Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 14
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_14:3. Before διδόντι Elz. has καί , against decisive evidence.
Act_14:8. After αὑτοῦ Elz. has ὑπάρχων , against greatly preponderating evidence. Added from Act_3:2 as an unnecessary completion.
περιπεπατήκει ] So (not περιεπεπ . as Elz.) D E G H, min. Chrys. Lachm. and Tisch. have περιεπάτησεν , after A B C à , min. But the regular preference, which in relative sentences the Greeks give to the aorist over the pluperfect, here easily supplanted the latter.
Act_14:9. ἤκουε ] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read ἤκουσεν , after A D E G H à , min. Chrys. Theoph. An alteration, as the narrative continues in the aorist, and the intentional selection of the imperfect here was not understood.
Act_14:10. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz (Born, ἀνήλατο , after D) have ἥλατο . But Elz. has ἤλλετο , against decisive evidence. The aorist yielded to the imperfect on account of περιεπάτει .
Act_14:12. μέν ] is, after A B C* D à , rightly erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born. as a customary insertion.
Act_14:13. After πόλεως Elz. has αὐτῶν . A current addition, condemned by the witnesses.
Act_14:14. ἐξεπήδησαν ] Elz. has εἰσεπήδ ., against decisive evidence. The less the reference of ἐξ —was understood, the more easily would the better known εἰς be inserted, corresponding to εἰς τὸν ὄχλον .
Act_14:17. καίτοιγε ] Others: καίγε (so D E, Born.). Others: καίτοι (so A B C* à **, Lachm.). With this diversity καίτοι , and also γέ , are to be considered as certainly and predominantly attested; and therefore καίτοιγε , with C*** G H à *, min. Chrys. Theoph. Oec., is to be retained. Beside καί sometimes the one particle and sometimes the other was omitted, as is also the case in Act_17:27.
ἀγαθουργῶν ] so to be read, with A B C à , min. Ath. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But Elz. Scholz, Born. have ἀγαθοποιῶν , which, as the more usual word, was inserted.
ὑμῖν … ὑμῶν ] Elz. has ἡμῖν … ἡμῶν , against very important witnesses. The alteration arose, because the sentence had become a commonplace.
After Act_14:18, C D E, min. vss. read διατριβόντων αὐτῶν κ . διδασκόντων . So Born. with δέ after διατρ ., and attaching it to what follows. An interpolation, by way of smoothing the transition from Act_14:18 to its contrast in Act_14:19, variously enriched by different insertions.
Act_14:19. νομίσαντες ] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, have νομίζοντες , after A B D à , min. The Recepta arose mechanically from the context.
τεθνάναι ] Lachm. Tisch. read τεθνηκέναι , after A B C à , min. Correctly, as the contracted form was the more usual.
Act_14:28. After διέτριβον δέ Elz. has ἐκεῖ , which has been, after A B C D à , min. and several vss., erased or suspected since the time of Griesb. Insertion for the sake of more precise definition.
Act_15:2. οὖν ] Tisch. Born, read δέ . The witnesses for δέ preponderate.
ζητήσεως ] Elz. has συζητήσεως , in opposition to decisive testimony. From Act_15:7. It is also in favour of ζητ . that it is inserted in Act_15:7, instead of συζητ . in A, à , min. vss., which evidently points to the originality of ζητ . in our passage.
Act_15:4. ἀπεδέχθ .] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, read παρεδέχθ ., according to A B D** (D* has παρεδόθησαν ) à loti. These witnesses preponderate, and there are no internal reasons against the reading.
ὑπό ] Tisch. reads ἀπό , following only B C, min.
Act_15:7. ἐν ἡμῖν ] Lachm. Tisch. read ἐν ὑμῖν , according to A B C à , min. and several vss. and Fathers. But ἡμῖν is necessary; and on this account, and because it might easily be mechanically changed into ὑμῖν after the preceding ὑμεῖς , it is to be defended on the considerable attestation remaining to it.
Act_15:11. τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ] Elz. has Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , against preponderating evidence. Whilst the article was omitted from negligence, Χριστοῦ (which also Born, has) was added in order to complete the dogmatically important saying.
Act_15:14. τῷ ὀνόματι ] so Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ .,—an exegetical expansion, against preponderating evidence.
Act_15:17. After ταῦτα Elz. has πάντα , which is wanting in A B C D à , min. and many vss. and Fathers. From LXX. Amo_9:12, and hence it also stands before, ταῦτα in E G, min.
