a better reading than êáôÝâç äÝ ; D., and some versions, exhibit no conjunction at all, and Bornemann and Meyer regard this as the original form of the text; this construction, however, would connect êáôÝâç with ἐí øõ÷ . ἑâä . ðÝíôå of Act_7:14. [ êáὶ êáô . in A. C. E. Cod. Sin. and adopted by Lach. Tisch. Alf.—Tr.] In the same verse, Tischendorf cancels åὶò Áἵãõðôïí , without sufficient reason, and in opposition to all the authorities. [Lach. retains this reading as genuine; Alford inserts it in the text, but in brackets. Cod. Sin. reads åἰò Áἴã .—Tr.]
Act_7:16. a. ὅ [in H. before ὠíÞó . and adopted in the text. rec. “not recognizing the attraction” (Meyer). Tr.], is plainly a correction; the reading ῷ ̓ [in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin., and adopted by the recent editors] is sufficiently attested, both critically and grammatically.
Act_7:16. b. ôïῦ Óõ÷Ýì [of text. rec.] is, doubtless, the original reading; for both ἐí Ó . in B. C. and some versions, and ôïῦ ἐí Ó . in A. E. and other authorities, are evidently corrections, suggested by the opinion that this name here [as well as in the beginning of the same verse (Meyer)], indicated a place and not a person. [Lachm. reads ôïῦ ἐí ; Tisch. and Alf. with D. H. ôïῦ Ó . as text. rec.—Cod. Sin. reads ἐí Óõ÷ ., before which a later band (C) inserted ôïῦ .—Tr.]