Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 4
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_4:5. εἰς ] A B D E, min. Chrys. have ἐν , which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. adopted. A correction, as the reference of εἰς was not obvious, and it was taken for ἐν ; hence also εἰς ʼΙερουσ . (regarded as quite superfluous) is entirely omitted in the Syr.
Act_4:6. Lachm. has simple nominatives, καὶ Ἄννας … Ἀλέξανδρος , in accordance no doubt with A B D à ; but erroneously, for the very reason that this reading was evidently connected with the reading συνήχθησαν , Act_4:5, still preserved in D; Born. has consistently followed the whole form of the text in D as to Act_4:5-6 (also the name Ἰωνάθας instead of ʼΙωάννης ).
Act_4:7. ἐν τῷ μέσῳ with the article is to be defended after Elz., with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A B à ).
Act_4:8. τοῦ ʼΙσραήλ ] is wanting in A B à , Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Cyr. Fulg., and deleted by Lachm. But, as it was quite obvious of itself, it was more readily passed over than added.
Act_4:11. οἰκοδόμων ] so, correctly, Lachm. and Tisch., according to important authorities. The usual οἰκοδομούντων is from Mat_21:42; comp. LXX. Psa_118:22.
Act_4:12. οὔτε ] A B à , min. Did. Theodoret. Bas. have οὐδέ , which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. And rightly, as in Luk_20:36; Luk_12:26. Born., following D, has merely οὐ .
Act_4:16. ποιήσομεν ] A E à , min. have ποιήσωμεν . Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But the deliberative subjunctive appeared more in keeping with the sense. Comp. on Act_2:37.
Act_4:17. ἀπειλησώμεθα ] D, min. have ἀπειλησόμεθα . So Born. But the future was introduced in order that it might correspond to the question τί ποιήσομεν . The preceding ἀπειλῇ is wanting in A B D à , min. most VSS. and some Fathers; deleted by Lachm. and Born. It might very easily be omitted by an oversight of the transcriber.
Act_4:18. After παρήγγ ., Elz. Scholz, Born, have αὐτοῖς . A common, but here weakly attested insertion.
Act_4:24. ὁ Θεός ] is wanting in A B à , Copt. Vulg. Ath. Did. Ambr. Hilar. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But as it might be dispensed with so far as the sense was concerned, how easily might a transcriber pass over from the first to the second ὁ ! On the other hand, there is no reason why it should have been inserted.
Act_4:25. ὁ διὰ στόματ . Δ . παιδός σου εἰπών ] There are very many variations,[154] among which Ὁ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ἩΜῶΝ ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς Δ . ΠΑΙΔΌς ΣΟΥ ΕἸΠΏΝ has the greatest attestation (A B E à , min.), and is adopted by Lachm., who, however, considers ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς as spurious (Praef. p. VII.). An aggregation of various amplifying glosses; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 55.
Act_4:27. ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ ] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation. Rejected by Mill and Whitby as a gloss, but already received by Bengel. The omission may be explained from the circumstance, that in the passage of the Psalm no locality is indicated.
Act_4:36. ʼΙωσῆς ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read Ἰωσήφ , according to A B D E à , min. Chrys. Epiph. and several VSS. A mechanical alteration, in conformity with Act_1:23.
ὑπό ] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀπό , according to A B E à , min. Theophyl. Rightly; ὑπό appeared to be necessary.
[154] See besides Tisch., especially Born. in loc., who reads after D: ὁ (D: ὅς ) διὰ πν . ἁγ ., διὰ , τοῦ στόμ . λαλήσας Δαυΐδ , παιδός σου .