Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 13
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_13:4. οὗτοι ] Lachm. Tisch. read αὐτοί , after A B à , min. Vulg. Syr. utr. Ambr. Vig.; Born. has οἱ only, after D, Ath. As the reading of C is not clear, the preponderance of witnesses, which alone can here decide, remains in favour of the reading of Lachm.
Act_13:6. ὅλην ] is wanting in Elz., but is supported by decisive testimony. How easily would transcribers, to whom the situation of Paphos was not precisely known, find a contradiction in ὅλην and ἄχρι Πάφου !
ἄνδρα τινά ] So Lachm. Tisch. Born., after A B C D à , min. Chrys. Theophyl. Lucif. and several vss. After τινά , E, 36, Vulg. Sahid. Slav. Lucif. have ἄνδρα . But Elz. and Scholz omit ἄνδρα , which, however, is decisively attested by those witnesses, and was easily passed over as quite superfluous.
Act_13:9. The usual καί before ἀτενίσας is deleted, according to decisive evidence, by Lachm. Tisch. Born.
Act_13:14. τῆς Πισιδίας ] Lachm. and Tisch. read τὴν Πισιδίαν , after A B C à . But it lacks any attestation from the vss. and Fathers. Therefore it is the more to be regarded as an old alteration (it was taken as an adjective like Πισιδικός ).
Act_13:15. After εἰ Lachm. Born. Tisch. have τις , which has preponderant attestation, and from its apparent superfluousness, as well as from its position between two words beginning with E, might very easily be omitted.
Act_13:17. After τούτου Lachm. reads, with Elz., Ἰσραήλ , which also Born. has defended, following A B C D à , vss. Its being self-evident gave occasion to its being passed over, as was in other witnesses τούτου , and in others λαοῦ τούτου .
Act_13:18. ἐτροφοφ .] So (after Mill, Grabe, and others) Griesb. Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., following A C* E, min. vss. But Elz. Tisch. and Born. have ἐτροποφ . (mores eorum sustinuit, Vulg.). An old insertion of the word which came more readily to hand in writing, and was also regarded as more appropriate. See the exegetical remarks.
Act_13:19. κατεκληρονόμησεν ] Elz. reads κατεκληροδότησεν , against decisive witnesses. An interpretation on account of the active sense.
Act_13:20. καὶ μετά … ἔδωκε ] Lachm. reads ὡς ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα , καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδωκεν , which Griesb. has recommended and Born. adopted, after A B C à , min. Vulg. An alteration, in order to remove somehow the chronological difficulty.
Act_13:23. ἤγαγε ] Elz. and Born. read ἤγειρε , in opposition to A B E G H à , min. and several vss. and Fathers. An interpretation, in accordance with Act_13:22.
Act_13:27. ἀπεστάλη ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἐξαπεστάλη , which is so decidedly attested by A B C D à , min. Chrys. that the Recepta can only be regarded as having arisen from neglect of the double compound.
Act_13:31. νῦν ] is wanting in Elz., but is, according to important attestation, to be recognised as genuine, and was omitted because those who are mentioned were already long ago witnesses of Jesus. Hence others have ἄχρι νῦν (D, Syr. p. Vulg. Cant.; so Born.); and others still, καὶ νῦν (Arm.).
Act_13:32. αὐτῶν ἡμῖν ] Sahid. Ar. Ambr. ms. Bed. gr. have only αὐτῶν . A B C* D à , Aeth. Vulg. Hil. Ambr. Bed. have only ἡμῶν (so Lachm. and Born., who, however, conjectures ἡμῖν [1]), for which Tol. read ὑμῶν . Sheer alterations from want of acquaintance with such juxtaposition of the genitive and dative.
Act_13:33. τῷ πρώτῳ ] Elz. and Scholz read τῷ δευτέρῳ (after ψαλμῷ ). But τῷ πρώτῳ , which (following Erasm. and Mill) Griesb. Lachm. (who places it after γέγραπται , where A B C à , loti. 40 have their τῷ δευτέρῳ ) Tisch. Born, have adopted, is, in accordance with D, Or. and several other Fathers, to be considered as the original, which was supplanted by τῷ δευτέρῳ according to the usual numbering of the Psalms. The bare ψαλμῷ , which Hesych. presb. and some more recent codd. have, without any numeral, is, although defended by Bengel and others, to be considered as another mode of obviating the difficulty erroneously assumed.
