Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 27
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
τούς ] Lachm. reads εἰς τούς , following A B à , min. Other codd. have ἐπί . Different supplementary additions.
Act_27:3. πορευθέντα ] Lachm. reads πορευθέντι , following A B à , min. A hasty correction on account of ἐπέτρεψε .
Act_27:12. κἀκεῖθεν ] Lachm. and Scholz read ἐκεῖθεν , following A B G à , min. vss. Chrys. But the want of a reference of the καί in what goes before easily occasioned the omission.
Act_27:19. ἔῤῥιψαν ] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born., after A B C à , min. Vulg. The Recepta is ἐῤῥίψαμεν . As this might just as easily be inserted on account of αὐτόχειρες , as ἔῤῥιψαν on account of ἐποιοῦντο , the preponderance of witnesses has alone to decide, and that in favour of ἔῤῥιψαν .
Act_27:23. The order ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί (Lachm. Tisch. Born., also Scholz) is decidedly attested. Ἄγγελος is to be placed, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., only after λατρεύω (A B C à , min.), and ἐγώ is to be adopted (with Lachm. and Born.) after εἰμί , on the evidence of A C* à , min. vss.; it might very easily be suppressed before ᾧ .
Act_27:27. ἐγένετο ] A, loti 68, Vulg. have ἐπεγένετο . So Tisch.; and rightly, as the very unusual compound (only again in Act_28:13) was easily neglected by the transcribers.
According to preponderating attestation, κατά (instead of εἰς ) is to be read in Act_27:29 with Lachm. Tisch. Born.; comp. Act_27:17; Act_27:26; Act_27:41.
ἐκπέσωμεν ] Elz. has ἐκπέσωσιν , against decisive testimony. Alteration to suit the following ηὔχοντο .
Act_27:33. προσλαβόμενοι ] Lachm. reads προσλαμβανόμενοι , merely in accordance with A, 40. But the part. pres. is to be viewed as an alteration to suit προσδοκῶντες .
Act_27:34. μεταλαβεῖν ] Elz. has προσλαβεῖν , against preponderant testimony. From Act_27:33.
πεσεῖται ] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Born. read ἀπολεῖται , which indeed has weighty attestation in its favour, but against it the strong suspicion that it was borrowed from Luk_21:18. This tells likewise against the Recepta ἐκ , instead of which ἀπό is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. It is less likely that πεσεῖται should have been taken from the LXX. 1Ki_1:52; 1Sa_14:45; 2Sa_14:11.
Act_27:39. ἐβουλεύσαντο ] Lachm. and Born. read ἐβουλεύοντο , after B C à , min. But on account of the preceding imperfects, the imperfect here also was easily brought in; and hence is to be explained the reading (explanatory gloss) ἐβούλοντο in A, min.
Act_27:41. τῶν κυμάτων ] has in its favour C G H à ** and all min. Chrys. and most vss., and is wanting only in A B à *. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. There is, however,—especially as with τῆς βιᾶς a definition, although not necessary, is probable,—amidst such strong attestation less a suspicion of its being a supplementary addition, than a probability that the transcribers confounded this τῶν with the τῶν of Act_27:42 and thus overlooked τῶν κυμάτων . Besides, it would have more naturally suggested itself to a glossator to write on the margin τῆς θαλάσσ . than τ . κυμάτων , which does not again occur in the whole narrative of this voyage.
Act_27:42. Elz. has διαφύγοι . But Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. read διαφύγῃ , which is attested, indeed, by A B C à , min., but has arisen from the usual custom of the N.T. in such combinations to put not the optative, but the subjunctive.
On the variations in the proper names in this chapter, see the exegetical remarks.