Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 10
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_10:3. ὡσεί ] Lachm. and Born. read ὡσεὶ περί , after A B C E à , min. Dam. Theophyl. 2. Rightly; the περί after ὡσεί was passed over as superfluous.
Act_10:5. After Σίμωνα read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., τινα , according to A B C, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. (in the margin) Vulg. The indefinite τινα appeared not suited to the dignity of the prince of the apostles, and was therefore omitted.
After Act_10:6, Elz. (following Erasm.) has οὗτος λαλήσει σοι , τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν , which, according to decisive testimony, is to be rejected as an interpolation from Act_9:6, Act_10:32. The addition, which some other witnesses have instead of it: ὅς λαλήσει ῥήματα πρός σε , ἐν οἷς σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου , is from Act_9:14.
Act_10:7. αὐτῷ ] Elz. has τῷ Κορνηλίῳ , against decisive testimony. On similar evidence αὐτοῦ after οἰκετ . (Elz. Scholz) is deleted.
Act_10:10. αὐτῶν ] So Lachm. Born. Tisch. instead of the usual ἐκείνων , which has far preponderant evidence against it, and was intended to remedy the indefiniteness of the αὐτῶν .
ἐπέπεσεν ] A B C à , min. Copt. Or. have ἐγένετο , which Griesb. approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted, and that rightly, as it is preponderantly attested, and was easily replaced by the more definite ἐπέπεσεν (Clem.: ἔπεσεν ) as its gloss.
Act_10:11. After καταβαῖνον , Elz. has ἐπʼ αὐτόν , which is wanting in A B C** E à , min. VSS. Or. Defended, indeed, by Rinck (as having been omitted in conformity to Act_11:5); but the very notice καὶ ἦλθεν ἄχρις ἐμοῦ , Act_11:5, has here produced the addition ἐπʼ αὐτόν as a more precise definition.
δεδεμένον καί ] is wanting in A B C** E à , min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Or. Cyr. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. But see Act_9:5.
Act_10:12. τῆς γῆς ] is wanting in too few witnesses to be regarded as spurious. But Lachm. and Tisch. have it after ἑρπετά , according to A B C E à , min. VSS. and Fathers. Rightly; see Act_11:6, from which passage also the usual καὶ τὰ θηρία before καὶ τὰ ἑρπετά is interpolated, τά before ἑρπετά and πετεινά is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted.
Act_10:16. εὐθύς ] So Lachm. and Tisch. after A B C E à , min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But Elz. Scholz have πάλιν , which is introduced from Act_11:10, although defended by Born. (who places it after ἀνελ .) on account of its appearing superfluous.
Act_10:17. καὶ ἰδού ] Lachm. reads ἰδού , after A B à , min.; but καί was unnecessary, and might appear disturbing.
Act_10:19. διενθυμουμένου ] Elz. has ἐνθυμ . against decisive evidence. Neglect of the double compound, elsewhere not occurring in the N. T.
ἄνδρες ] Elz. Lachm. Scholz add to this τρεῖς , which is wanting in D G H min. VSS. and Fathers. An addition, after Act_10:7; Act_11:11; instead of which B has δύο (Act_10:7), which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 357, unsatisfactorily defends by the artificial assumption—not confirmed by the expression in Act_10:8—that the soldier was only taken with him as escort and attendant.
Act_10:20. Instead of ὅτι , Elz. διότι , against decisive evidence.
Act_10:21. After ἄνδρας , Elz. has τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους ἀπὸ τοῦ Κορνηλίου πρὸς αὐτόν , against A B C D E G à , min. and most VSS. Chrys. An addition, because Act_10:21 commences a church-lesson.
Act_10:23. ἀναστάς ] is wanting in Elz., but is just as certainly protected by decisive testimony, and by its being apparently superfluous, as ὁ Πέτρος , which in Elz. stands before ἐξῆλθε , is condemned by A B C D à , min. and several VSS. as the subject written on the margin.
Act_10:25. τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν ] Elz. has merely εἰσελθεῖν . But τοῦ is found in A B C E G à , min. Chrys. Bas. Theophyl. See the exegetical remarks.
Born. reads Act_10:25 thus: προσεγγίζοντος δὲ τοῦ Πέτρου εἰς τὴν Καισάρειαν , προδραμὼν εἷς τῶν δούλων διεσάφησεν παραγεγονέναι αὐτόν · ὁ δὲ Κορνήλιος ἐκπηδήσας καὶ συναντήσας αὐτῷ πεσὼν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν αὐτόν , only after D, Syr. p. (on the margin); an apocryphal attempt at depicting the scene, and how much of a foil to the simple narrative in the text!
Act_10:30. After ἐνάτην , Elz. has ὥραν , which, according to preponderant testimony, is to be rejected as a supplementary addition. Lachm. has also deleted νηστεύων καί , after some important codd. (including à ) and several VSS. But the omission is explained by there being no mention of fasting in Act_10:3.
Act_10:32. ὃς παραγενόμ . λαλήσει σοι ] is wanting in Lachm., after A B à , min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But the omission took place in accordance with Act_10:6.
Act_10:33. Instead of ὑπό , read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. according to preponderating evidence, ἀπό (E παρά ).
Instead of Θεοῦ , Lachm. and Tisch. have κυρίου , according to predominant attestation; Θεοῦ is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, in which the reading ἐνώπ . σου (Born.) is, on account of too weak attestation, to be rejected.
Act_10:36. ὅν ] is wanting in A B à **, loti. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Ath. Deleted by Lachm.; but the omission very naturally suggested itself, in order to simplify the construction.
Act_10:37. ἀρξάμενον ] A C D E H à , min. have ἀρξάμενος , which Lachm. has on the margin. A D Vulg. Cant. Ir. add γάρ , which Lachm. puts in brackets. Born. has ἀρξάμενος γάρ . But ἀρξάμενον is necessary, according to the sense.
Act_10:39. After ἡμεῖς , Elz. has ἐσμεν , against decisive testimony. A supplementary addition.
Act_10:42. αὐτός ] B C D E G, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. have οὗτος . Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Born. An erroneous correction. See the exegetical remarks.
Act_10:48. αὐτούς ] αὐτοῖς is neither strongly enough attested (A à ), nor in accordance with the sense.
τοῦ κυρίου ] A B E à , min. VSS. Fathers have Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ . So Lachm. An alteration, in order to denote the specific character of the baptism more definitely. Hence some codd. and VSS. have both together. So Born, after D.