Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 22
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_22:2. προσεφώνει ] Tisch. Born. read προσφωνεῖ , following D E min. Theoph. Oec. Rightly; the Recepta is a mistaken alteration in accordance with Act_21:40, from which πρωσεφώνησεν is inserted in G, min.
Act_22:3. μέν ] is wanting in important witnesses; deleted by Lachm. Born. But its non-logical position occasioned the omission.
Act_22:9. καὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο ] is wanting in A B H à , min. and several vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission is explained by the homoeoteleuton. Had there been interpolation, ἐννεοί from Act_9:7 would have been used.
Act_22:12. εὐσεβής ] is wanting in A, Vulg. Condemned by Mill. On the other hand, B G H à , and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. have εὐλαβής , which Lachm. and Tisch. read. The omission of the word is to be considered as a mere transcriber’s error; and εὐλαβής is to be preferred, on account of the preponderance of evidence.
Act_22:16. αὐτοῦ ] Elz. has τοῦ Κυρίου , against decisive attestation. An interpretation, for which other witnesses have Ἰησοῦ .
Act_22:20. Στεφάνον ] is wanting only in A, 68, and would fall, were it not so decidedly attested, to be considered an addition. But with this attestation the omission is to be explained by an error in copying ( ΣτεφανΟΥ τΟΥ ).
After συνευδοχῶν Elz. has τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ , which, however, is wanting in A B D E à , 40, and some vss., and has come in from Act_8:1 (in opposition to Reiche, nov. descript. Codd. N.T. p. 28).
Act_22:22. καθῆκεν ] Elz. has καθῆκον , supported by Rinck, in opposition to decisive testimony.
Act_22:23. ἀέρα ] D, Syr. Cassiod. have οὐρανόν . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Born. But the evidence is too weak, and οὐρ . bears the character of a more precise definition of ἀέρα .
Act_22:24. εἰσάγεσθαι ] Elz. has ἄγεσθαι , against greatly preponderating evidence. ΕΙΣ was absorbed by the preceding ΟΣ . εἴπας is to be read instead of εἰπών , according to decisive testimony, with Tisch. and Lachm.
Act_22:25. προέτειναν ] has, among the many variations,
προέτεινεν (Elz.), προετείναντο , προσέτειναν , προσέτεινον , προσέτεινεν ,—the strongest attestation. The change of the plural into the singular is explained from the fact that the previous context contains nothing of a number of persons executing the sentence, and therefore ὁ χιλίαρχος was still regarded as the subject.
Act_22:26. Before τί Elz. has ὅρα , against A B C E à , min. Vulg. and other vss. So also Born., following D G H, min. vss. Chrys. Certainly “vox innocentissima” (Born.), but an addition by way of gloss according to these preponderating witnesses.
Act_22:30. παρά ] Lachm. and Born. read ὑπό , according to A B C E à , min. Theophyl. Oec. The weight of evidence decides for ὑπό .
After ἔλυσεν αὐτ . Elz. has ἀπὸ τ . δεσμῶν . An explanatory addition, against greatly preponderating testimony.
Instead of συνελθεῖν Elz. has ἐλθεῖν , against equally preponderant evidence. How easily might ΣΥΝ be suppressed in consequence of the preceding ΣΕΝ !
πᾶν τὸ συνέδριον ] Elz. has ὅλον τὸ συνέδρ . αὐτῶν , against decisive evidence, although defended by Reiche, l.c. p. 28.