Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 20
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_20:4. Πύῤῥου ] is wanting in Elz., and is condemned by Mill as an addition from tradition. But it has greatly preponderant attestation, and might be passed over quite as well on the ground of a varying tradition, as by mistake of the transcribers on account of the similar sound of the initial syllable in the following name.
Act_20:5. οὗτοι ] Lachm. reads οὗτοι δέ , after A B E à , min. A connective addition.
Act_20:7. ἡμῶν ] Elz. has τῶν μαθητῶν , in opposition to A B D E, min. Chrys. Aug. and most vss. An interpolation on account of the following αὐτοῖς . Still stronger witnesses support ἦμεν in Act_20:8, for which Elz. has ἦσαν .
Act_20:9. καθήμενος ] Instead of this, καθεζόμενος (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested. Comp. on Act_2:2.
Act_20:11. ἄρτον ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read τὸν ἄρτον , according to A B C D* à *. Rightly; the article was neglected after Act_20:7, because its force was overlooked.
Act_20:15. καὶ μείν . ἐν Τρωγ ., τῇ ] A B C E à , min. have merely τῇ δέ . So Lachm. Several vss. and some more recent codd. have καὶ τῇ . But there was no occasion for the insertion of μείν . ἐν Τρ ., whereas its omission is very capable of explanation, because Trogyllium was not situated in Samos, as the context seemed to say.
Act_20:16. κεκρίκει ] Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to greatly preponderating evidence. But Elz. Scholz have ἔκρινε . A church-lesson begins at Act_20:16, and therefore the tense, which has its reference in what precedes, was altered.
ἦν ] Lachm. reads εἴη , following considerable witnesses. A grammatical improvement.
Act_20:18. After πρὸς αὐτόν A has ὁμοῦ ὄντων αὐτῶν , which Lachm. adopted; others have ὁμοθυμαδόν ; and others ὁμόσε ὄντων αὐτῶν (so Born., according to D). Different additions for the sake of completion.
Act_20:19. Before δακρ . Elz. has πολλῶν , which already Griesb. rejected, according to decisive testimony. A strengthening addition from 2Co_2:4.
Act_20:22. According to decisive testimony read ἐγώ , with Lachm. Tisch., after δεδεμ .
Act_20:23. μοι ] is wanting in Elz., but is decidedly attested, and was easily passed over as quite unnecessary.
με ] is, according to decisive evidence, to be placed after θλίψεις (Lachm. Tisch.). Born. has μοι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις , according to D, vss. Lucif., and that only after μένουσιν . But μοι is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, and ἐν Ἱεροσολ . is an addition by way of a gloss; the two, moreover, are not equally attested.
Act_20:24. ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς … ἐμαυτῷ ] very many variations. Lachm. has ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς λόγον ἔχω , οὐδὲ ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ . Tisch. reads ἀλλʼ οὐδενὸς λόγου ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ , according to B C D** à *, vss. Lucif. Born. reads essentially as Lachm., yet adding μοι after ἔχω , and μου after ψυχήν . The Recepta is founded on E G H, Chrys. Theophyl. Oec.; but G, Chrys. have not μου . The reading of Lachm. (A D* à , min. Vulg.), as well as the Recepta, are to be considered as alterations and expansions of the reading of Tisch., which was not understood.
After δρόμον μου Elz. Scholz have μετὰ χαρᾶς , which is wanting in A B D à , min. Lucif. Ambr. and several vss. A scholion.
Act_20:25. τοῦ Θεοῦ ] is wanting in A B C à , 13, 15*, 36, Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Chrys. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition. D has τοῦ Ἰησοῦ . So Born.
Act_20:26. ἐγώ ] Considerable witnesses have εἰμι , which Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted. Rightly; ἐγώ came from Act_18:6.
Act_20:28. τοῦ Κυρίου ] Elz. has τοῦ Θεοῦ , which is adhered to among recent critics (following Mill, Whitby, Wolf, Bengel, and others), by Scholz, Alford, Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 82 f. The weight of evidence is externally decisive for τοῦ Κυρίου ; A C* D E, 13, 15, 18, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, Copt. Sahid. Syr. p. (on the margin) Arm. Aeth. Constitutt. (2:61), Ir. (Act_3:14), Eus. (on Isaiah 35), Ath. (ad Serap. 1 in ms.), Didym. (de Sp. St. 11), Chrys. Lucif. Aug. Jer. al. τοῦ Θεοῦ is found among uncial mss. only in B à , and, besides, only in about twenty more recent and inferior codd., and among vss. in the Vulg. Syr. p. (in the text); but among the Fathers in none before Epiph. and Ambros. See the more detailed statement of the evidence in Tisch. The internal decisive argument for τ . Κυρίου lies in the fact that in the Pauline Epistles ἐκκλ . τ . Κυρ . never occurs, but ἐκκλ . τ . Θεοῦ eleven times; hence at our passage the Pauline expression was written on the margin as a parallel, and then, welcome to hyper-orthodoxy (already in Ignat. ad Ephesians 1, and in Tert. ad ux. ii. 3, there is found the expression blood of God, which others, even Ath., censured as unbiblical; see Wetstein and Tisch.), was taken into the text and transmitted. This appears far more accordant with the dogmatic tendency of those times and the monastic spirit than the usual justification of τοῦ Θεοῦ : “Probabilius est ob sequentia mutatum, quam e scriptis Pauli illatum esse” (Rinck, l.c.). The readings τοῦ Κυρίου Θεοῦ , τοῦ Θεοῦ κ . Κυρίου , and τοῦ Κυρίου κ . Θεοῦ (this latter Griesb. recommends, without, however, approving it, but Matth. received it), are combinations of the original reading with the Pauline parallel written on the margin. Teller’s and van Hengel’s proposal to read only τὴν ἐκκλ . is destitute of all critical support.
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ] Elz. has τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος , in opposition to A B C D E à , min. vss. Ir. Lucif. An alteration, which arose from the adoption of τ . Θεοῦ , in order to establish the interpretation of the blood of God.
Act_20:29. After ἐγώ Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have γάρ , against A C* D à , min. Vulg. Fathers. The more to be rejected, as others read ὅτι ἐγώ (B), others ἐγὼ δέ ( à *), others still καὶ ἐγώ . A connective addition. τοῦτο also, which Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have after οἶδα , has such preponderating evidence against it, and in such essential agreement with those witnesses which condemn γάρ , that it cannot be considered as original, although, taken by itself, it might be more easily omitted than added.
Act_20:32. After ὑμᾶς Elz. Scholz have ἀδελφοί , which Lachm. Tisch. Born. have deleted, according to A B D à , 33, 34, 68, Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Jer. If it had been original, there is no apparent reason for its omission; on the other hand, its insertion at this solemn passage was very natural.
οἰκοδ .] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Born. But Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ἐποικοδ ., against decisive testimony. A more precise definition corresponding to the persons in question; and therefore, also, D E, vss. add ὑμᾶς
Act_20:35. τῶν λόγων ] G and more than thirty min. Vulg. Sahid. Arm. Aeth. Chrys. Theophyl. have τὸν λόγον . So Rinck. Others have τοῦ λόγου after min.; so Bengel. Both are alterations, because only one saying of Christ afterwards follows.
The order μᾶλλον διδόναι (Elz. inverts it) is decidedly attested.