Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 5
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_5:5. After ἀκούοντας , Lachm. Tisch. Born. have deleted the usual reading ταῦτα ; it is wanting in A B D à *, min. Or. Lucif. and several VSS., and is an addition from Act_5:11.
Act_5:9. εἶπε ] is very suspicious, as it is wanting in B D à , min. Vulg.; in other witnesses it varies in position, and Or. has φησίν . Deleted by Lachm. Born. and Tisch.
Act_5:10. παρὰ τ . π .] Lachm. and Tisch. read πρὸς τ . π . according to A B D à , Or.; other witnesses have ἐπὶ τ . π .; others, ὑπὸ τ . π .; others, ἐνώπιον . Born. also has πρὸς τ . π . But as Luke elsewhere writes παρὰ τ . π . (Luk_8:41; Luk_17:16), and not πρὸς τ . π . (Mar_5:22; Mar_7:25; Rev_1:17), the Recepta is to be retained.
Act_5:15. παρὰ τὰς πλ .] Lachm. reads καὶ εἰς τὰς πλ after A B D** à , min. D* has only κατὰ πλ .; and how easily might this become, by an error of a transcriber, καί τὰς πλ ., which was completed partly by the original κατά and partly by εἰς ! Another correction was, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις (E). No version has καί . Accordingly the simple κατὰ πλατ ., following D*, is to be preferred.
Instead of κλινῶν , Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly κλινορίων (so A B D à ); κλινῶν was inserted as the wonted form.
Act_5:16. εἰς Ἱερουσ .] εἰς is wanting in A B à , 103, and some VSS. Deleted by Lachm. But the retention of εἰς has predominant attestation; and it was natural to write in the margin by the side of τῶν πέριξ πόλεων the locally defining addition Ἱερουσαλήμ , which became the occasion of omitting the εἰς Ἱερουσ . that follows.
Act_5:18. τ . χειρ . αὐτῶν ] αὐτῶν is wanting in A B D à , min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl. Lucif., and omitted by Lachm, Tisch. Born. But see Act_4:3.
Act_5:23. ἑστώτας ] Elz. has ἔξω ἑστ . But ἔξω has decisive evidence against it, and is a more precisely defining addition occasioned by the following ἔσω .
πρό ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἐπί , according to A B D à , 109; πρό is an interpretation.
Act_5:24. ὅ τε ἱερεὺς καὶ ὁ στρατ . τ . ἱεροῦ κ . οἱ ἀρχιερ .] A B D à , min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely ὅ τε στρατ . τ . ἱεροῦ κ . οἱ ἀρχιερ . So Lachm. Rinck, and Born. But ἱερεύς being not understood, and being regarded as unnecessary seeing that οἱ ἄρχιερ . followed, might very easily be omitted; whereas there is no reason for its having been inserted. For the genuineness of ἱερεύς also the several other variations testify, which are to be considered as attempts to remove the offence without exactly erasing the word, namely, οἱ ἱερεῖς κ . ὁ στρ . τ . ἱερ . κ . οἱ ἀρχ . and ὅ τε ἀρχιερεὺς κ . ὁ στρ . τ . ἱερ . κ . οἱ ἀρχ .
Act_5:25. After αὐτοῖς Elz. has λέγων , against decisive evidence. An addition, in accordance with Act_5:22 f.
Act_5:26. ἵνα μή ] Lachm. Born. have μή , according to B D E à , min. But the omission easily appeared as necessary on account of ἐφοβ . Comp. Gal_4:11.
Act_5:28. οὐ is wanting in A B à *, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ath. Cyr. Lucif. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., as the transforming of the sentence into a question was evidently occasioned by ἐπηρώτησεν .
Act_5:32. After ἐσμεν , Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have αὐτοῦ , which A D* à , min., and several VSS. omit. It is to be defended. As μάρτυρες is still denned by another genitive, αὐτοῦ became cumbrous, appeared inappropriate, and was omitted. B has καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ μάρτυρες (without ἐσμεν ), etc. But in this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of the ἐσμεν , the half of which was easily omitted after ἡμεῖς ; and thereupon αὐτοῦ was transformed into αὐτῷ . The less is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm.: καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ μάρτυρές ἐσμεν κ . τ . λ .
Act_5:33. ἐβουλεύοντο ] Lachm. reads ἐβούλοντο , according to A B E, min. An interpretation, or a mechanical interchange, frequent also in MSS. of the classics; see Born, ad xv. 37.
Act_5:34. βραχύ τι ] τι , according to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.
ἀποστόλους ] A B à , 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have ἀνθρώπους . So Lachm. Tisch.; and rightly, as the words belong to the narrative of Luke, and therefore the designation of the apostles by ἀνθρώπους appeared to the scribes unworthy. It is otherwise in Act_5:35; Act_5:38.
Act_5:36. προσεκλίθη ] Elz. Griesb. Scholz read προσεκολλήθη , in opposition to A B C** à , min., which have προσεκλίθη ; and in opposition to C* D* E H, min. Cyr., which have προσεκλήθη (so Born.). Other witnesses have προσετέθη , also προσεκληρώθη . Differing interpretations of the προσεκλίθη , which does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly recommended, and Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have adopted.
Act_5:37. ἰκανόν to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., as it is wanting in A* B à , 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before λαόν , and in C D, Eus. is interchanged with πολύν (so Born.).
Act_5:38. Instead of ἐάσατε , Lachm. has ἄφετε , following A B C à . A gloss.
Act_5:39. δύνασθε ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have δυνήσεσθε , according to B C D E à , min., and some VSS. and Fathers. Mistaking the purposely chosen definite expression, men altered it to agree with the foregoing future.
Instead of αὐτούς , which Lachm. Tisch. Born, have, Elz. and Scholz read αὐτό , against decisive testimony. An alteration to suit τὸ ἔργον .
Act_5:41. After ὀνόματος Elz. has αὐτοῦ , which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of completeness. Other interpolations are: Ἰησοῦ ,
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ,
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ,
τοῦ κυρίου ,
τοῦ Θεοῦ .