Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 24
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_24:3. κατορθωμάτων ] Lachm. and Born. (following A B E à ) read διορθωμάτων , which already Griesb. recommended. Neither occurs elsewhere in the N.T. The decision is given by the preponderance of evidence in favour of διορθ ., which, besides, is the less usual word.
Act_24:5. στάσιν ] A B E à , min. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. have στάσεις . Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm and Born. And rightly; στάσιν was easily enough occasioned by the writing of στάσις instead of σιάσεις (comp. à ).
Act_24:6-8. From καὶ κατά to ἐπὶ σέ is wanting in A B G H à , min. vss. Beda. And there are many variations in detail. Condemned by Mill, Beng., Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; it is a completion of the narrative of the orator. Had the words been original (Matth. and Born. defend them), no reason can be assigned for their omission. For κατὰ τ . ἡμετ . νόμ . ἠθελ . κρίνειν in the mouth of the advocate who speaks in the name of his clients could be as little offensive as the preceding ἐκρατήσαμεν ; and the indirect complaint against Lysias, Act_24:7, was very natural in the relation of the Jews to this tribune, who had twice protected Paul against them. But even assuming that this complaint had really caused offence to the transcribers, it would nave occasioned the omission of the passage merely from παρελθών , not from καὶ κατά .
Act_24:9. συνεπέθεντο ] is decidedly attested, in opposition to the Recepta συνέθεντο .
Act_24:10. εὐθυμότερον ] A B E à , min. Vulg. Ath. have εὐθύμως . Approved by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But how much easier it is to assume that the reference of the comparative remained unrecognised, than that it should have been added by a reflection of the transcribers!
Act_24:11. ἐν Ἱερουσ .] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have, and also Griesb. approved, εἰς Ἱερουσ ., according to A E H à , min. This weight of evidence is decisive, as according to the difference in the relation either preposition might be used.
Act_24:12. ἐπισύστασιν ] Lachm. reads, ἐπίστασιν according to A B E à , min. A transcriber’s error.
Act_24:13. After δύνανται Lachm. and Born. have σοι , according to A B E à , min., and several vss. Some have it before δύν .; others have, also before δύν ., sometimes μοι and sometimes με (so Mill and Matth.). Various supplementary additions.
Act_24:14. τοῖς ἐν τοῖς ] Elz. has merely ἐν τοῖς . But against this the witnesses are decisive, which have either τοῖς ἐν τοῖς (so Griesb., Scholz, and others) or simply τοῖς (so Lachm. Tisch. Born., following Matth.). If τοῖς ἐν τοῖς were original (so à **), then it is easy to explain how the other two readings might have originated through copyists—in the first instance, by oversight, the simple τοῖς (A G H à * vss. Theophyl. Oec.), and then by way of explanation ἐν τοῖς (B). If, on the other hand, τοῖς were original, then indeed the resolution of the dative construction of the passive by ἐν might easily come into the text, but there would be no reason for the addition of τοῖς before ἐν .
Act_24:15. After ἔσεσθαι Elz. Scholz have νεκρῶν , which, in deference to very important evidence, was suspected by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A supplementary addition.
Act_24:16. καὶ αὐτός ] so A B C E G à , min. vss. Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have δὲ αὐτός . The reference of καί was not understood, and therefore sometimes δέ , sometimes δέ καί was put.
Act_24:18. ἐν σἷς ] A B C E à , min. have ἐν αἷς , which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. But the fem., in spite of the preponderance of its attestation, betrays its having originated through the preceding προσφοράς .
τινὲς δέ ] Elz. has merely τινές , against decisive testimony. The δέ was perplexing.
Act_24:19. ἔδει ] B G H, min. Sahid. Aeth. Slav. Chrys. 1, Oec. have δεῖ . Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Beng. and Matth. But ἔδει is preponderantly attested by A C E à , min. Syr. utr. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. 1, Theoph., and is much more delicate and suitable than the demanding δεῑ .
Act_24:20. τί ] Elz. has εἴ τι , against decisive witnesses. From Act_24:19.
Act_24:22. ἀνεβάλ . δὲ αὐτ . ὁ Φῆλιξ ] Adopted, according to decisive testimony, by Griesb. and all modern critics except Matth. But Elz. has ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Φ . ἀνεβ . αὐτούς , which Rinck defends. An amplifying gloss.
Act_24:23. αὐτόν ] Elz. has τὸν Παῦλον , against decisive attestation.
ἢ προσέρχεσθαι ] wanting in A B C E à , min., and several vss.; amplifying addition, perhaps after Act_10:28.
Act_24:24. After τῇ γυναικί Elz. has αὐτοῦ , and Lachm.: τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικί . The critical witnesses are much divided between these three readings; indeed several, like A, have even ἰδίᾳ and αὐτοῦ . But in view of this diversity, both ἰδίᾳ and αὐτοῦ appear as additions, in order to fix the meaning conjux on τῇ γυναικί .
After Χριστόν B E G à * min. Chrys. and several vss. have ʼΙησοῦν , which Rinck has approved, and Lachm., Scholz, Born, adopted. A frequent addition, which some vss. have before Χριστόν .
Act_24:25. τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίματος ] τοῦ κρίματος τοῦ μέλλοντος (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested, and therefore to be adopted. So also Elz., which, however, adds ἔσεσθαι (deleted by Scholz); and Tisch. has again inserted it, following G H min. and some Fathers. The word, just as being in itself quite superfluous, would have to be received, if it were more strongly attested.
Act_24:26. After Παύλου Elz. has ὅπως λύσῃ αὐτόν , against preponderating testimony. A gloss.
Act_24:27. χάριτας ] Lachm. and Born. read χάριτα , according to A B C à * and some min.; E G à ** min. have χάριν . Thus for χάριτας there remains only a very weak attestation (H, min. and some Fathers; no vss.). The best attested reading, χάριτα , is the more to be adopted, as this accusative form, not elsewhere used in the N.T. (although to be read also in Jud_1:4), could not but occasion offence.