Act_15:18. Griesb. Scholz, and Tisch. have only γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος , so that this must be attached to ταῦτα in Act_15:17. This reading appears as decidedly original, and so ἐστι … αὑτοῦ as decidedly interpolated: partly because B C à , min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. vouch for the simple γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος , and those authorities which have ἐστι … αὑτοῦ present a great number of variations; partly because it was thought very natural to complete γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος into a sentence, and to detach it from Act_15:17, inasmuch much as no trace of γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος was found in Amo_9:12; partly, in fine, because, if ἐστι … αὑτοῦ is genuine, Act_15:18 contains a thought so completely clear, pious, and unexceptionable, so inoffensive, too, as regards the connection, and in fact noble, that no reason can be conceived for the omission of ἐστι … αὑτοῦ , and for the numerous variations in the words. Lachm. has γνωστὸν ἀπʼ αἰῶνος τῷ Κυριῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ , after A D, Arm. Vulg. Cant. Ir., which betrays a still later origin than the Recepta, as the genuine γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος first gave occasion to the casting of the sentence in the plural form, but afterwards, in order to bring forward the special reference to the ἔργον in question of the conversion of the Gentiles, the change into the singular form was adopted. Matth. has entirely erased Act_15:18, without evidence.
Act_15:20. καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ ] is, following Mill, erased by Born. as a later addition; Ambrosiaster already explains the words as such, and, indeed, as proceeding from the stricter observance of the Greeks. But they are only wanting in D, Cant. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Pacian. Fulgent. Hier. Gaudent. Eucher. Ambrosiast., of whom several omit them only in Act_15:29. The omission is explained from Lev_17:13, where the eating of things strangled generally is not forbidden, but only the pouring out of the blood is made a condition; and from the laxer view of the Latins. After Act_15:20 (so, too, in Act_15:29 after πορνείας ), D, min. vss. and Fathers have the entirely irrelevant addition from Mat_7:12 : καὶ ὅσα (or ὅσα ἂν ) μὴ θέλωσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι , ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖν ( ποιεῖτε ).
Act_15:22. ἐπικαλ .] Lachm. has καλούμενον , also commended by Griesb., according to decisive evidence, and adopted by Tisch. and Born. Rightly; the former is an interpretation.
Act_15:23. καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί ] A B C D à * loti. 13, Arm. Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have merely ἀδελφοί , which Lachm. and Born, have adopted.[22] But the omission of καὶ οἱ is on hierarchical grounds, for which reason also 34 Sahid. have omitted καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί entirely.
Act_15:24. λέγοντες περιτ . κ . τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον is wanting in A B D à , loti. 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. Vigil. Beda. Besides variations in detail. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Probably a gloss; yet it remains surprising that it was drawn not from Act_15:1, but from Act_15:5, and so freely. Besides, λέγοντες … νοΜΟΝ might be easily passed over after ὑΜΩΝ .
Act_15:25. ἐκλεξαμένους ] A B G min. read ἐκλεξαμένοις . So Lachm. A stylistic correction.
Act_15:28. Instead of τῶν ἐπάναγκ . τούτων is to be written, with Lachm., according to preponderating evidence, τούτων τῶν ἐπ .; Tisch. has erased τούτων , yet only after A and some min. and Fathers.
Act_15:30. ἦλθον ] Lachm. and Born. read κατῆλθον , which is so decidedly attested (A B C D à ) that it may not be derived from Act_15:1. The compounds of ἔρχεσθαι were often neglected.
Act_15:33. ἀποστείλαντας αὐτούς ] Elz. reads ἀποστόλους , contrary to A B C D à , min. and several vss. and Fathers. A more precisely defining addition, which, taken into the text, supplanted the original.
After Act_15:33, Elz. Scholz, Born. have (Act_15:34): ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ , to which D and some vss. and Cassiod. add: μόνος δὲ ʼΙούδας ἐπορεύθη (so Bornemann). Condemned by Mill, Griesb. Matthaei, also deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., according to A B E G H à , min. Chrys. Theophyl. and several vss. A hasty addition on account of Act_15:40.
Act_15:37. ἐβουλεύσατο ] Lachm. reads ἐβούλετο , which also Griesb. recommended, after A B C E à , min. Born., following D, reads ἐβουλεύετο . While the two verbs are frequently (comp. on Act_5:33) interchanged, ἐβούλετο is here to be preferred on account of its far preponderant attestation.
Act_15:40. Θεοῦ ] A B D à , min. vss. have Κυρίου . So Lachm. Tisch., also Born., who only omits τοῦ , following D*. Θεοῦ is from Act_14:26.
[22] Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 358.