Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts 8
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Act_8:2. ἐποιήσαντο ] Lachm. and Born. read ἐποίησαν , according to decisive testimony.
Act_8:5. πόλιν ] Lachm. reads τὴν πόλιν , after A B à , 31, 40. More precise definition of the capital.
Act_8:7. πολλῶν ] Lachm. reads πολλοί ,[215] and afterwards ἘΞΉΡΧΟΝΤΟ , following A B C E à , min. Vulg. Sahid. Syr. utr.; ἘΞΉΡΧΟΝΤΟ is also in D, which, however, reads ΠΟΛΛΟῖς (by the second hand: ἈΠῸ ΠΟΛΛΟῖς ). Accordingly ἘΞΉΡΧΟΝΤΟ , as decisively attested, is to be considered genuine (with Born. and Tisch.), from which it necessarily follows that Luke cannot have written ΠΟΛΛΟΊ (which, on the contrary, was mechanically introduced from the second clause of the verse), but either ΠΟΛΛῶΝ (H) or ΠΟΛΛΟῖς (D*).
Act_8:10. Ἡ ΚΑΛΟΥΜΈΝΗ ] is wanting in Elz., but is distinctly attested. The omission is explained from the fact that the word appeared inappropriate, disturbing, and feeble.
Act_8:12. ΤᾺ ΠΕΡΊ ] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ΠΕΡΊ , after A B C D E à . Correctly; ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖ . is not elsewhere connected with ΠΕΡΊ , and this very circumstance occasioned the insertion of ΤΆ .
Act_8:13. ΔΥΝΆΜΕΙς ΚΑῚ ΣΗΜΕῖΑ ΜΕΓΆΛΑ ΓΙΝΌΜΕΝΑ ] Elz. Lachm. Born. read: ΣΗΜΕῖΑ Κ . ΔΥΝΆΜΕΙς ΜΕΓΆΛΑς ΓΙΝΟΜΈΝΑς . Both modes of arrangement have important attestation. But the former is to be considered as original, with the exclusion, however, of the ΜΕΓΆΛΑ deleted by Tisch., which is wanting in many and correct codd. (also in à ), and is to be considered as an addition very naturally suggesting itself (comp. Act_6:8 for the sake of strengthening. The later origin of the latter order of the words is proved by the circumstance that all the witnesses in favour of it have ΜΕΓΆΛΑς , and therefore it must have arisen after ΜΕΓΆΛΑ was already added.
Act_8:16. ΟὔΠΩ ] A B C D E à , min. Chrys. have ΟὐΔΈΠΩ . Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Recepta came into the text, through the inattention of the transcribers, as the word to which they were more accustomed.
Act_8:18. On decisive evidence ἰδών is to he adopted, with Griesb. and the later editors, instead of θεασάμ . The latter is a more precise definition.
Act_8:21. ἐνώπιον ] A B C D à , min. and several Fathers have ἐναντίον or ἔναντι , which last Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. Correctly; the familiar word was inserted instead of the rare one (Luk_1:8).
Act_8:22. κυρίου ] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholzhave Θεοῦ , against preponderating evidence. A mechanical repetition, after Act_8:21.
Act_8:25. The imperfects ὑπέστρεφον and εὐηγγελίζοντο (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) are decisively attested, as is also the omission of τῆς before βασιλ . in Act_8:27.
Act_8:27. ὅς before ἐληλ . is wanting in Lachm. and Born., following A C* D* à *, Vulg. Sahid. Oec. An incorrect expedient to help the construction.
After Act_8:36, Elz. has (Act_8:37): εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος · εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας , ἔξεστιν . Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε · πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν . This is wanting in decisive witnesses; and in those which have the words there are many variations of detail. It is defended, indeed, by Born., but is nothing else than an old (see already Iren. iii. 12; Cypr. ad Quir. iii. 43) addition for the sake of completeness.
Act_8:39. After ΠΝΕῦΜΑ A**, min. and a few VSS. and Fathers have ἍΓΙΟΝ ἘΠΈΠΕΣΕΝ ἘΠῚ (or ΕἸς ) ΤῸΝ ΕὐΝΟΥΧΟΝ , ἌΓΓΕΛΟς ΔΈ . A pious expansion and falsification of the history, induced partly by Act_8:26 and partly by Act_10:44.
[215] Instead of which, however, he (Praefat. p. viii.) conjectures πολλά .