Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 19
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
εἶπον , Act_19:2, and πρὸς αὐτούς , Act_19:3 (both deleted, after important witnesses, by Lachm. Tisch. Born.), have the character of an addition for the sake of completion.
Act_19:4. μέν ] is wanting in A B D à , min. Vulg. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. The want of a corresponding δέ occasioned the omission.
Before Ἰησοῦν Elz. Scholz read Χριστόν , which is deleted according to preponderating testimony. A usual addition, which was here particularly suggested by εἰς τ . ἐρχ .
Act_19:7. δεχαδύο ] Lachm. Born. read δώδεκα , it is true, according to A B D E à , min., but it is a change to the more usual form.
Act_19:8. τὰ περί ] B D, min. vss. have περί . So Lachm. Tisch. Born. See on Act_8:12.
Act_19:9. τινός ] is wanting in A B à , min. vss. Lachm. Tisch., but was, as apparently unnecessary, more easily omitted than inserted.
Act_19:10. After Κυρίου Elz. has, against decisive testimony, Ἰησοῦ , which Griesb. has deleted.
Act_19:12. ἀποφέρ .] recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., after A B E à , min. But Elz. Scholz, Born, read ἐπιφέρ . Occasioned by ἐπὶ τ . ἀσθ .
ἐκπορεύεσθαι ] Elz. reads ἐξέρχεσθαι ἀπʼ αὐτῶν , against preponderating evidence. The usual word for the going out of demons! and ἀπʼ αὐτ . was added from the preceding.
Act_19:13. καί ] after τινές , is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch., according to A B E à , min. Syr.; Elz. Scholz read ἀπό , according to G H, min.; Born, reads ἐκ , after D. Accordingly something, at all events, originally stood after τινές . But had ἀπό or ἐκ stood, no reason can be perceived why they should be meddled with; καί , on the other hand, might be found perplexing, and was sometimes omitted and sometimes exchanged for ἀπό or ἐκ .
ὁρκίζω ] So A B D E à , min. Copt. Arm. Cassiod. But Elz. has ὁρκίζμεν . Correction to suit the plurality of persons.
Act_19:14. τινες υἱοὶ Σκ . Ἰ . ἀρχ . ἑπτά ] Lachm. reads τινος Σκ . Ἰ . ἀρχ . ἑπτὰ υἱοί . Both have important evidence, and the latter is explained as a correction and transposition (Tisch. has τινές indeed, but follows the order of Lachm., also attested by à ), the transcribers not knowing how to reconcile τινές with ἑπτά .
οἱ ] is deleted by Lachm., according to insufficient evidence. Superfluous in itself; and, according to the order of Lachm., it was very easily passed over after υἱοί .
Act_19:16. ἐφαλλόμ .] A B à *, 104. Lachm. reads ἐφαλόμ . Correctly; the Recepta arises from the inattention of transcribers.
Before κατακύρ . Elz. Scholz have καί , which is deleted according to predominant testimony. An insertion for the sake of connection.
ἀμφοτέρων ] Elz. has αὐτῶν , against A B D à , min. Theophyl. 2, and some vss.; ἀμφ ., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., was objectionable, as before there was no mention of two.
Act_19:21. διελθών ] Lachm. Born, read διελθών , according to A D E. Resolution of the construction, by which καί became necessary before πορεύεσθαι , which, also, D has (so Born.).
Act_19:24. παρείχετο ] Lachm. reads παπείχε , according to A* D E; yet D places ὅς before, and has previously ἦν after τίς (so Born.). The middle was less familiar to transcribers.
Act_19:25. Elz. Scholz have ἡμῶν ; Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἡμῖν , according to A B D E à , min. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Theophyl. 2. The latter is to be received on account of the preponderance of testimony, and because ἡμῶν would more easily suggest itself to unskilful transcribers.
Act_19:26. ἀλλά ] Lachm. Born. read ἀλλὰ καί , after A B G, min. vss. Chrys. Both suitable in meaning; but καί would more easily after οὐ μόνον be mechanically inserted (comp. Act_19:27) than omitted.
Act_19:27. λογισθῆναι , μέλλειν ] Lachm. Born, read λογισθήσεται , μέλλειν according to weighty evidence; but certainly only an emendation of a construction not understood.
τὴς μεγαλ .] Lachm. reads ôç ̄ ς μεγαλειότητος , A B E à , min. Sahid. Correctly; the genitive not being understood, or not having its meaning attended to, yielded to the more naturally occurring accusative.
Act_19:29. ὅλη ] is wanting in A B à , min. Vulg. Copt. Arm., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition which easily suggested itself.
Act_19:33. προεβίβασαν ] Lachm. reads συνεβίβασαν , according to A B E à , min.; Born. reads κατεβίβ ., after D*. In this diversity συνεβίβ . is indeed best attested by Codd., but yet is to be rejected as completely unsuitable. As, further, κατεβίβ . has only D* for it, the reading of the Recepta, which was glossed in a variety of ways, is to be retained.
Act_19:34. ἐπιγνόντες ] Elz. has ἐπιγνόντων , against decisive evidence. A correction in point of style.
Act_19:35. ἄνθρωπος ] Lachm. Tisch. read ἀνθρώπων , according to A B E à , min. vss. The Recepta came in mechanically.
After μεγάλ . Elz. has θεᾶς . Condemned by decisive testimony as an addition.
Act_19:37. θεόν ] Elz. reads θεάν , against decisive testimony.
Instead of ὑμῶν , Griesb. approved, and Lachm. and Born. read, ἡμῶν , according to A D E** à , min. vss. But with the important attestation which ὑμῶν also has, and as the change into ἡμῶν was so naturally suggested by the context, the Recepta, is to be defended.
Act_19:39. περὶ ἑτέρων ] B, min. Cant. have περαιτέρω . Preferred by Rinck, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; and correctly, as alterations easily presented themselves for a word not occurring elsewhere in the N.T. (E has περ ἕτερον ), and which is hardly to be ascribed to the transcribers.
Act_19:40. After περὶ οὗ Griesb. and Matth. have adopted οὐ , which, however, has more considerable authorities against it than for it (A G H à ). Writing of the οὗ twice.
περί before τῆς συστρ . is found in A B E à , min. vss.; it is, with Lachm., to be adopted, because, being superfluous and cumbrous, it ran the risk of being omitted, but was not appropriate for insertion.