Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 28
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_28:2. ἀνάψαντες ] Lachm. Born. read ἁψαντες , according to A B C à , min. But AN was liable to omission even in itself, and especially through the preceding N.
Act_28:3. ἐχ ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἀπό , which is decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted.
διεξελθοῦσα ] So Tisch. Born. Scholz, according to A G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. But Elz. and Lachm. have ἐξελθοῦσα . The double compound was the more easily neglected as it was not elsewhere known from the N.T.
Act_28:5. ἀποτινάξας ] ἀποτιναξάμενος , although adopted by Scholz and Tisch., is not sufficiently attested by A G H, min.
Act_28:10. τὴν χρείαν ] Lachm. Tisch. Born, have τὰς χρείας , according to A B J à , min. A gloss on τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν , after Act_20:34.
Act_28:14. ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς ] Lachm. and Born., following A B J à , min., read παρʼ αὐτοῖς , which was introduced as explanatory.
Act_28:16. ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος … στρατοπεδάρχῃ ] is wanting (so that the passage continues: ἐπετράπη τῷ II.) in A B à loti 40, Chrys. and most vss. Condemned by Mill, Bengel, and others, suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Defended especially by Born. in Rosenm. Repert. II. p. 301 f. The words, attested by G H and most min. Ar. p. Slav. Theophyl. Oec., have certainly the suspicion of being an expansion. Yet in opposition to their rejection we may urge, first, that there are no variations in detail, as is the general rule with interpolations; secondly, that the writer of a gloss, instead of τῷ στρατοπεδ ., would probably have written the more readily occurring plural; and thirdly, that in transcribing one might very easily pass from ἐκατοντ ΑΡΧΟΣ directly to στρατοπεδ ΑΡΧΗ , which corruption would then produce the form of Lachmann’s text.
Act_28:17. αὐτόν ] Elz. has τὸν Παῦλον , against A B à , min. Chrys. and several vss. The name came in, because in Act_28:17 a separate new act of the history commences; therefore also Chrys. has once, and indeed at the beginning of a homily, τ . Παῦλ .
Act_28:19. χατηγορῆσαι ] A B à , min. have χατηγορεῖν , which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have adopted. Rightly; χατηγορῆσαι is a mechanical alteration, in conformity with ἐπικαλέσασθαι .
Act_28:23. ἧκον ] A B à , min. have ἦλθον . Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The extremely common word has been involuntarily substituted for the classical imperfect ηκον , not elsewhere occurring in the N.T.
τὰ περί ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have only περί , following A B H à , min. vss. Comp. on Act_8:12, Act_21:8.
Act_28:25. ἡμῶν ] A B à , min. vss. Fathers have ὑμῶν , which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is justly supported by Born. The tone and contents of the speech, conveying censure and rejection, involuntarily suggested the second person to the transcribers. Comp. Act_7:51 f.
Act_28:27. ἰάσωμαι ] A B G H à , min. Theophyl. have ἰάσομαι , recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. Rightly; see on Joh_7:40.
Act_28:28. τὸ σωτήρ .] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read τοῦτο τὸ σωτήρ , according to A B à * min. Chrys. and several vss. The omission of τοῦτο , which has no express reference in the text, is quite in keeping with the inattention of transcribers
Act_28:29 is entirely wanting in A B E à , loti 13, 40, 68, Lect. 1, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. ms. In the Syr. p. it is marked as suspected by an asterisk. Condemned by Mill and others, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Very suspicious as an interpolated conclusion of the whole transaction (according to Act_28:25). Yet it is saved from complete rejection by the fact, that here also in detail there are only found very immaterial variations.
Act_28:30. After ἔμεινε δἑ , instead of which there is to be read, with Tisch., according to B à loti 13, ἐνέμεινεν δέ , Elz. has ὁ Παῦλος , against witnesses of very considerable importance. See on Act_28:17.