Act_13:41. ὅ ] Elz. reads ᾧ , which, as the LXX. at Hab_1:5 has ὅ , would have to be preferred, were not the quite decisive external attestation in favour of ὅ .
The second ἔργον is wanting in D E G, min. Chrys. Cosm. Theophyl. Oec. and several vss.; but it was easily omitted, as it was regarded as unnecessary and was not found in the LXX. l.c.
Act_13:42. ΑὐΤῶΝ ] Elz. reads ἘΚ Τῆς ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓῆς ΤῶΝ ἸΟΥΔΑΊΩΝ . Other variations are ΑὐΤῶΝ ἘΚ Τ . ΣΥΝΑΓ . Τ . ἸΟΥΔ . or ΤῶΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ ἘΚ Τ . ΣΥΝΑΓ . Τ . ἸΟΥΔ . Sheer interpolations, because Act_13:42 begins a church-lesson. The simple ΑὐΤῶΝ has decisive attestation.
After ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΟΥΝ Elz. has ΤᾺ ἜΘΝΗ , which, although retained by Matthaei, is spurious, according to just as decisive testimony. It was inserted, because it was considered that the request contained here must not, according to Act_13:45, be ascribed to the Jews, but rather to the Gentiles, according to Act_13:48.
Act_13:43. After ΠΡΟΣΛΑΛ . A B (?) C D à , vss. Chrys. have ΑὐΤΟῖς (so Lachm. and Born.). A familiar addition.
ΠΡΟΣΜΈΝΕΙΝ ] Elz. reads ἘΠΙΜΈΝΕΙΝ , against decisive evidence.
Act_13:44. ἘΧΟΜΈΝῼ ] Elz. reads ἘΡΧΟΜΈΝῼ , against A C** E*, min. An alteration, from want of acquaintance with this use of the word, as in Luk_13:33; Act_20:15; Act_21:26.
Act_13:45. ἈΝΤΙΛΈΓΟΝΤΕς ΚΑΊ ] is wanting in A B C G à , min. and several vss. (erased by Lachm.). E has ἘΝΑΝΤΙΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ ΚΑΊ . Both are hasty emendations of style.
Act_13:50. ΤᾺς ΕὐΣΧ .] Elz. reads ΚΑῚ ΤᾺς ΕὐΣΧ ., against decisive testimony. ΚΑΊ , if it has not arisen simply from the repetition in writing of the preceding syllable, is a wrongly inserted connective.
[1] Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., conjectured ἐφʼ ἡμῶν : “nostro tempore.”
With chap. 13 commences the second part of the book, which treats chiefly of the missionary labours and fortunes of Paul. First of all, the special choice and consecration of Barnabas and Paul as missionaries, which took place at Antioch, are related (Act_13:1-3); and then the narrative of their first missionary journey is annexed (Act_13:4 to Act_14:28). These two chapters show, by the very fact of their independent commencement entirely detached from the immediately preceding narrative concerning Barnabas and Saul[2] (comp. Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 353 f.), by the detailed nature of their contents, and by the conclusion rounding them off, which covers a considerable interval without further historical data, that they have been derived from a special documentary source, which has, nevertheless, been subjected to revision as regards diction by Luke. See also Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1043. This documentary source, however, is not to be determined more precisely, although it may be conjectured that it originated in the church of Antioch itself, and that the oral communications mentioned at Act_14:27 as made to that church formed the foundation of it from Act_13:4 onward. The assumption of a written report made by the two missionaries (Olshausen) obtains no support from the living apostolic mode of working, and is, on account of Act_14:27, neither necessary nor warranted. Schwanbeck considers the two chapters as a portion of a biography of Barnabas, to which also Act_4:36 f., Act_9:1-30, Act_11:19-30, Act_12:25 belonged; and Baur (I. p. 104 ff.) refers the entire section to the apologetic purpose and literary freedom of the author.
[2] Lekebusch, p. 108, explains this abrupt isolation as designed; the account emerges solemnly. But to this the simplicity of the following narrative does not correspond.