Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 16
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_16:3. τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ , ὅτι Ἕλλ . ὑπῆρχεν ] Lachm. reads ὅτι Ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν , according to A B C à , min. Rightly; the Recepta is a mechanical or designed transposition into the usual mode of expression by attraction. If the reading of Lachm. were a resolution of the attraction, Ἕλλην would not have been placed first.
Act_16:6. διελθόντες ] A B C D E à , min. and several vss. and Fathers have διῆλθον , and in Act_16:7 for the most part δέ after ἐλθόντες . Both are adopted by Lachm. and Born. The attestation of this reading is so preponderating, that it cannot be held as an emendation to avoid the recurrence of participial clauses. The Recepta, on the contrary, appears to have arisen because of a wish to indicate that the hindrance of the Spirit took place only after passing through Phrygia and Galatia, which appeared necessary if Asia was understood in too wide a sense. The reading of the Vulg. presents another corresponding attempt: “transeuntes autem … vetati sunt.”
Act_16:7. εἰς τ . Β .] Elz. has κατὰ τ . Β ., against decisive evidence. Either a mere error of a copyist after the preceding κατά , or an intentional interpretation.
ʼΙησοῦ ] is wanting in Elz., but supported by decisive evidence. If only πνεῦμα were original, the gloss added would not have been Ἰησοῦ (for πν . Ἰησοῦ is not elsewhere found in the N.T.), but, from the preceding, τὸ ἅγιον .
Act_16:9. The order best attested and therefore to be adopted is: ἀνὴρ Μακεδών τις ἦν . So Lachm., also Tisch. and Born.; the latter, however, has deleted ἦν according to too weak evidence (it was wholly superfluous), and, moreover, has in accordance with D adopted ἐν ὁράματι … ὤφθη ὡσεὶ ἀνὴρ κ . τ . λ ., an explanatory gloss, as also are the words κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ added after ἑστώς (Born.).
Act_16:10. ὁ Κύριος ] A B C E à , min. Copt. Vulg. Jer. have ὁ Θεός . Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The Recepta is a gloss in accordance with Act_16:7 ( πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ ), comp. Act_13:2, or written on the margin in accordance with Act_2:39.
Act_16:13. πύλης ] Approved already by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. instead of the usual πόλεως , against which A B C D à , min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. witness. τῆς πόλεως was written by the side of τῆς πύλης as a gloss (as some vss. have still τ . πύλης τ . πόλεως ), and then supplanted the original.
ἐνομίζετο προσευχή ] A** B C à , loti. 13, 40, Copt. Aeth. have ἐνομίζομεν προσευχήν . So Lachm. An alteration, because the reading of the text was not understood. From the same misunderstanding the reading in D, Epiph. ἐδόκει προσευχή (so Born.) arose, and the translation of the Vulg., “ubi videbatur oratio esse.”
Act_16:16. τὴν προσευχήν ] In Elz. the article is wanting, but is supported by preponderating evidence and by its necessity (Act_16:13).
Πύθωνος ] A B C* D (?) à , loti 33, Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have πύθωνα . Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Correctly; the accusative, not understood, was changed for the genitive as the more intelligible case, which was well known to the transcribers with πνεῦμα (comp. especially, Luk_4:33).
Act_16:17. Instead of the second ἡμῖν , Tisch. Born. have ὑμῖν , contrary to A C G H, min. vss. and Fathers. But ἡμῖν appeared less suitable, especially as a demoniacal spirit spoke from the παιδίσκη .
Act_16:24. Instead of εἰληφώς read, with Lachm. and Born., λαβών on decisive evidence.
Act_16:31. Χριστόν ] is with Lachm. and Tisch. to be deleted as a usual addition (comp. on Act_15:11), on the authority of A B à , min. Copt. Vulg. Lucif.
Act_16:32. καὶ πᾶσι ] A B C D à , min. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have σὺν πᾶσι . Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The καί easily crept in, because with it the dative πᾶσι τοῖς remained, and because καὶ ὁ οἶκός σου (Act_16:31) preceded.
Act_16:34. ἠγαλλιάσατο ] C* (?) D, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl have ἠγαλλιᾶτο . Approved by Griesb. and adopted by Born, and Tisch. With this weak attestation it is to be regarded as an easily committed error of a transcriber.
Act_16:39. ἐξελθεῖν τῆς πόλ .] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τ . πόλ ., according to A B à , min. A more definite and precise statement.
Act_16:40. πρός ] Elz. has εἰς against decisive evidence.